Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumTed Nugent whines on about tools.......
Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)
and yet, without access to lethal tools it would be so much less likely that so many people would be killed in murder suicides.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hack89
(39,171 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)With any luck, Whoopi Goldberg can get enough like minded members to vote him, Norquist, and Bolton off the board of directors.
and I really don't think there would be fewer murder suicides.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)There goes knives, rope, WATER...
montanto
(2,966 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)the list goes on....
and on...
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)We also know that virtually anything can, under certain circumstances be applied as a lethal tool. Most guns are designed to be lethal, that's the whole point and including objects and body parts on the list is patently ridiculous. As ridiculous as Ted Nugent.
You have shown that you are better than resorting to such nonsense. You are capable of stating your position intelligently, without losing your credibility.
Clames
(2,038 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...between a tool "designed to be lethal" and a tool used in a manner that is designed to be lethal.
After the fact, any item used to kill may properly be referred to as "the lethal tool".
There is no difference between choosing a tool, whose innate design, makes it lethal and choosing a tool, which is lethal by design of the user.
Please explain what you find ridiculous.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If you honestly cannot see the difference between a gun and any other object, then why would anyone ever use a gun to kill? Right, because it's easier than using a brick or an elbow. Why, because it is designed specifically to kill with the minimum of effort. All these other things can be adapted to kill, but are not originally designed to kill. That is the difference and it is a huge difference.
If there were no difference, then there would be no debate. We have some intelligent gun owners here and we have some neanderthals. I always had you pegged as one of the former. Maybe I was wrong.
When idiots like Nugent make such statements, they do gun owners a disservice. We have several members here who articulate their pro-gun views intelligently, using reason and common sense, then there are the knuckleheads and trolls who repeat the NRA drivel that Nugent spews.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I don't read the NRA site. I can't remember anything Ted has ever said.
I doubt that what is implied in the OP is correct. I don't believe that there is a means to substantially reduce "access to lethal tools".
Yes, it's easier to murder with a Glock 27 than say a pair of scissors. I just don't think the difference in determination is substantial enough to be qualify as a considerable impediment.
The problems we have today go beyond the mechanics of the situation.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)and guns are just more efficient and the preferred tool for those who want to be able to kill with the minimum of effort.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...to use most anything to kill, there are tools like a handgun that, in many situations, will make it easier. Other tools make killing an order of magnitude more difficult than playing a decent game of golf.
Having said that there will always be a "most efficient tool with which to kill" no matter how many of its predecessors are made "less accessible.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)a referendum on the NRA, Nugget, or whoever else they despise. Sounds kinda "neanderthalish" to me.
I am impressed by the airline security check through: Finding vast numbers of tools they consider killing devices, only rarely a gun.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)There are many lethal or potentially lethal 'tools'. There are a few instances of screwdrivers used, world wide, to commit murder.
But they are not as lethal -- meaning they don't kill as easily or as effectively as a firearm, they require close proximity, where guns do not, they require a greater strength and dexterity than a firearm, and so on.
The other difference is that the item that is genuinely 'a tool' is designed for another purpose than a weapon, which is specifically designed to kill or injure another person when used as designed. A screw driver, spoon, car, etc. is not designed for that as its primary purpose, which is why it is less effective and less efficient when used for a different purpose than intended.
The television series MacGyver showed how many different ways ordinary things could be used differently -- but would you claim that those unusual uses were in any remote way typical, practical or reasonable uses, compared to guns? NO.
It takes intent AND something that is effective as a weapon, that is singularly and uniquely lethal, and which has been demonstrated to be more of a violent impulse weapon than other things NOT designed as weapons to be so frequently used as the means of choice in murder suicides. There ARE other things used, but guns are by far the most popular, and the most successful at killing or injuring people.
