US military brass have been spending a lot of time and money looking at how best to reduce the suicide rate among US troops, which has skyrocketed in recent years. They have concluded that it's false to assume that people intent on killing themselves will find a way to do it even if they can't get a gun.
In a report to Congress in July, the Military Suicide Research Consortium noted that "Studies demonstrate that method substitution is rare." That's why simple things that can delay access to a gun, like mandatory background checks for all handgun purchases—including private sales—like those that would be required by a new bill recently passed by a Senate committee, can make a big difference in preventing suicide. States with such a requirement have a gun suicide rate 50 percent lower than states that don't, even when their non-gun suicide rates are about the same.
One reason this holds true is that, research shows, suicide is often an impulsive act, and one that people haven't given much thought. That's especially true in gun suicides, where the majority of victims don't have a documented serious mental illness. If some in a crisis simply can't access a gun quickly, they may not try suicide at all, or they may try a less-lethal means that offers more chance that they'll be saved. And most people who survive a suicide attempt don't go on to take their own lives at a later time.
No wonder they say that facts have a liberal bias.
"No wonder they say that facts have a liberal bias."
ReplyDeleteThat premise is based solely on one's partisan bias. I think background checks are a good idea, and I have no problem with a reasonable waiting period.
But liberals have also found their gun-related talking points lampooned for their lack of factual basis and common logic. I don't view the Bill of Rights through an ideological lens, but unfortunately, many do.
Please elaborate, because as a liberal, all I want is background checks and a reasonable waiting period. That's what most of us want and that's what's illustrated in Gryphen's post.
DeleteThat may be all you want, and I am heartened by it.....but I'm not sure you would want to speak for most. There is quite the reactionary movement afoot, filled with people who demonstrate no knowledge of firearms, and those who disregard facts in pursuit of political purposes. No different than what the right wing does, just on different issues.
DeleteTake the statements of Feinstein, Nadler, Biden and others in the public eye, not to mention blog commentators and the like, and we have a sizable demographic that allows emotion to rule decision making in the aftermath of a tragedy.....attempting to craft legislation from a position of ignorance and/or perfidy that they would not allow, were it another Constitutional right.
You do exactly what you accuse me of doing...lumping "most" liberals together.
DeleteIt's not my intention, so I apologize....it's sometimes not easy to parse demographics without getting overly pedantic.
DeleteI think it's fair to say, that with evidence available in the public eye, your position is not the majority for your ideological leanings.
Your problem, and it is a problem, is that you misread the 2nd Amendment by ignoring it's stated teleology and context."A well-regulated militia" in a time of no standing army- and hostile states had same.
DeleteWe also do have limits on the other Amendments, - like the 1st - no yelling fire in a crowded theater,no libel or slander and now RTW in many states.
So your analogy is a false one. Logic FAIL. And that IS the default position of most of you fellow idealogues.
I'm glad you mention logic fail, as you seem quite familiar with the concept.
DeleteIf you need a primer on the thoughts of the Founders, as it regarded ownership of firearms for personal defense, please let me know.
I have quite clearly not advocated for unrestricted exercise of the 2nd Amendment, so a projected presumption that I had, is false. And yet the 2nd Amendment already has restrictions, and as such, is at least presently equal in your example. But wait, there's more fail in your remarks.
Restrictions on the 1st Amendment deal with direct, tangible harm towards the person or livelihood of a fellow citizen; a consequence of actions committed. The 2nd Amendment is already regulated far beyond that, to mitigate possible misuse of the implement guaranteed by that Constitutional right. Do you support such prophylactic measures regarding your right to free speech? Do you advocate for each state being allowed to regulate and restrict the 1st Amendment of the federal Constitution, as they deem fit? Are you in favor of free speech zones?
The analogy I did provide, which may have been lost on you, is that I would not expect fierce advocates of the 1st Amendment [of which I am one] to support or willfully rely on ignorance and rhetorical inventions crafted to further restrict your exercise of the 1st Amendment; to the point where the gun control lobby and much of the media has turned far afield from fact and constructed a false tautology.
So, you've misinterpreted the analogy I provided; projected the presumption you would wish me to labor under; and falsely simplify one of our Constitutional Amendments [not to mention presuming who my fellow ideologues may or may not be, since I neither agree with the NRA on the issue above, nor am a member]
A multifaceted logic fail.
To all those who have struggled with a dark night of despair:
ReplyDeleteWait. Wait until morning. Just wait.
A brilliant artist killed herself a few weeks ago in February.
She had everything--including a gun.
She left behind two daughters and hundreds of fans and collectors stunned and confused.
Advocate for background checks.
Waiting could make all the difference.
anon @ 3:53:
ReplyDeleteYour post illuminates why a waiting period can be so very beneficial to someone (so many?) facing a crisis which seems to offer no way out on a dark night of despair, and yet may seem much more manageable after sunrise.
It makes absolute sense. How many times have we read articles about people acting on impulse using a gun? This should be something both sides of the gun debate SHOULD be able to find common ground on. A background check/waiting period is the least we can do. If it saves one life it's worth the wait.
ReplyDeleteSure... After all the civil liberties of 300 million american's are worth one life. All the lives lost and all the fights fought for those civil liberties to exist and be secured and its all worth one life.
Deletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/corner/337324/if-it-saves-one-life-charles-c-w-cooke
I feel that government legislation eliminating materials from circulation because those materials are the first thing that pops in people's minds when they want to kill themselves is ridiculous. Toilet bowl cleaner and fungicide makes a much better means of killing yourself. But is the government intent on regulating their possession and use? No. What we will do is argue about it and post an article based on some chart that came from... you guessed it - anti gunners (MAIG - Mayors agains't illegal guns, and CDC (which is now on government payroll to find studies against gun violence (not violence but "gun" violence).
ReplyDeleteThis was funny: "No wonder they say that facts have a liberal bias."
Facts have a liberal bias when they come from liberals and groups with their own anti-gun agenda (such as MAIG).
True statistics and your MAIG chart or not, if a background check and waiting period were somehow theoretically able to be enforced would an impulse suicider look for a gun? No - Because he wouldn't be able to get one in a hurry. They will then go for some other means. The chart above looks at guns only. It appears impulse suicides go for the gun and if the gun isn't available they will likely go for something else. Look at Japan, they have very high suicide rates and guns are not used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan#Methods_of_committing_suicide
Maybe guns are not causing these suicides and if removed from circulation, guns may likely not even reduce the suicides.