Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Dec 17, 2012, 12:13 PM   #876
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Like Calwiz I agree with you, I think this is the first time I have agreed with you on here.

I think the mother is somewhat responsible since they were her guns. Unfortunately she was killed as well.


I'd like to see some more firearms that won't shoot with the non-owner holding the gun. I imagine that's something that can be easy rigged, given there is time from the gun being stolen and "a crime".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
However, I admit, that gun regulations may not have made any difference in this case which was a sick mind gets his hands on a gun with the intent to cause great harm. The guns were registered, but they were not controlled.

If broken down, the two components of this case are 1)sick mind, 2)access to a gun. How can that be minimized? The sick mind needs treatment, the gun needs to be controlled either through a hi-tech fingerprint technology or simply low tech trigger lock and possibly through personal responsibility laws. If your gun gets away from you due to your carelessness, you should be held responsible.
ericrwalker is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 12:15 PM   #877
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
What do you mean "when they have no idea what it is they are objecting to"?

I'm objecting to 31,000 dead American every year.

I think I have some idea about what I'm objecting to.
Forgive the imprecision in my reply. I was referring to the uninformed ranting concerning "assault weapons" and semi-auto pistols and rifles.

Total lack of understanding concerning that which they rant about.

I too object to the 31,000 deaths you refer to. I, however, do not blame the method used, I blame those using the method and the ease with which they acquire same. As I have repeatedly stated, the problem is the acquisition, not the tool.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 12:52 PM   #878
jeremy h
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
In Britain we follow this debate with incredulity - despite what the US pro gun lobby might suggest our restrictions does not mean that owning firearms here has been effectively banned or made illegal. There is a huge shooting community in the UK and a surprising number of guns are held privately. Go to any woodland away from the cities in the winter months and you'll hear someone popping away in the distance.

Our restrictions may seem draconian from across the pond but they're based on a simple premise that you cannot own a gun to use it as a weapon on other people. The firearms laws recognise that there are legitimate reasons to own a gun but those don't include self defence or personal protection. All our laws follow that premise.

For those that are interested I think the restrictions are logical:

We have two classes of guns - shotguns (smoothbore and over 24" long) and firearms (just about everything else.)

Shotguns are seen as an agricultural and sporting gun. With the legally permitted ammunition (bird shot basically) they are not designed to kill people. While they are subject to a licensing system the police though pretty much have to allow you to own one unless they can prove you would be a danger and might use it a weapon.

Firearms - anything that fires rimfire or centrefire cartridges and has rifled barrel can make much more effective anti person weapons. Therefore its the reverse of the shotgun situation. If you can prove you have a reasonable reason to own one. (Deer stalking, target shooting etc) you can pretty much get anything licensed. If you just want one - 'just in case' then no chance. Also what you can't get though are adaptions that make them more effective as weapons, as opposed to a sporting implement. So there's limits on magazine capacity etc and there's no chance of owning a handgun.

Once upon a time - I used to do a lot of shooting and even worked in a gunshop for a while. We used to get two types of people in. Sporting types - to whom the gun was an incidental part of being outdoors in the fields, who we'd happily chat for hours about rabbits, pigeons, that season's prospects and the weather etc. Then occasionally we'd get the odd gun nerd (generally quite young) who gazed at the locked up full bore rifles and started to talk penetration, magazine capacity and rate of fire etc. People who fetishised weapons. Thanks to the licensing system we had we could steer them away to the airgun section and pretty much ignore them.

Our system might seem restrictive but as a parent I think it strikes a decent balance at the moment.
jeremy h is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 01:18 PM   #879
balamw
Moderator
 
balamw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New England, USA
MOD NOTE: Please don't misrepresent another person's position on purpose, even for the sake of humor. In threads such as this it doesn't help to relieve tension it just creates more and amounts to trolling. Posting with the intent of getting negative reactions.

