Serious Question

Filed in National by on July 11, 2008

So it appears that the even wierder than dungeons and dragons crowd aka the gun blogosphere has “sounded the alarm and circled the wagons” to attack Delaware liberal. Quite a bit of discussion has ensued and as usual. Those clinging to their beliefs are having a hard time comprimising at all.

So in my travels to testosteronesphere I have noticed quite a few “defenders of the 2a” have talked a little bit about this article the article recently in the Washington Post regarding the study that PROVED owning a gun increases the risk of suicide. The article clearly states the study conducted over the course of 19 fucking years that

“that when people own a gun, they unwittingly raise their risk of getting hurt and killed — because the odds that they will one day use their gun to commit suicide are much larger than the odds they will use their gun to defend themselves against intruders, muggers and killers.”

So the question I’m dying to know is why are these “2A” freaks going so apeshit over this study? Why does this study matter SOOOO much for them to go on the “attack” and “muster” up all the “soldiers” they can to “launch” an “assault” on some blog that disagrees with them? So….why does it matter?

Why are these grown men so worried that a study showed:

“The evidence is overwhelming,” said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard. “There are a dozen case-controlled studies, all of which show the gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide for the gun owner, for the spouse, for the gun owner’s children.”

I just don’t get it? The study (did I mention it took 19 years) was obviously very lengthy and conducted over a period of time where deep statistical analysis could be conducted and not argue against. So do people read stuff? did they see this little nugget?

The reason we can be sure that suicide — and not assaults, break-ins, muggings, school shootings and other fatal attacks by sinister strangers — would account for most of the stories is that suicide dwarfs homicide as a killer in the United States. There were 32,637 suicides in the country in 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available. That year, the collective homicidal mayhem caused by domestic abusers, violent criminals, gang fights, drug wars, break-ins, shootouts with cops, accidental gun discharges and cold, premeditated murder produced 18,538 deaths

hmmm…break ins….domestic abusers….shootouts with cops….do they sound like those type of “self defense” type arguements people like to make to advocate gun ownership. You know Assault weapon type stuff. 50 round/second shit….?

I kept reading this article done on a 19year study and i have a hard time arguing that guns are safe and we shouldn’t restrict them in some way:

But because guns are so lethal, 17,002 of all suicides in 2005 — 52 percent — involved people shooting themselves.

I saw some other tough guy say, well if they are weak then so be it. A “fuck the weak” type attitude. But I wondered would this same 2a guy really feel that way? After all our own VETERANS are attempting suicide at record numbers. I can’t imagine a soldier defending 2a could be so callous as to not understand suicide.

So I keep reading the article and I have to ask myself why does it matter that:

people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means.

what is the big deal. It’s just a study done over 19 years and used a few hundred thousand situations to come up with this stunning analysis.

“If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years,” Harvard’s Miller said. “There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold.”

So what’s the big with the research?

 

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Disbelief says:

    And owning a car increases you likelyhood of being involved in a fatal accident a million times. What’s the point of busting gun owners? I own guns and haven’t shot anyone in over 14 years.

    I think I’m bringing a hundred singles to the hottest blogger contest. I know who’s underwear will be bulging the most by night’s end.

  2. RAH says:

    If people want to kill themselves, that is their business. Some do not try very hard and use methods that show that. Others are determined and use more effective methods. Guns are very effective.

    If people want to kill themselves with their guns, fine, that is no reason to restrict guns.

  3. Dis,

    don’t we regulate car stuff though? you know seatbets? speed limits? turn signals, school zone speeds, headlights working, DMV stuff?

    Rah,

    So then you are fine with the study? cool. So would you agree we need to do something to reduce the risk of suicides by gun too? Thanks

  4. mike w. says:

    Honesty I believe that if people have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” they also have a corresponding right to end their life.

    Also, and this should be common-sense, People who are most serious about ending their life will use the most immediate and effective means by which to do so. People that use a firearm to commit suicide do so because they want to die.

  5. mike w. says:

    DTB – there are NO regulations whatsoever on cars unless they’re being driven on public property. I can do whatever the hell I want with my car as long as I’m not on a public road.

    Also, driving a car is a privilege not a right. The right to keep & bear arms is a right. Unlike cars / DL’s it is not “granted” by the government. That is a huge fundamental difference.

  6. so you aren’t a christian then either?

    and too your second paragraph….uh, no you are wrong. But that conversation is PHd level and we don’t have that time.

    suicide usually equals cry for help

  7. mike w. says:

    Yes, I agree on the “cry for help” but those who are doing it for that reason don’t use a gun, they use something that’s far less likely to kill them. That should be so obvious that I shouldn’t even need to point it out to you.

    And no, I am not particularly religious, although technically I am catholic.

