What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Tommy Callahan]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Suicides remain the biggest cause of gun deaths in the US (54% of firearm deaths), more than homicides (43%).

 

Not only is suicide the biggest driver of firearm deaths, but 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die of suicide at a later date.

 

Suicide is a momentary crisis. If the person gets through that crisis in that moment, there's a 90% chance that they will not die of suicide.

 

Firearms are by far the most effective method of suicide:

1. Firearms (82.5% attempts are successful)
2. Drowning / Submersion (65.9%)
3. Suffocation / Hanging (61.4%)
4. Poison by gas (41.5%)
5. Jump (34.5%)
6. Drugs / Poison ingestion (1.5%)
7. Cut / Pierce (1.2%)
8. Other (8.0%)

So most Americans who die by firearms do so by their own hand. And 90% of them would live their lives without dying by suicide if they survived that first attempt. But firearms are far more likely to be successful than other methods.

 

You have to conclude that if these people didn't have ready access to a firearm in that moment of crisis, it is more likely than not that many (most?) would not end up dying by suicide.

 

So this is where I point out your argument about other countries not having guns.  cause many countries have suicide rates at our rates or higher.  

 

And would point out that its actually a progressive thing to support assisted suicides.

 

And according to the data you showed, the demo most affected are old men that I am guessing choose to go out that way.

 

 

 

IF the narrative if still gun violence, mass shootings and what not.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Chris farley

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Suicides remain the biggest cause of gun deaths in the US (54% of firearm deaths), more than homicides (43%).

 

Not only is suicide the biggest driver of firearm deaths, but 9 out of 10 people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die of suicide at a later date.

 

Suicide is a momentary crisis. If the person gets through that crisis in that moment, there's a 90% chance that they will not die of suicide.

 

Firearms are by far the most effective method of suicide:

1. Firearms (82.5% attempts are successful)
2. Drowning / Submersion (65.9%)
3. Suffocation / Hanging (61.4%)
4. Poison by gas (41.5%)
5. Jump (34.5%)
6. Drugs / Poison ingestion (1.5%)
7. Cut / Pierce (1.2%)
8. Other (8.0%)

So most Americans who die by firearms do so by their own hand. And 90% of them would live their lives without dying by suicide if they survived that first attempt. But firearms are far more likely to be successful than other methods.

 

You have to conclude that if these people didn't have ready access to a firearm in that moment of crisis, it is more likely than not that many (most?) would not end up dying by suicide.

 

perfect.  it should be noted that a large proportion of the latter methods are properly categorized as suicide gestures and not attempts.

[ArdmoreRyno]

4 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well as a mental health professional, I would have thought you might have considered mandatory reporting from health care providers to a national gun data base for all patients who appear to pose a significant risk of violence.  An independent panel then could review the case and decide whether or not gun sales to these patients are appropriate.

 

We already have mandatory reporting requirements. Unfortunately, we can't stop everything. Kids will manage to get a firearm from their parents closet or safe or have parent(s) who don't care if their kid has access to a gun. We have a lot of shootings where there were no signs of a problem. Not a school shooting, but Vegas is a good example. The guy had no history of violence or mental problems. 

 

We want to protect our kids, I've explained what can help right now. That girl would have never made it into the school if a front office staffer (usually a principle) had a firearm. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

So this is where I point out your argument about other countries not having guns.  cause many countries have suicide rates at our rates or higher.  

 

And would point out that its actually a progressive thing to support assisted suicides.

 

And according to the data you showed, the demo most affected are old men that I am guessing choose to go out that way.

 

IF the narrative if still gun violence, mass shootings and what not.

 

 

 

 

 

My narrative is gun deaths and preventing them.

 

This involves talking about all types of gun deaths and how to prevent them.

 

If we want to allow for end-of-life suicides then that should be it's own discussion, and if it's something that we decide should be allowed, then maybe it should be doctor assisted so it's clean and safe for all involved instead of just hoping the elderly swallow a bullet.