You cannot explain away that difference by trying to categorize very disparate and dissimilar things as the same, calling them tools. It takes BOTH someone who intends to do harm AND the lethal means to do so to kill someone. People alone don't do that, and weapons alone don't do that. The problem is people acquiring weapons, which can be prevented by intervening so that weapons are not easily acquired by the wrong people, people who commit murder suicides.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)to prevent this (see Brady Act). I'm not sure what else you would want, short of trampling over the 5th Amendment and the 14th's commerce clause.
One way would be to "universalize" the NICS test, but this would run afoul of the commerce clause. There has been considerable discussion on how to make all firearms purchases subject to NICS. Right now, these are state powers. I would not object to a state requiring a NICS test (such would require a change in the existing law to allow such), but I'm not sure how that can be universalized.
Some want a kind of psychological profile test, or a panel of shrinks to determine mental competence. These are akin to literacy tests for voting rights. We know the results of these tests in the South. The best determinant for mental incompetency is before a judge in open court. Due process for mentally-challenged people was (but I'm afraid is no longer) a liberal issue in the early 60s.
Easy access to guns results in crime is an oft-chanted mantra with little to back it up, save some appeal to "common sense." We have low crime rates in this country, even as the number of arms in civilian hands has pushed beyond 300,000,000. I am not impressed in the least by some flippant remark by a sports caster about access to firearms; it's nothing more than a Scarlet Letter approach to solving some kind of issue some where.
The term "paranoia" is bandied about in these threads by gun prohibitionists on a regular basis (as much as penis extension and the like). It strikes me that the term has greater credence when describing gun-controllers: Who would some become so frightened, scared, fearful, uneasy (and other terms but the dreaded "P" word) because there are so many guns, yet the crime rates are as low as the 50s? I'm not paranoid. I don't fear violent crime much; most is located in inner-city neighborhoods, and along Interstate corridors of metropolitan areas (apparently the sites of much Section 8). I avoid these areas. It would be constructive to look at this phenomenon without the cheap charge of racism rearing its ever-ready head in DU fora. A constructive look might lead us back to what progressive thought was about some 50 years ago: How best can the government promote the general welfare. Lowering crime, being high on the list.
Thank you for your considerate views.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)sense we jumped out of trees. If we don't have a hammer we use a rock. If you take our hammers away we would again use rocks. We always adapt to get the job done. If you take all the guns there will always be alternatives to get the job done.
Growing up I know 4 people personally that hung themselves. Should we take away rope? If that happens we will use wire or our belts or shoe strings but we will get the job done. We are humans we use tools.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)and fewer suicides attempted, and far fewer suicides that succeed.
In the UK, rope replaced guns as the more popular means to commit suicide of choice. Some people try it, but overall far fewer do so than had done so with guns. In Switzerland, the availability of a gun contributed to the decision to commit suicide, it was a weapon that increased both the frequency of the impulse to commit suicide (or murder suicide) and which also increased the frequency of a resulting fatality.
So, no, your argument fails on both counts. Replacements are not NEARLY as frequently used, or as effectively used. We would not eliminate every murder, or every suicide, but the decrease in those deaths without the element of firearms is HUGE.
Your argument fails. We do NOT get the job done as often or as well with alternative means. We don't even TRY as often, without the availability of guns.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)What evidence do you have that Switzerland's higher suicide rates is due to guns being available? Could it be because it is more rural, since rural areas tend to have higher suicide rates, including places like Japan and South Korea where gun ownership is about zero? If it were guns, Switzerland should have a higher suicide rate than Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, and Belgium. Out of the big four of "households with guns" (US, Canada, Norway, Finland, Switzerland) none of them are in the top tier of suicides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)academic opinion. There is similar evidence here in the U.S. that this is true.