    Oh, and I didn’t “sound the alarm” anyone else who came here came of their own volition. In fact I came here because I saw the disgusting comments made about Pfc. Dwyer.

  8. Disbelief says:

    DV, guns are regulated. Can’t be loaded in your car, must get a license (except for shotguns), if you’re hunting and shoot the wrong type of bird, it costs you your gun and thousands in fines, lost work, court appearances. If your kid gets a hold of one (you own), you are criminally liable. And people who use guns are very demanding about safe practices. You cross someone with your muzzle out hunting once, and you’ll be hunting by yourself for the rest of your life.

    We do regulate guns. Unfortunately, 5,000 years of recorded history shows we can’t regulate idiots; it frustrates you and annoys the idiot.

    Tell the truth, you seem a ‘together’ guy and you have military training, but I still wouldn’t go hunting with you unless you could show me a safety certificate course from Bombay Hook or Omelanden. And, because you you’d be new, I still watch you like a hawk (not because of your stunning looks, but to make sure you didn’t hurt me or you).

  9. Rustmeister says:

    Dang, I wish I could find the site that called Loftin and McDowell’s methodology into question.

    From what I remember, they didn’t take into acocunt the population drop DC underwent after enacting its handgun ban.

    I’m not saying the study is invalid, but, as most anti-gun studies, it is suspect.

  10. mw,

    seriously, do you read what you write or what you write for that matter?

    seriously man, the entire point is that many suicides are prevented if the gun isn’t aroiund….so the person , in your words, that “wants” to commit suicide isn’t able to

    THEN the tendency abates and they can get help for their cry…

    sheesh man, why is that so hard to digest for you?

  11. I’d love to go hunting! to tell you the truth I don’t mind killing things.

    I used to work in a “chop shop” when I was in 8th grade. Had to skin dear, make sausage, the fun part was “coring” the deer when the assholes (pun intended) wouldn’t do it when they field dressed the deer.

    it was really great when the rednecks brought in the occasional road kill….

    I am a man of mystery aren’t I

  12. Steve Newton says:

    dv
    I have not read the study (but I will); however, don’t delude yourself that just because it is a 19 year study with plenty of statistics that it can’t be picked apart–social scientists make their living picking apart other people’s supposedly impeccable studies. Sometime read “A Natural History of Rape” and then Susan Brownmiller’s response to it. It will give you an education in the fact that none of these studies are ever the last word.

    However, for sake of argument, let’s accept that the study is absolutely accurate. Here’s where we disagree: you would argue that because an item (in this case, a handgun) in a house statistically raises the chance of somebody committing suicide, then it is the responsibility of the government to step in and regulate that item. That’s an ideological view, and not an unanswerable argument.

    I would argue that the government’s only responsibility is make people aware of the information and the risks, and then leave American citizens alone to make their own decisions. Because people have the right to make bad decisions….

    Interestingly enough, most of the people who would argue that the government should regulate guns because of the increased risk of suicide would also probably support the “right to die” for people with terminal diseases. If this is so, then the intriguing position is presented in which someone would favor government regulation to prevent suicide in one instance and also favor it to prevent suicide in others.

    The argument here and in the other thread isn’t really about guns. It is about competing visions of what role the government should or should not have in our society.

    I believe in a far more limited role for government in society than you do; both of us cause certain people to be placed at greater risk because of our beliefs. I can live with the dynamic of that difference between us as long as neither of us is ever completely free to enforce his vision of society on everybody.

    But as a secondary note: regardless of my political beliefs or yours, I also think it is exceptionally bad public policy to advocate major sweeping changes in public law based on a single study, no matter how detailed.

    In particular, I suspect from your quotations (again, I will go back and read the original myself) that this is a meta-study, simply based on the number of variables and the time-frame referenced. Meta-studies have particular weaknesses of their own, which include homogenizing the statistical treatment of different studies, which is recognized as problematic in any study that asserts–as this one does–a causal rather than a correlative relationship.

    Hopefully you know me well enough by now to realize I would say that whether the study supported my opinion or yours.

  13. steve,

    great response thanks.

    remember, Vote Donviti For DHB!

  14. mike w. says:

    Here’s an example. Let’s assume someone did a study on what causes obesity. Suppose they found that many obese individuals kept soft drinks in their fridge, so the study therefore concluded soft drinks caused obesity.

    See any problems?…… Correlation does not equal causation. Just keeping a gun in the home does not increase the risk of suicide. If I keep a gun in my home and I am NOT suicidal, then keeping said gun increases my suicide risk by exactly 0%. That is unless you’re stupid enough to actually believe the presence of a gun actually causes otherwise non-suicidal people to off themselves.

