wrong, no one can say with 100% certainty that he would not have done it later.
i have zero sympathy for suicide. i r43efuse to go to funerals for people ihave known that have done this.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a large portion of suicides are spur of the moment decisions.
Old story but one I was aware of through a friend:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/15/sports/pro-football-a-friend-dies-and-oiler-kills-himself.html
Easy access to a gun at the wrong time enabled his suicide. Five more minutes and help would have been there and he most likely would never have tried suicide again.
- NFL football player was out driving with a friend after a party.
- They crash and his friend is thrown from the car and killed
- The player retrieves a shot gun from the legal gun rack in his car and blows his own head off after seeing his dead friend
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a large portion of suicides are spur of the moment decisions.
Old story but one I was aware of through a friend:
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/15/sports/pro-football-a-friend-dies-and-oiler-kills-himself.html
Easy access to a gun at the wrong time enabled his suicide. Five more minutes and help would have been there and he most likely would never have tried suicide again.
- NFL football player was out driving with a friend after a party.
- They crash and his friend is thrown from the car and killed
- The player retrieves a shot gun from the legal gun rack in his car and blows his own head off after seeing his dead friend
You blame the gun in this situation, really?
I'm not looking to blame anything. I was giving an example where it was highly unlikely that this suicidal person would have continued to look for a means to commit suicide if an easy method hadn't been right in reach.
The gun was the last link in the error chain that led to his death. Are you familiar with the concept? We use them all the time to learn from accidents and potential accidents at work to prevent bad outcomes in the first place. My job currently deals with risk assessments and hazard analysis.
The chain started with likely getting drunk, then deciding to drive and his friend not bothering to wear a seat belt. Finally easy access to a firearm while drunk, suicidal and in despair.
Cut any one of those links and he'd still be alive.
Other states don't allow that. In those states the chain would have been broken since he was a responsible gun owner who followed the law.
- Tried banning alcohol and it doesn't work
- Drinking and driving is illegal and public educational campaigns try to lower the incidence
- Driving without a seat belt has been made illegal
- Gun racks with shotguns are legal in Texas
In this situation his firearm did not keep him safe. It was in fact the last link that killed him.
again, you cannot say with 100% certainty e would not have done it at a later time
That's what you want to hang your hat on?
By your logic you cannot say with 100% certainty if you own a gun you wouldn't:
Of course if you never have a gun the chance is 0%
- Accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one with your gun
- On purpose shoot yourself or loved one with your gun
- Accidently allow a family member access to your gun and they shoot youor a loved one.
(Also in this specific case I'll go with 99% sure it was a one time deal)
These guys far too emotionally invested to discuss anything from a rational position. SlowSpyder has been talking about smoking for weeks now despite being rebutted numerous times. He still won't read the 450 page Surgeon General's report I linked him from the CDC detailing all current and historical anti tobacco efforts and continues to purport that no one cares about tobacco.That's what you want to hang your hat on?
By your logic you cannot say with 100% certainty if you own a gun you wouldn't:
Of course if you never have a gun the chance is 0%
- Accidentally shoot yourself or a loved one with your gun
- On purpose shoot yourself or loved one with your gun
- Accidently allow a family member access to your gun and they shoot youor a loved one.
(Also in this specific case I'll go with 99% sure it was a one time deal)
I'm not looking to blame anything. I was giving an example where it was highly unlikely that this suicidal person would have continued to look for a means to commit suicide if an easy method hadn't been right in reach.
The gun was the last link in the error chain that led to his death. Are you familiar with the concept? We use them all the time to learn from accidents and potential accidents at work to prevent bad outcomes in the first place. My job currently deals with risk assessments and hazard analysis.
The chain started with likely getting drunk, then deciding to drive and his friend not bothering to wear a seat belt. Finally easy access to a firearm while drunk, suicidal and in despair.
Cut any one of those links and he'd still be alive.
Other states don't allow that. In those states the chain would have been broken since he was a responsible gun owner who followed the law.
- Tried banning alcohol and it doesn't work
- Drinking and driving is illegal and public educational campaigns try to lower the incidence
- Driving without a seat belt has been made illegal
- Gun racks with shotguns are legal in Texas
In this situation his firearm did not keep him safe. It was in fact the last link that killed him.
Well, yes and no, suicides have absolutely no bearing on certain gun control legislation, which I think everybody can agree on.
Automatic firearms, suppressors, magazine limits, trigger modifications, limit to the number of guns you can own, ammo restrictions, microstamping... the list goes on. None of those are designed to stop suicide. Very little of the conversation around gun control has anything to do with suicides, except for the numbers themselves.
Your second statement is worthless rhetoric. "I can say if I don't have xxx then I don't have xxx when I need it." Well, obviously, but that's a pointless statement built on assumptions that you don't explain at all.you cant say with certainty anything will happen, usually
i can say if i dont own a gun i would never be able to defend my home if it was ever needed.
i would rather own something and never need it than need it and not own it
As discussed earlier. There really aren't any "common sense" gun control laws that prevent this sort of thing.
As discussed earlier. There really aren't any "common sense" gun control laws that prevent this sort of thing.
This is what I said earlier in the thread:
A waiting period of a few days on the purchase of a new firearm might. It wouldn't work if the individual in question already owned a gun when he decided to commit suicide, but if he didn't own one and went to purchase one for the purpose of suicide, it might.
NopeAm I the only one who notice OP said "Last Vegas"?
you cant say with certainty anything will happen, usually
i can say if i dont own a gun i would never be able to defend my home if it was ever needed.
i would rather own something and never need it than need it and not own it
These guys far too emotionally invested to discuss anything from a rational position. SlowSpyder has been talking about smoking for weeks now despite being rebutted numerous times. He still won't read the 450 page Surgeon General's report I linked him from the CDC detailing all current and historical anti tobacco efforts and continues to purport that no one cares about tobacco.
The sad part is that they literally do not understand why what they're saying is highly irrational. I tried asking SlowSpyder very simple yes or no questions or to expand on some basic points he was making at some point in one of these threads and he simply ignored it. Shrug, maybe he put me on ignore.
waiting periods are very common, i have no issue with them, within reason.
current gun owner - minimal if any waiting period
non gun owner - max 7 days
ccw owner - no waiting period
maybe some other additions such as
if your state requires a class/application before you buy a gun, you have already waited, and most likley had a background check. is another needed so soon?
My state did away with waiting periods. Its been a nonissue. I don't care that much if there is a reasonable one, but I'm not sure it achieves that much... more feel good do nothing nonsense.
Waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%. Our results imply that the 17 states (including the District of Columbia) with waiting periods avoid roughly 750 gun homicides per year as a result of this policy. Expanding the waiting period policy to all other US states would prevent an additional 910 gun homicides per year without imposing any restrictions on who can own a gun.
This is why everyone thinks you're arguing emotionally instead of logically.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114
Now that you can see it is ilkely not 'feel good do nothing nonsense' I'm sure you will change your opinion accordingly. (haha, I'm just kidding. Of course you won't)
that is what they want to prove. the goal is to outlaw guns, confiscate. ect
Even though owning that something makes you and your family less safe?
This is why everyone thinks you're arguing emotionally instead of logically.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/10/11/1619896114
Now that you can see it is ilkely not 'feel good do nothing nonsense' I'm sure you will change your opinion accordingly. (haha, I'm just kidding. Of course you won't)