You DO know that this has been studied for years as a public health issue, stats tracked etc. right?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)They had a conclusion in mind before the results. They succeeded in showing rural areas have higher rates and assumed that it was gun ownership, since rural areas tend to have higher gun ownership rates. Even then, that is kind of a guess for the most part, at least in most of the US anyway. That is why I pointed out that rural Japan and South Korea, where gun ownership is close to non existent if not nonexistent, have higher suicide rates than their urban counter parts. In South Korea, the cops don't even carry guns.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)done in the UK. Look up something more in depth and authoritative than wikipedia. Check the UK sources on causes of suicide for yourself, before and after they made guns less available.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/england-wales-methods-suicide
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods
and on greater lethality than other methods, and the impulse versus long term planning with suicide
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/firearms/reliability
and
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods
I don't have the stats at my finger tips, but there appear to be a lot more botched suicide attempts by hanging than are reflected here, when one looks at other sources, making it much less reliable than firearms.
There are plentiful sources indicating firearms, as distinct from other methods are more often an impulsive decision for suicide, not just in Switzerland. Do you all need me to look that up for you as well, or can you find the Swiss studies for yourselves?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)can only be done by experiment. There is a study in Australia showing that their suicide rate is linked to which party is in power. the suicide rate historically rose during Liberal governments (their Liberal party is the center right) and dropped again during Labour governments (their center left party) One thing to be careful of, "gun suicide" compared to "suicide". Obviously, the gun suicides would drop. That does not mean the suicide rate does. Since gun ownership in the UK probably never was that common even before their first gun control laws in the early 20th century. While UK's suicide rate has been dropping over the past 20 years, it started moving back up in the last two years. I would have to actually see the studies. Many of the ones in the US are funded by the same astro turf foundation that funds gun control groups, which kind of reminds me of Kochs and climate science.
Berserker
(3,419 posts)the point of my post. But oh well. Move along.
montanto
(2,966 posts)no one here gives a shit about btw, is still alive, though having threatened both murder and suicide, and having access to a wide variety of "lethal tools," your argument deconstructs itself. Obviously Ted does not lack access to the lethal tools, he lacks the willingness, or courage, or insanity, or whatever the psychological state is that he lacks, to actually use his handy "lethal tools" to kill himself or others. If we imagine a Ted Nugent with no "lethal tools," but with the requisite insanity, sufficient willingness, courage, or whatever, then we can easily imagine a murder/ suicide scenario using poison, fire-poker, machete, box cutter, or whatever other common household item might serve its purpose for both. My conclusion is that willingness to commit the act is the greater force than possession of the "lethal tool," whatever that might be. Now if you had said "with greater access to mental health care, fewer people would be killed in murder/suicides," I'd have been forced to completely agree with you!
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)There are more suicides in homes with guns.
I didn't say every murder suicide would be prevented, but with less access to more lethal weapons, murder suicides and suicides and murders (separately) decline. Other methods are less successful. Period.
montanto
(2,966 posts)that Ted Nugent is a whiner. Period. Have I mentioned that no one gives a shit about Ted?
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)So while you may not care, more people listen to him than listen to you. Therefore your opinion lacks substance and is largely irrelevant. Further you seem to have a loose grasp at best on what is and is not a fact.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Let's keep in mind the fact of your complete lack of understanding of the difference between causation and correlation. Your "facts" do not stand up to even the slightest scrutiny. Pretty much makes evening you have posted in this thread largely an exercise of comedy.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)AND that reducing the access to means, or even just making access slower or more difficult does NOT result in people simply using another means, but rather in not making the attempt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all
and here is an article about the Swiss findings, which also makes reference to US studies
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_for_the_record/european_records/Switzerland_s_troubling_record_of_suicide.html?cid=8301804
They are accessible,” Ajdacic-Gross explained. “Many suicides are impulsive. In other words, the decision is taken very quickly.”
At such moments, availability – or a lack of it – is crucial. “If somebody has to make a lot of effort to find something that will kill them, that’s a strong preventative factor.”
The Zurich University study found that suicides by firearm dropped sharply in countries – including Britain, Canada and Australia - where gun control legislation reduced the number of weapons kept at home. Could the same thing work in Switzerland? Or would people simply resort to other methods?