B
__________________
MBA (13" 1.7 GHz 128GB), UMBP (15" SD 2.8 GHz), UMB (13" 2.4 GHz), iMac (17" Yonah), 32GB iPad 3 WiFi+LTE, 64 GB iPad WiFi, 32 GB iPhone 5, Airport Extreme
balamw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 01:34 PM   #880
NickZac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
As a long time firearms owner (40+ years), I will state what I have said many times on this forum in the past...
  • Yes, there should be real enforcement of the plethora of firearms laws already on the books that are woefully ignored
  • Yes, there should be much more comprehensive (enforced) laws with regard to firearms competentcy as a precursor to ownership
  • Yes, there should be much more in depth medical/psychological/criminal screening involved in qualifying firearms ownership
  • Yes, there should be meaningful, severe penalties for those who irresponsibly handle, store or deal with firearms
  • Yes, there should be much more severe penalties for any criminal activity utilizing firearms

I must, however, state that the incredible lack of even the most basic firearms knowledge demonstrated by the hysterical posters on this forum invalidates virtually any opinion they espouse with regard to banning, regulating or otherwise controlling firearms.

Assault weapon - they have no idea what the term even means, much less what attributes constitute inclusion in this "political/media made up term"

Semi-automatic - Ridiculous how people think this somehow relates to a "machine gun" of sorts. Absurd. Another term which has an evil "sound" but in no way matches this sinister description in reality.

Ban Automatic weapons - They have been tightly regulated and controlled since 1934. Virtually no "mass shootings" of any type have been committed with automatic weapons since the St. Valentine's Day massacre in the roaring twenties.
Agreed 100%.

Many people speaking about guns and gun laws don't know the first thing about a firearm or firearm safety or gun culture. Ultimately, that equates to not having a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand and next thing you know, stereotyping, name-calling, and the hysteria ensues.

I have a hard time believing that if guns did not exist that this guy would have just decided not to harm others. If he could not get a firearm from where he did, would he give up or buy/steal one illegally? If he couldn't get a firearm at all, would he give up or build and bomb or burn the place to the ground? I don't know but to me, it seems unlikely that people like that can be deterred from doing evil things.

Most polls show the majority of Americans do not want new gun legislation. I would argue we have all the legislation we need to dramatically reduce the rates of gun violence, but we just aren't abiding by our own rules. Let's do a better job of enforcing our current laws which includes closing loopholes; let's implement some mandated education requirements; let's work on forcing people to store their firearms in a responsible manner; let's work on our healthcare and mental health system.
NickZac is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:09 PM   #881
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Many people speaking about guns and gun laws don't know the first thing about a firearm or firearm safety or gun culture. Ultimately, that equates to not having a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand and next thing you know, stereotyping, name-calling, and the hysteria ensues.
While it never hurts to increase one's understanding of an issue, I believe you overlook an obvious point. No other western industrial society has near the number of guns the United States has or near the amount of gun violence.

You don't have to be an expert on "gun culture" to see that there is a problem with firearms in the United States. The U.S., as a society, has chosen to saturate itself with firearms, and we experience far more shootings than any of these other western nations.

That seems pretty straight forward to me.

What "expertise" do I need to acquire to change my belief that the prevalence of guns contributes significantly to the number of shootings?

Please educate me.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:12 PM   #882
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
I think CalWizrd talks a lot of sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
I have a hard time believing that if guns did not exist that this guy would have just decided not to harm others.
No but the result would have likely been similar to the incident in China where no-one died.

I also suspect that is his mother had been a bit more sensible about not having a gun in the house with a troubled teenager then it wouldn't have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Most polls show the majority of Americans do not want new gun legislation.
Except for banning assault weapons. And frankly I'm sure for all guns that has changed in the last week.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:23 PM   #883
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfgrad93 View Post
We would go back to swords, knives, bows and arrows to kill each other. Thinking that this kind of events would stop just because there are no guns, is naive at best.
So given the choice, would you rather have:

A: What we have now with guns, where dozens of people (potentially hundreds), even little kids, can be killed in a very brief period of time.

OR

B: Swords, knives or bows and arrows which can only kill a few in a longer span of time.