Edited March 29, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Boatdrinks]

30 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

but more guns are better right?  you said school employees who aren't currently armed should be.

The schools should be secured and an armed officer present. This is standard in government buildings among other places . Very likely would have prevented what happened in Nashville The shooter detailed two targets in their writings and chose the one that was less secure. With all the money wasted by the government , we certainly can afford to secure our schools from deranged criminals. 

[Tommy Callahan]

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Well as a mental health professional, I would have thought you might have considered mandatory reporting from health care providers to a national gun data base for all patients who appear to pose a significant risk of violence.  An independent panel then could review the case and decide whether or not gun sales to these patients are appropriate.

So some panel of people decide if one can utilize their right.  A doctor (in reality probably a PA) making that decision?  its an idea.

 

but seems like it would need to be at the court level to make that decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

The schools should be secured and an armed officer present. This is standard in government buildings among other places . Very likely would have prevented what happened in Nashville The shooter detailed two targets in their writings and chose the one that was less secure. With all the money wasted by the government , we certainly can afford to secure our schools from deranged criminals. 

 

Can you provide evidence on the effectiveness of SROs stopping mass shooters?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

We already have mandatory reporting requirements. Unfortunately, we can't stop everything. Kids will manage to get a firearm from their parents closet or safe or have parent(s) who don't care if their kid has access to a gun. We have a lot of shootings where there were no signs of a problem. Not a school shooting, but Vegas is a good example. The guy had no history of violence or mental problems. 

 

We want to protect our kids, I've explained what can help right now. That girl would have never made it into the school if a front office staffer (usually a principle) had a firearm. 

Maybe in your state.  Certainly not nationally or to a national data base.  Not a big fan of the AMA but many salient topics including suicide (5X more likely in a household with a gun) are discussed here.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-should-physicians-make-decisions-about-mandatory-reporting-when-patient-might-become-violent/2018-01

"Some states mandate that confidentiality be broken to report a threat of harm under certain circumstances. For example, California Civil Code 43.92, known as the “Tarasoff statute,” requires that if a patient makes “a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim” to a psychotherapist, that psychotherapist is required to take steps to protect the intended victim [18]. This statute was based on a 1974 lawsuit against the university that employed a therapist whose patient had confided to him that he planned to kill a woman he had formerly dated, Tatiana Tarasoff [19]. The patient then acted on his threat. Many other states followed suit with similar reporting laws for mental health professionals or physicians in various circumstances in which there is a threat of violence. These laws vary from state to state as to whether disclosure of PHI is mandatory or permissible [8]. There is also considerable variation in the specificity of the threat the laws address. Some state laws require a clearly identifiable victim, while others refer only to threats to the public in general [8]."

 

I suggest that nationally threats to the public in general prompt mandatory reporting.  They don't now.

Edited March 29, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Tommy Callahan]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

My narrative is gun deaths and preventing them.

 

This involves talking about all types of gun deaths and how to prevent them.

 

If we want to allow for end-of-life suicides then that should be it's own discussion, and if it's something that we decide should be allowed, then maybe it should be doctor assisted so it's clean and safe for all involved instead of just hoping the elderly swallow a bullet.

your narrative is how to get rid of guns, you have said it a lot.

 

Who said hoping.

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Chris farley said:

So some panel of people decide if one can utilize their right.  A doctor (in reality probably a PA) making that decision?  its an idea.

 

but seems like it would need to be at the court level to make that decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

Just now, Chris farley said:

your narrative is how to get rid of guns, you have said it a lot.

 

Who said hoping.

 

 

 

When have I said I want to get rid of guns?

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

 

When have I said I want to get rid of guns?

Many times through this and other threads on guns. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Chris farley said:

Many times through this and other threads on guns. 

 

 

 

Please provide evidence of when I said I wanted to get rid of guns.

 

I think you may have been reading what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said.

