herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Apr 19, 2024 18:26:10 GMT -5
Not without a license you can't. It's virtually impossible to get a license without a good reason and it still takes weeks.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Apr 19, 2024 18:28:33 GMT -5
But people didn't do that. Even small, seemingly inconsequential hurdles can have a strong impact on reducing suicides. Any delay will give people the opportunity to talk themselves out of it. Even storing a gun and ammo in different locked safes in different rooms (the minimum standard for safe gun storage) might be enough.
For example, I was reading about someone the other day who stored his gun stripped down and hidden across the house, because when he was feeling suicidal it took him too long to find all the bits to still want to use it.
|
|
herzlos
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 700
|
Post by herzlos on Apr 19, 2024 18:40:05 GMT -5
I agree, way too many gun owners are reckless with their gun storage and do things like keeping a "truck gun" accessible to any thief who happens to walk by. But we were talking about suicide prevention here, not theft prevention, and I doubt many suicidal people are going around breaking into houses and vehicles looking for a gun.
Not suicide related, but I definitely think the reckless/careless/incompetent gun owners are a big problem that it seems impossible to solve without upsetting the 2A absolutionists. Whilst in theory having regulation about training and storage will only benefit responsible gun owners it'd be seen as an unacceptable barrier to the 2A rights of everyone else. I'd really like to see a system where the responsible gun owners can continue to own guns responsible, but the dangerous ones can't. That'd invariably involve licensing and testing. I don't even mean something as strict as the UK where you need a valid reason, just proving competency would be a huge leap forward.
Suicidal people almost certainly aren't going to go looking for a gun speculatively, but if they know someone keeps an unlocked gun in a truck that's probably also unlocked, it's an easy option. Ditto with kids trying to show off, or settle an argument or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 19, 2024 19:20:41 GMT -5
Not suicide related, but I definitely think the reckless/careless/incompetent gun owners are a big problem that it seems impossible to solve without upsetting the 2A absolutionists. Whilst in theory having regulation about training and storage will only benefit responsible gun owners it'd be seen as an unacceptable barrier to the 2A rights of everyone else. The problem here is that you're mixing two different meanings of "safe storage laws". Safe storage laws for preventing unauthorized access are fine and all but the most extremist of the pro-gun side would agree. If you aren't using your guns (including self defense preparation while you are present) they should be locked up in a way that is inaccessible, especially if kids are around. The morons who keep a "truck gun" in their vehicle at all times should absolutely be charged and convicted when someone inevitably steals that gun, there's no excuse for that kind of stupidity. But that kind of law has very little to do with suicide, the legitimate owner is presumed to have access to their property.
Safe storage laws for preventing authorized access like banning loaded guns outside of a range even when the owner is present can in theory prevent some suicides by introducing a sufficient barrier that the suicidal person can overcome the impulse before it's too late but only at the cost of a de facto ban on using guns for self defense. If a gun must be stored in a way that a suicidal owner of that gun has a non-trivial delay in accessing it then there is no way the owner is going to be able to access that gun fast enough when their murderous ex kicks down the door at 3am.
And obviously none of this has anything to do with voluntary suicide prevention measures. I am all in favor of gun owners who are concerned about their own suicide risk or someone in their household being suicidal doing things like never keeping ammunition at home, giving keys to a trusted third party, etc. Those are absolutely things people should do, they just shouldn't be mandated by law for everyone.
The inevitable problem with these systems is that they sound good in principle but are abused in practice. The reason many states had concealed carry permits issued only at the discretion of the cops until SCOTUS struck down those laws was not about safety or training, it was so only white people (and often only rich and well-connected white people) could get permits and black people were de facto banned from concealed carry. And because it was never written anywhere that a black person couldn't own a gun there was no law to challenge, only a convenient coincidence that none of their applications were ever successful. The black person fails the training exam over the slightest error, the white person with friends in high places is given unlimited chances to correct their errors while being coached by the examiner until they get it right. And of course none of this does anything to prevent suicide or crime. A competency exam can possibly prevent some of the accidental or negligent deaths and injuries but a suicidal person or criminal can be perfectly competent with a gun and pass the test with no issues. For example, suicide is a major problem for military veterans but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of them would have no problems passing a civilian competency test. But this directly contradicts what you said in your previous post about the benefits of even small delays. If there are non-trivial numbers of suicidal people willing and able to overcome the barrier of having to steal a gun from someone's truck then how can we reasonably expect a much smaller barrier like having to unlock the safe holding the gun you already own to be a meaningful obstacle? Not without a license you can't. It's virtually impossible to get a license without a good reason and it still takes weeks. A shotgun license does not require the same "good reason" standard as other firearms.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 19, 2024 19:26:30 GMT -5
Here in the UK, limiting the amount of painkillers that can be bought in a single transaction resulted in a real, measurable drop in successful suicide attempts using painkillers overdoses. But how many of the people who didn't overdose with those particular drugs simply substituted another method of suicide? The papers I found with a quick search do not even attempt to answer that question and that's the most essential question when looking at suicide prevention strategies. If someone chooses to jump in front of a train instead of eating a bottle of pills no life has been saved and arguably the more traumatic method of suicide has resulted in a worse outcome for society as a whole.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Apr 19, 2024 19:36:05 GMT -5
The whole idea of it might cause a delay if a 'murderous ex' breaks down your door...Well, unless you walk around carrying your gun with you at all times, you'll have a delay anyways. So it 'won't make a enough of a difference to be significant' if you have to store the gun safely anyways...