Killing is killing and dead is dead but there is a reason why the world recoils at weapons of mass destruction and controls them differently than weapons that can only affect small numbers of people. The greater the number of people affected, the more horrifying it is. Which is why nuclear weapons, flamethrowers, and chemical weapons are not passed out like candy to everyone.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:39 PM   #884
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I think CalWizrd talks a lot of sense.
Thank you for that.

Quote:
...Except for banning assault weapons...
The thing that irks me so much in these discussions is the use of the term "assault weapons".

I have yet to find someone (anyone... in this forum, in the media, in our pathetic political system) who can define what they mean, specifically, by the term assault weapon. If they mean a weapon that is capable of automatic fire (i.e more than one round is fired by squeezing and holding the trigger), then those type of weapons have been strictly regulated since legislation passed in 1934, and it is quite rare to find someone who has purchased/owns one legally. The weapon preliminarily identified as the one used by Lanza in Connecticut is NOT capable of automatic fire. One trigger pull equals one round fired.

If, on the other hand, they call any weapon that simply looks like a military style automatic fire weapon (such as an M-16) an assault weapon, then they are chasing a bogeyman. Classifying a type of weapon as more lethal than others that operate exactly the same way based purely on the cosmetics of the device is simply an emotional feel good response that serves no real purpose. (edit: Which is exactly what the infamous assault weapons ban in the 90's did!)

Yet, the uninformed will continue to scream about assault weapons, while having no idea what it is they are rallying against.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken

Last edited by CalWizrd; Dec 17, 2012 at 02:52 PM.
CalWizrd is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:52 PM   #885
Huntn
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by quagmire View Post
I would change equating getting a driving license to getting a pilot license. Getting a drivers license is a joke. No one knows how to drive, the tests are not practical to the real world besides knowing what a stop sign looks like, etc.

Getting a pilots license is much more through. You need to have a medical certificate, you need to have in depth knowledge of how a plane flies and works, and the oral and flight test actually makes sure you know what you're doing. You have to go get your medical renewed either every 12 calendar months( for a 1st class medical or 2nd class medical if you're under 40) or 60 calendar months for a third class medical( under 40). And if you're over 40, the valid times get shorter.
I like this idea!

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Include age restrictions, the potential to lose one's license for misuse.

Another thing that I'd like to see is a concerted effort on the part of gun manufacturers to enhance the safety of guns, just as automobile manufacturers are constantly making strides to make cars safer.

For instance, make guns "smart". Include biometrics that would only allow the owner to shoot it. Put coded locks on them. Put devices that would allow lost or stolen guns to be located.
This one too!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy h View Post
Our system might seem restrictive but as a parent I think it strikes a decent balance at the moment.
Based on statistics, I'd have to agree, but I also see some cultural issues working against the U.S.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:53 PM   #886
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I have yet to find someone (anyone... in this forum, in the media, in our pathetic political system) who can define what they mean, specifically, by the term assault weapon.
I wouldn't pretend to know the actual definition of an "assault weapon".

IMO any semi-automatic rifle with a clip that holds numerous bullets is unnecessary for an average citizen to own.

If anyone would care to explain why a person needs that kind of gun, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 02:56 PM   #887
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post

Yet, the uninformed will continue to scream about assault weapons, while having no idea what it is they are rallying against.
This is a great point - although I think it may be naive to assume that all legislators on the side of some type of stronger regulation know nothing about weapons. Honestly, I don't know much and I've tried to engage in a discussion, but you have to realize how difficult you are making any type of dialogue. You are acting like the only people who can write laws, pass laws, and discuss laws are those who are gun enthusiasts. It's ridiculous, especially knowing some of the laws that have been passed in this country and who has passed them.

You are completely focused on the idea that ignorant, gun-hating, liberal commies are out to get your guns and it's just not true.

I do think your previous points were well made and reasonable. Add closing the "gun show loophole" and maybe some type of limit on the amount of ammo you can hold in a clip (if that's possible) and I think we have a good starting point to a discussion.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I wouldn't pretend to know the actual definition of an "assault weapon".

IMO any semi-automatic rifle with a clip that holds numerous bullets is unnecessary for an average citizen to own.