    Don Viti . Are you incapable of actually responding to a comment with something resembling a substantial and coherent thought ? Are you actually going to respond to the arguments steve raised?

  15. liz allen says:

    Its consitutional! The Founders were far wiser than these dimwits today. For half my life I was against guns. My father a native american was a hunter. It was a diffult decision all my life.

    During the 60’s, 70’s, I continued to believe “guns make violence, guns gotta go”. Took my 6yr old son to the Army Training Center with some other “Mothers for Peace”, to make sure the big boyz didnt have my sons name on their list. Wouldnt permit my children to have play guns, even water guns.

    Looking back over the 40 years of history, I have completely changed my mind. I now believe solidly in the right to bear arms.

    Check the studies in England where guns are banned. They have knife stabbings, lots of them. So if people want to be violent (as they have throughout history), they will always find a weapon that can kill. A baseball bat works too.

    Jefferson said , to “keep our Consitution, we needed a revolution every 20 years” Our Consitution has been gutted, it must be honored now more than ever. It’s worth protecting.

  16. mike w. says:

    Liz – I believe Jefferson said,

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

  17. mike w. says:

    I have to ask.

    If the majority of suicides were carried out via gas inhalation from exhaust fumes rather than firearms would you all be screaming about how we need to place restrictions on combustion motors in the name of “public safety?”

  18. Steve Newton says:

    OK everybody, dv asked a serious legitimate question about a study that everybody is currently citing.

    So I went back and did my research, and here’s the scoop (way too long to print here, so you’ll just have to visit DE Libertarian and read it).

    http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/07/guns-suicide-freedom-and-responsibility.html

  19. mike w. says:

    Excellent post Steve!

  20. liberalgeek says:

    It is an excellent post. I urge everyone to go over and read it.

  21. Just keeping a gun in the home does not increase the risk of suicide

    YES IT DOES DUDE. go look up the definition of suicide! CHRIST ALMIGHTY.

    Suicide is the COMPLETION OF taking your own life

    Attempted SUICIDE is just that an ATTEMPT that does not result in SUICIDE.

    HOLY COW

  22. mike w. says:

    Once again you need to read the whole comment.

    How exactly will keeping a gun at home raise my risk of suicide IF I AM NOT SUICIDAL?

  23. liberalgeek says:

    Keep reading this thread. You’ll become suicidal.

  24. June says:

    DTB, I give you credit for trying to make sense about guns, but it won’t work. I was an organizer in the local chapter of the Million March group SENSIBLE GUN LAWS– SAFE KIDS, which was organized after Columbine. I found out then that no one is more fanatic about anything in the country than gun advocates — and more organized. If you’ve ever noticed in the letters to the editor, if someone writes in crticizing the slightest bit about guns, letters follow from gun owners. It never fails. The NRA just about rules the country. They are not willing to compromise in any way, shape or form. They could care less about all the innocent people being killed. It’s a sickness!!

  25. liz allen says:

    If a mentally distressed person wants to commit suicide there are a number of ways the can and do it. Hanging, pills, driving your car over a cliff…yes the USA society is sick. Our TV delivers the most violent methods of crime, our children are pummeled with hatred, revenge,and violence. Violence is learned.

    Sorry, with the shape of our government today, I will be posting with the NRA. Its in our consitution, and it maybe the only thing keeping the “powers that be” from infringing further on our rights.

  26. Andy says:

    If your kid gets a hold of one (you own), you are criminally liable//
    Good thing Right ?? I think so
    So what about other crimes Robbery Murder rape other assaults vandelism various drug crimes you name it why can’t the Parents or Guardians of these kids be held criminaly liable for other crimes committed by their kids

  27. mike w. says:

    “They could care less about all the innocent people being killed. It’s a sickness!!”

    Oh we care, we just don’t agree with having our rights taken away because of the actions of criminals.

  28. mike w. says:

    A person willing to commit suicide could just as easily slit their throat with a kitchen knife. Does that mean having knives in ones home increases the risk of suicide?

  29. June says:

    Mike W., if you care, are you willing to work for stricter gun laws to keep the guns out of the hand of criminals? The NRA sits back and does nothing. They even fight background checks.

  30. mike I can’t tell if you are purposefully being niave on the issue of suicide. But your act is wearing thin my friend.

    you obviously have no idea about how hard it really is to commit suicide for people and the expediant and reliable means to an end a gun provides.

    soooo I propose, you give it up. You are making yourself look foolish and callous at the same time. If you want a gun in your house fine but doing so increases the risk of someone being able to commit suicide in your home.