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 19, 2024 20:03:49 GMT -5
The whole idea of it might cause a delay if a 'murderous ex' breaks down your door...Well, unless you walk around carrying your gun with you at all times, you'll have a delay anyways. So it 'won't make a enough of a difference to be significant' if you have to store the gun safely anyways... That's what concealed carry permits are for. Many people in situations like that do in fact carry a gun at all times when they're out of the house and have a loaded gun accessible within seconds whenever they're home.
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 19, 2024 20:05:53 GMT -5
The whole idea of it might cause a delay if a 'murderous ex' breaks down your door...Well, unless you walk around carrying your gun with you at all times, you'll have a delay anyways. So it 'won't make a enough of a difference to be significant' if you have to store the gun safely anyways... This couldn't be further from the truth. Having an assembled, loaded gun that is safely locked in a quick access safe is going to be incredibly quicker to get into action than a disassembled, unloaded gun, locked in a safe, with ammunition in another safe, in another room. It's only not enough of a difference to be significant if you consider a 5 to 10 second delay (and that's on the high end - many you can probably access in under 5 seconds) in which you have to open one safe, equivalent to a potentially multiple minute delay that requires you to open multiple safes and potentially traverse multiple rooms, all while under extreme stress.
|
|
skyth
OT Cowboy
Posts: 344
|
Post by skyth on Apr 19, 2024 20:18:57 GMT -5
A little hypocritical there...
|
|
|
Post by Hordini on Apr 19, 2024 20:22:05 GMT -5
A little hypocritical there... Well, I'm certainly curious. How so?
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Apr 20, 2024 0:01:27 GMT -5
The whole idea of it might cause a delay if a 'murderous ex' breaks down your door...Well, unless you walk around carrying your gun with you at all times, you'll have a delay anyways. So it 'won't make a enough of a difference to be significant' if you have to store the gun safely anyways... If a murderous ex or anyone really wants to kill you, not as a random crime but murder of you specifically, having a gun isn’t guaranteed to save you. They can follow you, get to know your pattern, plug you as you leave the grocery store, set fire to your work and shoot you as you evacuated. There are countless ways to get the drop on someone and a gun is only a good defense against threats you see coming. And God help you if they are willing to sell their own life to end yours. Guns give people an inflated sense of confidence in their ability to defend themselves.
|
|
Haighus
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 902
|
Post by Haighus on Apr 20, 2024 2:40:24 GMT -5
Here in the UK, limiting the amount of painkillers that can be bought in a single transaction resulted in a real, measurable drop in successful suicide attempts using painkillers overdoses. But how many of the people who didn't overdose with those particular drugs simply substituted another method of suicide? The papers I found with a quick search do not even attempt to answer that question and that's the most essential question when looking at suicide prevention strategies. If someone chooses to jump in front of a train instead of eating a bottle of pills no life has been saved and arguably the more traumatic method of suicide has resulted in a worse outcome for society as a whole. It is very difficult to study as a lot of suicide attempts never present to healthcare and only about a quarter of people attempting suicide are known to psychiatric services. However, there are some studies. This Swedish one, for example, shows that most people repeat the same method and that violent methods of suicide at first attempt predict a much higher likelihood of eventual success (including firearms): www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c3222We also know that firearms are one of the most successful methods of committing suicide, so any attempt is more likely to result in death: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34953923/Now, I doubt anyone will switch to jumping in front of trains in large numbers (it isn't a very popular method) but strangulation/hanging would be more likely IMO. This is the most common successful method in a lot of countries with low firearms access. Would this happen in the same numbers? I don't have a study for that. The US does seem to have very high rates of violent suicide in general though, this could be another case where the US is simply a remarkably violent country.
