telpinaro
New member
I almost didn't post this, as the possibility for angry arguments is fairly high. But... I want some new ideas, so here goes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&
To get this out of the way, clearly this is in a biased news source. It does reference real studies, but I haven't been able to verify all of them yet, simply because searching pulls up a lot of junk I don't have time to sift through... I do have a life, after all. And let's ignore the ridiculous reference to shooting spouses.
For those who haven't heard me mention it... My sister is a liberal, and an intelligent one. We often have discussions about gun control that are very productive and enlightening; I love it, because I'm forced to strengthen my arguments with someone who doesn't care that we disagree.
This article is one of her points. She focuses on who commit suicide in the heat of the moment... "He left me and I have no reason to live!" or whatever depressing event, not those who are truly determined to commit suicide. It seems to be that if there is no easy and quick method, or if they try and fail, the majority of people will stop being suicidal. The stories of survivors towards the end of the article support that. So, if all guns were to completely vanish, suicide rates would go down. My sister even said there were a couple of times in her life she wanted to, but there was no easy method readily available. (With her car, CO poisoning isn't going to be easy... it's... well, old. Lots of holes.)
So... I am trying to come up with some good rebuttals. Murder rates will go up without guns, of course. Unfortunately looking at numbers from other countries (we actually did that) it could go either way... Some countries get worse, some get better, and some get lots worse then get better. My sister actually lets me have this one, as I emphasize that a gun is sometimes the ONLY way for vulnerable people to defend themselves. I've told her I'll get behind gun control when they invent the phasers on Star Trek with the "stun" setting and supply them to everyone! :wink: (Just think! Give those to cops and any innocent bystanders they accidentally shoot don't die, they're just unconscious for half an hour or so.)
It is also clearly unfair to remove a right from everybody because some people do something stupid. This is not a useful argument with a liberal, of course, as most fervently believe that it is the moral and ethical thing to do to save those few. It's hard to fault them for caring so much about saving people... they just need to go about it in a more logical manner.
I've thought of one scenario... if we're going to control who can have guns based on likelihood of suicide, what do you do about the girl who wants to buy a gun because her abusive ex is stalking her? Is she buying it to commit suicide or shoot the guy? How do you determine that? If you decide she's going to commit suicide and refuse to let her have an easy method to do it and she gets murdered, what then? Heck, you're partly responsible. We can't protect everyone.
Mental health isn't a good answer for these impulsive suicides... There's already tons of hotlines, and you can walk in to any hospital to get help. Of course, thanks to Obamacare the system is kind of bonkers so who knows how reliable that is. The only ones who can stop something like this are friends and family, and they don't always get there in time. Or know soon enough if something bad happens.
Anyone have anything else? Any sources refuting this would be excellent; I've only found the "if they're determined, they will" types. I'll agree with my sister in saying that people who wouldn't normally have committed suicide, and probably didn't really want to, are the saddest. I'm not sure there is any way to fix this issue... I generally try to find ways to solve violence issues without involving gun control at all (if we do this, gun control becomes irrelevant!), but I'm not sure that's completely possible here. Any ideas would be great!
I am a strong believer in knowing and being prepared for the opposition's argument before they make it. Can't fall in to the liberal's habit of calling things "stupid" or stuttering, after all!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print&
To get this out of the way, clearly this is in a biased news source. It does reference real studies, but I haven't been able to verify all of them yet, simply because searching pulls up a lot of junk I don't have time to sift through... I do have a life, after all. And let's ignore the ridiculous reference to shooting spouses.
For those who haven't heard me mention it... My sister is a liberal, and an intelligent one. We often have discussions about gun control that are very productive and enlightening; I love it, because I'm forced to strengthen my arguments with someone who doesn't care that we disagree.
This article is one of her points. She focuses on who commit suicide in the heat of the moment... "He left me and I have no reason to live!" or whatever depressing event, not those who are truly determined to commit suicide. It seems to be that if there is no easy and quick method, or if they try and fail, the majority of people will stop being suicidal. The stories of survivors towards the end of the article support that. So, if all guns were to completely vanish, suicide rates would go down. My sister even said there were a couple of times in her life she wanted to, but there was no easy method readily available. (With her car, CO poisoning isn't going to be easy... it's... well, old. Lots of holes.)
So... I am trying to come up with some good rebuttals. Murder rates will go up without guns, of course. Unfortunately looking at numbers from other countries (we actually did that) it could go either way... Some countries get worse, some get better, and some get lots worse then get better. My sister actually lets me have this one, as I emphasize that a gun is sometimes the ONLY way for vulnerable people to defend themselves. I've told her I'll get behind gun control when they invent the phasers on Star Trek with the "stun" setting and supply them to everyone! :wink: (Just think! Give those to cops and any innocent bystanders they accidentally shoot don't die, they're just unconscious for half an hour or so.)
It is also clearly unfair to remove a right from everybody because some people do something stupid. This is not a useful argument with a liberal, of course, as most fervently believe that it is the moral and ethical thing to do to save those few. It's hard to fault them for caring so much about saving people... they just need to go about it in a more logical manner.
I've thought of one scenario... if we're going to control who can have guns based on likelihood of suicide, what do you do about the girl who wants to buy a gun because her abusive ex is stalking her? Is she buying it to commit suicide or shoot the guy? How do you determine that? If you decide she's going to commit suicide and refuse to let her have an easy method to do it and she gets murdered, what then? Heck, you're partly responsible. We can't protect everyone.
Mental health isn't a good answer for these impulsive suicides... There's already tons of hotlines, and you can walk in to any hospital to get help. Of course, thanks to Obamacare the system is kind of bonkers so who knows how reliable that is. The only ones who can stop something like this are friends and family, and they don't always get there in time. Or know soon enough if something bad happens.
Anyone have anything else? Any sources refuting this would be excellent; I've only found the "if they're determined, they will" types. I'll agree with my sister in saying that people who wouldn't normally have committed suicide, and probably didn't really want to, are the saddest. I'm not sure there is any way to fix this issue... I generally try to find ways to solve violence issues without involving gun control at all (if we do this, gun control becomes irrelevant!), but I'm not sure that's completely possible here. Any ideas would be great!
I am a strong believer in knowing and being prepared for the opposition's argument before they make it. Can't fall in to the liberal's habit of calling things "stupid" or stuttering, after all!