[Boatdrinks]

21 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Didn't avoid it .  Trans, straight , gay, german, dutch,pakistani or irish.  Doesn't matter.  What matters is that he/she was insane and was able to get multiple guns.  And someone here says. No one is looking for solutions.  Several of us agree that that's a good place to start

It’s worth looking into , but once again we have what appears to be a failure on the part of the family. Also at least one friend. They knew of the weapons and didn’t do anything about it. Even with such a law , the shooter may have been legally able to purchase at the time of purchase. She clearly was under a mental health professionals care and the family should have seen to it that these weapons were out of her hands , rather than shrug it off and say she told them they were gotten rid of. The Schools should be secured with armed personnel though, I believe . It would certainly reduce deaths without infringing on rights with legislation. 

[L Ron Burgundy]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Please provide evidence of when I said I wanted to get rid of guns.

 

I think you may have been reading what you wanted to read instead of what I actually said.

Happens here every 5 seconds. 

4 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

That is not saying all guns should be banned and I've never seen anyone make that argument here.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

It’s worth looking into , but once again we have what appears to be a failure on the part of the family. Also at least one friend. They knew of the weapons and didn’t do anything about it. Even with such a law , the shooter may have been legally able to purchase at the time of purchase. She clearly was under a mental health professionals care and the family should have seen to it that these weapons were out of her hands , rather than shrug it off and say she told them they were gotten rid of. The Schools should be secured with armed personnel though, I believe . It would certainly reduce deaths without infringing on rights with legislation. 

We had this debate in my church.  A vagrant who was mentally unstable kept barging into and disrupting services.  Several people called for arming some of the congregation.  Law enforcement in the congregation, of which there are many, unanimously disagreed with this saying the likelihood of more deaths and injuries would be higher in an armed congregation.  Area Law enforcement eventually bought the guy a one way bus ticket out of town.  BTW, it's not easy to get someone involuntarily committed for psych issues.

[aristocrat]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

24 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Red flag laws have it go to a court precisely because it's potentially curtailing someone's rights. Flagged by a mental health professional or someone close to them; adjudicated by a judge. And it can be temporary instead of permanent.

but if a judge in NY removes the right, can the person still buy a gun in Tennessee?

[Boatdrinks]

6 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

We had this debate in my church.  A vagrant who was mentally unstable kept barging into and disrupting services.  Several people called for arming some of the congregation.  Law enforcement in the congregation, of which there are many, unanimously disagreed with this saying the likelihood of more deaths and injuries would be higher in an armed congregation.  Area Law enforcement eventually bought the guy a one way bus ticket out of town.  BTW, it's not easy to get someone involuntarily committed for psych issues.

No, it’s definitely  not easy.  Not sure about churches , but schools absolutely should be secured like other government buildings with an armed officer. I wouldn’t suggest arming any civilian staff as that would be a potential negative that could lead to issues in my view . 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

No, it’s definitely  not easy.  Not sure about churches , but schools absolutely should be secured like other government buildings with an armed officer. I wouldn’t suggest arming any civilian staff as that would be a potential negative that could lead to issues in my view . 

 

It's counterintuitive and surprising, but the presence of an armed officer in schools doesn't reduce the injuries/deaths from shooters and actually is associated with a slightly increased rate of injuries.

 

Presence of Armed School Officials and Fatal and Nonfatal Gunshot Injuries During Mass School Shootings, United States, 1980-2019

 

"Based on theory, multivariate models include the presence of an armed guard and control for region, school type (public, nonpublic), and grade level (high school, elementary, other); location (urban, suburban, rural); use of lockdown drills; if the attack was targeted; total number of weapons brought to the scene; number of shooters; and weapon type. Results are presented as incident rate ratios in Table 2 and show armed guards were not associated with significant reduction in rates of injuries; in fact, controlling for the aforementioned factors of location and school characteristics, the rate of deaths was 2.83 times greater in schools with an armed guard present (incidence rate ratio, 2.96; 95% CI = 1.43-6.13; P = .003)."

[K D]

If a girl wants to be a boy then do whatever you want. But you will never be a man. That's something that is earned.