|
|
|
Post by redchimera on Apr 20, 2024 3:16:48 GMT -5
A little hypocritical there... Well, I'm certainly curious. How so? I would say that Peregrine's key positions of 1. Pre-existing restrictions only affect a sub-set of the community due to biased implementation, so we should have NO restrictions (instead of say, tighter and/or better regulated restrictions). And 2. Law enforcement institutions has a low 'crime solving' success rate, so therefore we should have NO law enforcement (instead of improved law enforcement) are not only 'poorly thought out', but not thought out at all. It seems like we are in the realm of SilverBackWookie shitfuckery here, where anything that supports an ideology is treated with reverence (from batshit crazy ideas, to 'Constitutional Originalism') and anything that runs against that is arbitrarily dismissed. At least he hasn't said "cope harder" yet.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 20, 2024 3:36:49 GMT -5
It is very difficult to study Unfortunately it really is because of how complex the factors involved are. If, say, gun suicides drop after new laws are passed and the overall suicide rate also drops was it because the laws were effective and people who were blocked from using a gun did not choose alternative methods or was it because the economy improved and fewer people were suffering from suicidal levels of despair? You'd need apply some kind of correction for external factors and that's a level of analysis I'm certainly not capable of doing. The two studies you linked aren't really addressing the right question. They deal with what happens following an attempt, the more relevant question in the context of gun laws is whether or not the attempt happens at all.
I suspect it's just a coincidence and people in the US use guns for suicide because guns happen to be available once they decide to end their life. The US suicide rate is substantially lower than South Korea's and only slightly higher than Japan's, two countries with virtually zero civilian access to guns.
If a murderous ex or anyone really wants to kill you, not as a random crime but murder of you specifically, having a gun isn’t guaranteed to save you. They can follow you, get to know your pattern, plug you as you leave the grocery store, set fire to your work and shoot you as you evacuated. There are countless ways to get the drop on someone and a gun is only a good defense against threats you see coming. And God help you if they are willing to sell their own life to end yours. Guns give people an inflated sense of confidence in their ability to defend themselves. Of course it's not guaranteed to save you, nothing is. But the victim is far more likely to successfully defend themselves with a gun than by begging their abuser to stop. And I'd bet that the carefully calculated ambush is far less common than the abuser getting into a fit of rage and heading straight to the victim's house.
|
|
|
Post by Peregrine on Apr 20, 2024 3:47:04 GMT -5
I would say that Peregrine's key positions of 1. Pre-existing restrictions only affect a sub-set of the community due to biased implementation, so we should have NO restrictions (instead of say, tighter and/or better regulated restrictions). And 2. Law enforcement institutions has a low 'crime solving' success rate, so therefore we should have NO law enforcement (instead of improved law enforcement) are not only 'poorly thought out', but not thought out at all. It seems like we are in the realm of SilverBackWookie shitfuckery here, where anything that supports an ideology is treated with reverence (from batshit crazy ideas, to 'Constitutional Originalism') and anything that runs against that is arbitrarily dismissed. At least he hasn't said "cope harder" yet.
You would say that and you would be laughably wrong.
Point 1 (which I assume is referring to my comments about racial bias in gun control laws) is not about those laws being ineffective because of bias, it's that those laws were used as a deliberate tool to harm a targeted group. This wasn't an accidental failure to make the best law for issuing concealed weapon permits, it was a deliberate attempt to ensure that black victims would be disarmed and unable to fight back when the white lynch mob arrived to murder them. Do you think we should ignore history and hope that giving that power back to the people who previously abused it will result in anything other than repetition of the exact same abuses?
Point 2 is simply an absurd straw man. The police should not be abolished merely because their success rate is low, the police should be abolished because they cause immense harm to the country and offer next to nothing in return. We don't even have the kind of police state where the cops are ruthless but effective in stopping crime, we have a gang of thugs who rarely help anyone who isn't a member of the ruling class and exist primarily to violently suppress undesirable minorities and keep the prison system well stocked with slave labor. And the idea of improved law enforcement is simply wishful thinking in the US. Cops have far too much power and ability to block reform, the only hope is to abolish the entire system and then talk about what might replace it.
|
|