    If you don’t like that fact…I’m sorry. Why you don’t like that fact is beyond me. In the end though there is some crazy reason between your ears that prevents you from recognizing and/or admitting that having a gun around is risky, increases risk to the people in the home.

    what I just don’t understand is why? No one is saying you can’t have your “right to bare arms” I just said that doing so makes it more likely someone will be able to commit suicide

  31. It’s almost like I’m telling you cigarrette’s are bad for you and you are telling me, well only if you smoke them

  32. mike w. says:

    If my not accepting the premise of blaming an object for suicide is “callous” then I’m quite happy being callous.

    And your cigarette example. Well yes, if you had a pack of cigs in your home but weren’t a smoker they could sit in a drawer for 20 years. It’s the people in the home that make a gun potentially dangerous. I have people in my house I would not trust with a firearm, which is why my guns are locked up in a manner that I’m the only one with access to them.

    What about cops? They all keep their duty weapon(s) at home and we don’t see an epidemic of cops or their family members committing suicide with a firearm. If what you believe to be true from this “study” were in fact the case we’d see exponentially higher suicide rates among both cops and law-abiding gun owners. If guns caused suicide then tens of millions of gun-owners would be killing themselves every year. (remember, there are at least 120 million of us)

    June – Why would I fight for even more restrictions that will adversely affect my ability to exercise my rights while having a no impact on criminals?

  33. meatball says:

    Actually Mikey, the suicide rate for cops is 6 times the national rate, like 66 per 100,000. And, in reality is probably higher as many are “covered up” or reported as accidental………’ he was cleaning his service revolver when it accidentally fired a bullet through his mouth and out the back of his head’

    Code for cop suicide.

    I also question your 120million gun owners stat as well, considering the US population is only 300 million and many are too old (think nursing homes) or too young, or too incarcerated, or mentally ill, or bilaterally arm challenged, etc.

  34. mike w. says:

    Meatball – for the sake of argument I’ll assume your stats on police suicides are accurate. Why do you think they have a high suicide rate? Because of access to a gun?

    Isn’t it reasonable to say that a higher suicide rate might not be due to the presence of guns?

    Couldn’t it be because they work everyday in a high stress environment, with the dregs of the society, and are often putting themselves in harms way?

  35. Art Downs says:

    ‘Gun free’ Japan has a higher suicide rate than the USA.

    How many of these ‘studies’ are exercises in curve-fitting that are funded by some group with an outcome in mind?

    “Better to be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone directory than the faculty of Harvard”.

  36. mike w. says:

    Actually Art, if you look at who’s funding most anti-gun “studies” you’ll find they’re backed by The Joyce Foundation or some subsidiary.

    In case some of you don’t know. The Joyce Foundation is an advocacy group that funds virtually ALL of the anti-gun groups in this country, including the 2 largest, the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center.

    Also important to note. Barack Obama was a paid member on The Joyce Foundations Board of Directors from 98′ – 01.

    http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gunviolence/GrantList.aspx

    http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/33/

  37. Disbelief says:

    I’d have to excuse Obama for being on the Joyce Foundation board of directors. Where Obama grew up, illegal guns were truly an issue.

  38. liberalgeek says:

    And what percentage of pro-gun studies are funded by the NRA? Your argument seems to have a 9mm hole in it.

  39. mike w. says:

    Disbelief – And they still are? Why? Because gun control doesn’t work.

    I don’t give him a free pass. He was actively engaged in the restriction of my rights and the spread of blatant lies and misrepresentations. He is STILL actively engaged in those activities which is one of many reasons I will never vote for him.

  40. mike w. says:

    Liberalgeek – Go ahead and look for one of these studies funded by the NRA – you won’t find one.

  41. liberalgeek says:

    Hmmm. You may be right, Mike. I’ll look.

    Do you know why they wouldn’t fund studies? Is it due to the studies being immaterial to second amendment rights?

  42. mike w. says:

    That’s a good question and I’m honestly not sure.

    I’d agree with your assertion though. The 2A is not dependent upon any “public safety” argument. Also, they don’t need to fund studies because there’s no need for them to manipulate statistics or create their own flawed data via sample size/diversity and badly flawed methodology. The raw data directly from the CDC, BJS, and the FBI UCR thoroughly debunks anti-gun “studies.” Independent groups not affiliated with the NRA also frequently conduct research that contradicts the findings of anti-gun “studies”

  43. liberalgeek says:

    Yeah, there did seem to be a debunking crew at the NRA also, but I’m not sure that qualifies as a study. It could also be that given their superior Constitutional standing, they think they are better off just lobbying.

    Off to bed for me…

  44. Art Downs says:

    The folks who try to make a case for incremental and unilateral victim disarmament under the euphemisms of ‘gun control’ typically resort to emotionalism. intellectual disonesty, and outright lies.

    This cause orignally became a political issue as part of the ‘Jim Crow’ laws. Northern crooks such as the eponymous Big Tim Sullivan (a one-time pimp) got into the act. It became part of the Party Line until some folks realized that it was costing elections.

    Yet we never see the would-be’gun grabbers’ dare to discuss the matter in any form of open debate. They can roll out the meretricious airhead Sara Brady to mouth a few canned phrases but is there ever a chance for a rebuttal?

    One should also note the tender spot that those who would disarm the potential victims of thugs have for the most vicious of criminals. The fan club for the cop killer who calls himself ‘Mumia’ includes quite a few names prominent in the ‘gun control’ community.

    Why is there a nexus between gun-grabber and thug hugger?

    This phenomenon was demonstrated by person who was convicted of being a thief, gun law violator. and killer and nowplays the role of preacher. He delivered a stirring eulogy when a drug-dealing bully (who has sired a string of bastards) ate some lead. This same reverend was outpoken in his opposition to a reform of the Delaware concealed carry that would take political hacks out of the loop. He stated that he did not want to have more law-abiding people carrying guns.

    What more needs to be said?

  45. Sailorcurt says:

    f you’ve ever noticed in the letters to the editor, if someone writes in crticizing the slightest bit about guns, letters follow from gun owners. It never fails. The NRA just about rules the country.

    Is it just easier to believe that “the NRA just about rules the country” than it is to admit that there is a broad cross-section of American society that truly believes in the Right to keep and bear arms?

    There are at least as many gun owners who despise the NRA because they are too compromising as there are that support it. You are aware that the NRA helped write many of the gun laws in force today right? You are aware that, until very recently, the NRA supported “gun free school zones” (otherwise known as “target rich environments”) You are aware that the NRA supports “project Exile” which calls for tougher enforcement of gun laws (even bad ones) right?

    The NRA doesn’t write all of those letters and the letters aren’t a result of a coordinated campaign. They are the results you get from TRUE grassroots involvement, versus the faux “grass roots” of the ineptly named Million Mom March and other groups that have to bus protesters in from great distances to even achieve the appearance of grass roots support.

    They are not willing to compromise in any way, shape or form.

    What compromise? I haven’t heard any compromise proposals coming from your side. Where are the proposals to remove or relax gun restriction “A” in return for enacting or tightening gun restriction “B”?

    What is a “compromise” to you? If we allow you to achieve gun restrictions “A”, “B”, and “C”, that you’ll magnanimously stop demanding additional restrictions “D”, “E” and “F”?

    Sorry, that’s not a “compromise”. Compromise involves “give and take” not “take less than we really wanted to”.

    Besides, we know that any agreed upon “compromise” will be very short lived. Even before enactment of restrictions “A”, “B” and “C” agreed to in the faux compromise, you will resume calling for restrictions “D”, “E” and “F” and portraying gun owners as “uncompromising” when we protest.

    Every gun control law that I’ve ever heard touted by the anti-freedom lobby has been called “a good first step”. Your side never compromises…you only delay gratification for very short durations. Because of that, our side CANNOT compromise.

    They could care less about all the innocent people being killed. It’s a sickness!!

    And that’s just an ad hominem attack and is flatly untrue.

    Our side wants to ensure that potential victims have the FREE CHOICE to avail themselves of the most effective tool known to mankind with which to defend themselves against violent predators.

    Your side wants to ensure that 100 pound women, 91 year old ladies, minorities who live in racist communities, poor people who live in high crime neighborhoods, etc, etc, etc…have NO CHOICE but to remain defenseless sheep for the violent predators in our society to victimize at will.

    Who is it that is uncaring again?

    Why do we rail against these studies? Because they are nothing more than an attempt to lend academic legitimacy to a political agenda.

    Even if it could be absolutely PROVEN (which this study by no means does) that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood of someone committing suicide…that would still be no reason to infringe upon liberty.

    Liberty comes with it certain risks and responsibilities. Those risks and responsibilities are WELL worth undertaking in lieu of the alternative.

    If you choose to live life as a caged creature in fear of the fangs that you would have were you free…that is your choice…but don’t force your choices onto me. That’s all I ask. Whether or not I’m increasing the risk of suicide in my home or not is completely my decision to make…not yours to make for me.

    “To be civilized is to restrain the ability to commit mayhem. To be incapable of committing mayhem is not the mark of the civilized, merely the domesticated.”
    –Trefor Thomas

    “The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave.”
    — Alexis de Tocqueville

  46. meatball says:

    Personally, I am not arguing for changes in gun laws. Like I said I own guns. I am merely looking at the statistics that show that people who keep guns in their homes are more likely to have a suicide occur there.

    The excuse that police work in a high stress environment doesn’t hold water for me. There are plenty of high stress occupations that don’t involve mandatory gun ownership, that just don’t solve their problems with a bullet to the head.