“We know that people turn to alternatives that are similar,” Ajdacic-Gross said. “If someone thinks of committing suicide using drugs, they are unlikely to resort to a firearm as an option.”
and http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Specials/Gun_debate/Background/Archives/High_gun_suicide_rate_linked_to_easy_access.html?cid=982416
High gun suicide rate linked to easy access
There are an estimated two million firearms in circulation in Switzerland
There are an estimated two million firearms in circulation in Switzerland (Keystone)
Related Stories
NGOs demand tougher laws on weapons
Why is Switzerland prone to family killings?
Government seeks to tighten gun laws
Tighter gun laws would lead to fewer suicides involving firearms in Switzerland, according to a study by Zurich University researchers.
Every day, one person kills himself or herself with a gun, more often than not a military weapon - a fact the authors say is directly connected to lax Swiss firearms legislation.
According to the study, published in the current edition of the American Journal of Public Health, Switzerland and the United States have the highest rates in the world of suicide involving guns.
Suicides are also five times more common than the total number of deaths related to car accidents, drug abuse and Aids.
The authors claim the easy availability of weapons – there are an estimated two million firearms in circulation in Switzerland – increases the risk of impulse suicides and murder since suicides result mainly from decisions taken in the heat of the moment.(my emphasis added)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but not the suicide rate. If you ban guns, then yeah the suicide by gun will drop, but that does not mean the suicide rate will drop. None of these say the suicide rate will drop
They are saying people fewer people will shoot themselves
They are not saying fewer people will kill themselves
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)There are two major pieces of research that show that to be true.
One was in the UK relating to coal gas, and showed a decline in gun deaths that also reduced total suicides.
The other had to do with jumping, where a bridge was jump-proofed that had a high rate of suicides. A similar bridge, very close by that had a couple of suicides a year (still a high rate compared to most bridges) was expected to go up through substitution - the expectation that someone who couldn't use their first choice would substitute an alternate choice, either of the same method or similar.
The reality was that not only did suicides on that bridge go down to zero after jump-proofing it, the numbers did NOT go up on the very nearby bridge either, for a net drop in suicides.
I suggest you read further, because the research material on this indicates that possession of guns is itself an initiating cause of impulsive suicides (in conjunction with other factors) AND that strict gun control reduces those suicides, murder suicides. They say PRECISELY that fewer people will kill themselves (and be killed). I suggest you do broader reading, and take another look at the references I posted which were particularly clear on that point.
BOTH fewer people will shoot themselves AND fewer people will kill themselves. Contrary to what you'd like to believe, people DO NOT usually try a substitute method. It is one of the best documented findings in the research on suicides.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)When Canada passed the 1977 law, fewer people shot themselves, but there was an increase of hangings that made up the void. It was a zero sum. In Australia, the suicide rate did not go down either. The crime rate continued to drop at the same trajectory that it had been before their latest law was passed.
Dog Gone at Penigma
(433 posts)The facts are:
guns being available leads to more guns used in suicides (and murder / suicides)
guns NOT being readily available leads to a decline in suicides (and murder / suicides), because contrary to the arguments
propounded here, statistically it has clearly been established through lots and lots and lots of research that people do not simply replace one method with another; more often they don't commit suicide if they cannot use their method of choice or something very similar (ie will change one kind of gun for another, but not switch to poison instead)
and unlike other patterns of suicide, which have longer, slower, more planned preparation, gun suicides are commonly highly impulsive.
So you can whine about other methods; there is extensive research. in the US and world wide, that it is not true. You can be ignorant or you can read that those same studies show that impulsivity is closely linked to some but not other methods of suicide. There is even evidence that having a gun may contribute frequently to people resorting to suicide, in other words, having a gun contributes to the frequency of committing suicide, and not having a gun reduces people committing suicide.
Bob Costas was right, Ted Nugent was factually inaccurate, and many of the gungeon assumptions are factually inaccurate.