If anyone would care to explain why a person needs that kind of gun, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.
They don't need it, obviously. Why they would want it, though, may be a question we might get them to answer.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:01 PM   #888
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
The thing that irks me so much in these discussions is the use of the term "assault weapons".
I have no idea what assault weapons are, but people do apparently want to ban them .
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:03 PM   #889
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I have no idea what assault weapons are, but people do apparently want to ban them .
By people don't you really mean all of the LSD taking, pot smoking libs?
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:06 PM   #890
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
...If anyone would care to explain why a person needs that kind of gun, I'd be interested in hearing the explanation.
Needs? I think I've been here before.

The limitation on the number of rounds a magazine can hold is yet another "feel good" piece of legislation. It sounds good to say that this will make a difference, but in actuality, it wouldn't.

Anyone who is reasonably proficient with firearms can drop an empty magazine and insert a new one in one or two seconds. And someone who has trained sufficiently can do it sub-second.

It is not the tool that is the crux of the problem. It is the acquisition and use of the tool by those who should never have had access that is the problem. Until we can intelligently solve that (and increased, more thorough regulation and certification are certainly valid avenues), we will continue to be plagued by this issue.

It's not the hammer's fault... it's the guy swinging it at your head!
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:07 PM   #891
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
They don't need it, obviously. Why they would want it, though, may be a question we might get them to answer.
Ultimately if they store it properly and haven't got mental health issues it probably isn't a big issue.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:10 PM   #892
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
What do you mean "when they have no idea what it is they are objecting to"?

I'm objecting to 31,000 dead American every year.

I think I have some idea about what I'm objecting to.
Quote:
In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since.
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117236998

Suicides are almost 2/3 of that number. What about mental health issues?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Ultimately if they store it properly and haven't got mental health issues it probably isn't a big issue.
I agree with you. Mental issues, young children, etc.., gun owners do have a responsibility to secure their weapon(s).
webbuzz is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:18 PM   #893
Moyank24
macrumors 68040
 
Moyank24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in a New York State of mind
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117236998

Suicides are almost 2/3 of that number. What about mental health issues?

----------



I agree with you. Mental issues, young children, etc.., gun owners do have a responsibility to secure their weapon(s).
I wonder from those numbers, how many of the guns used in those ~31,000 deaths were legally registered? Start prosecuting those irresponsible gun owners when their guns are discharged in the hands of another and we may start seeing some change.

The treatment and diagnosis of the mentally ill is a HUGE problem in this country - and a controversial one as are so many other things in this country that have to do with healthcare.

I wonder how many of those 2A advocates who don't believe change is necessary would be willing to see an increase in taxes in an effort to make the mental health system in this country effective.
Moyank24 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:20 PM   #894
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
The assault weapons myth

Steve Chapman was on the radio this morning, discussing assault weapons and perception by the media, and differences from other weapons.
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/mikemc...473829.mp3file

Fast forward to ~36 minutes.


He also wrote and opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune last August.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...7023936.column
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:25 PM   #895
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Steve Chapman was on the radio this morning, discussing assault weapons and perception by the media, and differences from other weapons.
http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/mikemc...473829.mp3file

Fast forward to ~36 minutes.


He also wrote and opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune last August.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...7023936.column
Thanks for posting that. A much better read than the stuff I've been trying to say.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:26 PM   #896
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
The limitation on the number of rounds a magazine can hold is yet another "feel good" piece of legislation. It sounds good to say that this will make a difference, but in actuality, it wouldn't.
Source please your claim that limiting magazines would not make a difference.

Call it an "assault weapon ban" or call it a "magazine restriction" it would be a good start in my book.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:32 PM   #897
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Source please your claim that limiting magazines would not make a difference...
You are really amusing some times!

Source my claim? Simple. In 30 seconds, I can fire virtually the same number of rounds (+/- 1 or 2) using multiple Glock 10 round magazines than someone could fire using a 30 round magazine.