  47. Art Downs says:

    I was an organizer in the local chapter of the Million March group SENSIBLE GUN LAWS– SAFE KIDS, June

    June is typical of the airhead sentimentalists who populate the MMM crowd.

    She has already displayed her ignorance with a comment about the NRA opposing background checks. They were early supporters of the ‘Instant Check’ but were vocal in preventing it from becoming a form of de facto registration.

    We did have an MMM activist in the District of Columbia killing an innocent person whom she thought had killed her son.

    How many MMM members are in the ‘Free Mumia’ fan base?

    Susan Sarandon was another MMM twit who was multitasking to save a vicious thug who had knifed an elederly woman to death in the course of a Baltimore County home invasion and burglary. The crime fit his MO, his fingerprints were found at the scene, and he had pawned some of the loot. Suzie thought the guy was innocent.

    Just what ‘reasonble measures’ do the MMM types favor? Are they akin to the fatherly injunction ‘hang your clothes on a hickory limb but don’t go near the water’?

  48. mike w. says:

    Art – I really do love the fact that anti-gun groups like the MMM (and their supporters) use terms like “sensible gun laws” and claim that they’re not really anti-gun.

    I have yet to see any anti-gun group support education and safety training (which the NRA does BTW) I’ve yet to see any of them say that a particular law or policy they were pushing went too far or was “too restrictive.” Unless of course they’re forced to do so by the courts, a la Heller.

    If you want to know why pro-gun people so adamantly defend their rights it’s because we’ve seen what happens in other countries, and in certain states in the U.S. Regardless of what these groups say, they ultimately want people disarmed.

    I mean hell, in NYC you cannot carry a Revolutionary War era flintlock pistol or even own one without an almost impossible to get license. Laws like that, and the outright bans in DC and Chicago are these people’s idea of the “common-sense gun laws” that we pro-gun people need to “compromise” to achieve.

    A compromise means that we give up something and are given something in return. When the pro-rights side “compromises” the best we get is a temporary slowing of the assault on our rights.

  49. mike w. says:

    “The argument here and in the other thread isn’t really about guns. It is about competing visions of what role the government should or should not have in our society.”

    Steve you could not be more right. Liberals believe that problems should/can be solved by individuals ceding power and responsibility over to the government. They have a “nanny-state” philosophy like you see in the UK and the social democracies of Europe. The level of autonomy, individualism, and personal responsibility that comes with gun ownership is a direct threat to this world view.

  50. June says:

    See what I saidabout gun advocates being fanatic. Forget about Muslim fanatics. Gun advocates have them beat by far. They go crazy when anyone doesn’t agree with them that everyone in the country should have a gun.

    Wouldn’t it be patriotic if we all worked together to make the country safer — getting the guns out of the hands of criminals — getting the assault weapons off the streets !!!! Why should anyone have an assualt weapon? I guess all the 2nd amendment rights supporters see no reason to prohibit assault weapons.

  51. mike w. says:

    “They go crazy when anyone doesn’t agree with them that everyone in the country should have a gun.”
    June

    How many times do I have to repeat myself? We are not about “arming everyone.” All we want is for people to have the right to CHOOSE. We are not forcing a gun upon anyone. If you don’t want one DON’T BUY ONE! The anti-rights side on the other hand wants to limit freedom of choice even though 99.9% of us have never committed a crime. You are saying things like “why should anyone have an assault weapon?”

    Why? Because I can, because it’s my right, and because it’s a free country. Do you even know what an “assault weapon” is? I’ll bet you don’t, yet you don’t want anyone to have one. I have several and they’ve never assaulted anyone. “Assault” denotes an action. Guns, being inanimate objects are incapable of action. Most hunting rifles and many 100 yr. old relics are functionally more powerful than the evil “assault weapons” that you know nothing about but want banned.

    I want guns out of the hands of criminals the same as you do, but I recognize that gun control is ineffective. The “goal” of gun control is to limit the arms available to criminals correct? How do you propose we do that without infringing upon the rights of the other 99.9% of the population?

    Instead of focusing on “getting guns off the streets” why not focus on getting the criminals off the streets. Guns don’t commit crime on their own, and they don’t turn the law-abiding into bloodthirsty criminals. The crime problems start and end with the criminals. You’d think the 30+ year gun ban in D.C would have proved that to you folks.

  52. Art Downs says:

    June and her kind remain a bit buggy and seem never to be able to answer a question directly.

    Just what ‘common sense’ gun laws do we need that we do not have?

    We might consider a data base of persons adjudicated to be mentally defective. Who would oppose such a law? Who would support it?

    Note that ‘adjudicated mentally defective’ does not include treatment for problems such as clinical depression.

  53. mike w. says:

    Good article on this issue in the Chicago Tribune of all places.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0713chapmanjul13,0,1862929.column

    Here’s probably the most salient point.

    “an increase in gun ownership doesn’t raise the number of people who kill themselves–only the number who do it with a gun.”

    Read the whole thing. Then again it should be obvious that gun ownership will have no impact on suicide rates among people who aren’t suicidal, but some of you are too thick-headed to understand that.

    And then of course there’s the fact that the government has no business enacting policy to try to lower suicide rates. It’s funny that Democrats seem to be anti-suicide (particularly when guns are involved) and they think the government needs to intervene to “fix” the problem. At the same time they also support a “right to die” for terminally ill patients. The two positions are polar opposites of eachother yet you oppose one for no reason other than the fact that it involves guns and the other does not.

  54. pandora says:

    Hey, Mike, could you clear something up for me? How do you really feel about guns?

  55. Read the whole thing. Then again it should be obvious that gun ownership will have no impact on suicide rates among people who aren’t suicidal, but some of you are too thick-headed to understand that.

    well hell of a quote there buddy. That’s like saying people who don’t get into car accidents are less likely to crash.

    brilliant point

  56. mike w. says:

    Like I said, too thick-headed.

    If I’m not suicidal, then having a gun increases my risk of suicide by exactly 0%

    If I AM suicidal, then having ANY tool handy with which to kill myself would increase my risk of suicide.

    If I never drink, then having alcohol in the house won’t increase my risk of driving drunk now will it?

    Pandora – Again with “feelings…” This has nothing to do with “feelings” and everything to do with what the legitimate role of government is.

    It is not a legitimate function of government to restrict access to guns because they happen to be one of the tools people use to commit suicide. We don’t use suicide as an excuse to restrict access to razor blades, kitchen knives, combustion motors, or perscription medicines, all of which could be used (and are used) to commit suicide.

    By the way, how do you geniuses explain suicide rates in Japan? They have virtually zero access to guns and yet kill themselves at a much higher rate than Americans.

  57. pandora says:

    Honor. And our Government officials and Corporate heads should take note.

  58. mike w. says:

    And in case you haven’t noticed, the Japanese seem to have no problem committing suicide without access to guns.

  59. pandora says:

    That’s right they do it the “manly” way! Guns are for sissies!

  60. mike w. says:

    Right. And you’re still missing the point of the Japanese example. They’re killing themselves at much higher rates than Americans WITHOUT the presence of guns. That disproves the argument you guys are claiming is “proven” by this study.

    And somehow I don’t think of suicide as a “manly” act.

  61. If I AM suicidal, then having ANY tool handy with which to kill myself would increase my risk of suicide.

    wronggggggggg

  62. give them some guns and I bet those rates go through the roof!

  63. And somehow I don’t think of suicide as a “manly” act.

    translated to mean….I don’t give a shite about all those cowardly veterans that took their own lives after serving our country….

  64. mike w. says:

    Actually no. As I’ve said before I think people have a right to end their own life.

    I may not morally agree with the decision to commit suicide but I’ll respect a persons right to do as they wish with their own life (including ending it) You on the other hand will call someone a “pussy” when they do the same, despite having no idea what they went through.

    Also, my manly comment was in response to Pandora’s childish comment. It’s no more or less manly depending upon the tool used.

  65. mike w. says:

    “give them some guns and I bet those rates go through the roof!”

    And that’s just a guess on your part. Besides, what does it matter. Preventing suicide should not be a matter into which government interjects itself, particularly when it’s actions will only act to restrict those who are not suicidal.

  66. Sailorcurt says:

    See what I saidabout gun advocates being fanatic. Forget about Muslim fanatics. Gun advocates have them beat by far. They go crazy when anyone doesn’t agree with them that everyone in the country should have a gun.

    Projection…all the cool kids are doing it.

    Translation: “Anyone who takes the time to rebut a statement on a blog comment thread MUST be a fanatic…oh…wait…Anyway…they disagree with ME so they’ve gotta be crazy right? RIGHT? Besides, I can’t actually dispute any of their points so all I can do is call them names.”

    By the way, June: I’d be happy to take assault weapons off the streets. Point me to them, I’ll give them a good home safely locked up in my gun cabinet.

    I’ll even be sure they get plenty of time to work out their latent aggression issues through regular sessions at the range therapeutically punching holes in paper.

    (guns on the streets, hmph…and WE’RE the crazy ones…)

  67. mike w. says:

    I love how they hardly even try to refute my points with anything besides hysteria and personal attacks. Alot of the time they just ignore salient points entirely.

  68. Sailorcurt says:

    I guess all the 2nd amendment rights supporters see no reason to prohibit assault weapons.

    On that you’re absolutely correct. I see no reason to prohibit the class of firearms that you misleadingly term “assault weapons.”

    Rifles in general and those misleadingly referred to as “assault weapons” are used in such a low number of crimes as to be statistically insignificant (less than 1%). Even if you could successfully eliminate them, the impact on crime would be so small as to be unmeasurable, and assumes that perpetrators of those rare crimes in which they are used wouldn’t simply adopt a different weapon.

    The medium powered semi-automatic rifles misleadingly referred to as “assault weapons” are no more deadly (and in some cases are much less so) than any other semi-automatic firearms.

    And this does not even address the well documented tendency of the anti-freedom forces to continually add new firearms to those they claim are “assault weapons” to the point where New Jersey’s “assault weapons ban” bans common plinking rifles such as the Marlin Model 60.

    Why should anyone “want” one of these rifles? Because they are relatively low powered and, hence, have low recoil and are easier to shoot than other loadings. They tend to be relatively accurate as compared to other low recoil firearms, are rugged, dependable, and easy to maintain, because of their relatively small cases and low powder loadings, are less expensive to reload than more powerful hunting rifles, are generally shorter, lighter and easier to handle…especially for smaller people…shall I go on?

    You may not value any of the above characteristics, but, then again, you’re not a shooter so I wouldn’t expect you to.

    As a shooter, weighing the advantages of carbine style semi-automatic rifles against your meretricious contention that they are somehow more suited for “assault” than any other type of rifle (or handgun for that matter) and their use in .7% of crimes; no, what you misleadingly and falsely call “assault weapons” shouldn’t be singled out for prohibition.

  69. mike w. says:

    ^ Unfortunately none of that will matter to them. They would rather bask in their willful ignorance and scream “Evil assault weapons are dangerous, no one needs one” than gain any knowledge whatsoever on the subject.

    The facts don’t support their preconceived views, so they must be ignored.

  70. mike w. says:

    “translated to mean….I don’t give a shite about all those cowardly veterans that took their own lives after serving our country….”

    That might be what YOU think it means, given your prior inconsiderate (to be kind) comments about our troops.

  71. If I AM suicidal, then having ANY tool handy with which to kill myself would increase my risk of suicide.

    wronggggggggg

    Why is he wrong? Saying he is wrong does not make it so. You claim to know so much about how and why people try to commit suicide, yet I see no credentials that grant you such authority.

    Now gather round kids, I’m gonna tell you all a story.

    When I was 12, I lived out in the country, nearest neighbor was a good half mile away. As I was riding my bike home from a friends house one day, I noticed a car parked on the shoulder of the road in front of my house, with a young woman in the driver seat. Being curious, I rode past my driveway and pulled up to the car to see if the lady needed some help. When I looked inside, I found a young woman with tears in her eyes and a nickel plated revolver braced against the steering wheel, with her thumb on the trigger, and the gun pointed at her.

    I asked her if she needed help, and she very politely said no. I then rode back to my house, went inside, called 911 and informed them of the situation, then took the dogs outside and kept an eye on her car. The sheriff was there in minutes, and the young woman, as soon as she saw the squad car, pulled the trigger once.

    Two months later, she came back and thanked me for saving her life. I never did learn her name.

    My point here is this. She did not really want to die (she told me so). She was very upset and it was a cry for help. Despite the tool used, the manner in which she used it offered her a chance at survival (she put a hole in her lung). Even if you eat a bullet, you might survive. Yes, a gun can be instantly fatal, but not always.

    Maybe we should look at suicide survival rates by various means along with success rates by various means in order to get a better understanding. We should also look at factors such as socio-economic standing, cultural norms, and access to mental health services. The tool is but one factor, and a minor one at that.

  72. asm826 says:

    So why do the Japanese kill themselves at such high rates? Sure ain’t guns.

    And if you don’t think gangs would flourish without firearms, look at Britain.

    But, hey, I’m not asking you to be a citizen, I’m just telling you that I have the right and I will not be denied the free exercise of that right.

    When the window breaks at 3:30 Am, or a group of men get out of a car while your changing a flat on a dark highway, call 911 and wait. I sincerely hope this never happens, and you get to live on in this state of ignorant bliss you’re in. But it’s going to happen to a number of people every day. Remember the Petits, and consider what happened to laws and guns sales in Connecticut as a result.

  73. mike w. says:

    “If I AM suicidal, then having ANY tool handy with which to kill myself would increase my risk of suicide.

    wronggggggggg”

    DTB cannot explain why I’m wrong because I’m not. Correlation does not equal causation. DTB doesn’t get this simple concept, which is why he also fails to accept my gun vs. spoon analogy.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382306,00.html