Or is real life experience not an acceptable source for you?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:32 PM   #898
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moyank24 View Post
I wonder from those numbers, how many of the guns used in those ~31,000 deaths were legally registered? Start prosecuting those irresponsible gun owners when their guns are discharged in the hands of another and we may start seeing some change.
I think when you say "registered" you mean obtained legally. Most states do not require registration.

Of the ~11K homicides, it is my guess that a majority are not obtained legally.

Of the ~19K suicides, a majority are most likely obtained legally.

Of the ~600 accidental, again most are likely obtained legally.

I do not have a source, this is my assumption.


Quote:
I wonder how many of those 2A advocates who don't believe change is necessary would be willing to see an increase in taxes in an effort to make the mental health system in this country effective.
As a person who is a 2A supporter, I would welcome anything that would increase services, and the availability of services for mentally ill individuals.

Edit: Interesting article from Northwestern University regarding mental health budget cuts.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=204004

Last edited by webbuzz; Dec 17, 2012 at 03:38 PM.
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:42 PM   #899
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
Suicides are almost 2/3 of that number.
Yeah. I know.

This morning on the Thom Hartmann radio program he had a guest who was a doctor experienced in Israel's gun policies. According to the guest Israel used to allow (require?) soldiers to take the guns home with them on weekends, but changed the policy to require those weapons be left on base.

The result, according to the guest, was a 40% reduction in weekend suicides.

Her contention was that suicidal impulses combined with a readily available firearm resulted in far more successful suicide attempts.

And here's an Harvard Public Health article on the subject ...

Quote:
Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups ...

What is it about Guns?

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They're quick. And they're irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that's a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatallity Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)

Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there's no turning back.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-ma...isk/index.html
or from the New England Journal of Medicine ...

Quote:
Guns and Suicide in the United States

Why might the availability of firearms increase the risk of suicide in the United States? First, many suicidal acts — one third to four fifths of all suicide attempts, according to studies — are impulsive. Among people who made near-lethal suicide attempts, for example, 24% took less than 5 minutes between the decision to kill themselves and the actual attempt, and 70% took less than 1 hour.

Second, many suicidal crises are self-limiting. Such crises are often caused by an immediate stressor, such as the breakup of a romantic relationship, the loss of a job, or a run-in with police. As the acute phase of the crisis passes, so does the urge to attempt suicide. The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide. Indeed, recognizing the self-limiting nature of suicidal crises, penal and psychiatric institutions restrict access to lethal means for persons identified as potentially suicidal.

Third, guns are common in the United States (more than one third of U.S. households contain a firearm) and are lethal. A suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance. Attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often.
The empirical evidence linking suicide risk in the United States to the presence of firearms in the home is compelling. There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored. The association between guns in the home and the risk of suicide is due entirely to a large increase in the risk of suicide by firearm that is not counterbalanced by a reduced risk of nonfirearm suicide. Moreover, the increased risk of suicide is not explained by increased psychopathologic characteristics, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempts among members of gun-owning households.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
Quote:
Originally Posted by webbuzz View Post
What about mental health issues?
I don't know. What about them?

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
You are really amusing some times!

Source my claim? Simple. In 30 seconds, I can fire virtually the same number of rounds (+/- 1 or 2) using multiple Glock 10 round magazines than someone could fire using a 30 round magazine.

Or is real life experience not an acceptable source for you?
Anecdotal.

Not scientifically acceptable.

Sorry.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Dec 17, 2012, 03:45 PM   #900
webbuzz
macrumors 6502a
 
webbuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
I don't know. What about them?
Is that your answer? Brilliant

Last edited by balamw; Dec 17, 2012 at 06:12 PM. Reason: fixed quote tag
webbuzz is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
At Least 194 Children Have Been Shot to Death Since Newtown lannister80 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 196 Dec 18, 2013 01:48 PM
No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, SYG rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 99 Aug 15, 2013 11:14 AM
Navy SEAL Chris Kyle "American Sniper." Shot and killed. Happybunny Politics, Religion, Social Issues 347 Feb 8, 2013 04:22 PM
Shooting at Atlanta Middle School Leaves 8th Grader Shot in the Head bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 169 Feb 3, 2013 09:03 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC