Another good reason to separate ammo and guns under lock and key

[BaliBabyDoc]

<< That would greatly reduce suicide rates but as long as 3/5 choose firearms for successful attempts it makes sense to advocate practical (and Constitutional) means of limiting access . . . the best being to ask people not to keep and bear arms. >>



So your logic would also dictate that the best way to keep drunk drivers off the road would be to "ask" ALL people not to drive?

Let me address my bias first . . . I'm fascinated (like most males) with guns but my personal philosophy is the only good gun is a water gun. Many more people own and use firearms responsibly than those that do not. People have a limited right to own and bear arms. For people that are impulsive, very young, very old, inexperienced, or in a violent relationship . . . owning a firearm is NOT a particularly good idea.

Analogy . . . look it up. Logic . . . look it up. Erroneous . . . your post. The best way to keep drunk drivers off the road would be alert bartenders, real friends, and a substance counselor. I wouldn't be opposed to breath analyzers linked to ignitions but I would leave that as an individual decision. I also support vigorous enforcement of current laws . . . alcohol consumption and DUI. But the most effective means of controlling drunk drivers would be asking ALL drunk people not to drive and providing assistance for people who can't control themselves but are willing to try. The criminal justice system will deal with the rest.

 

[NetworkDad]

People can move to Oregon if they want to knock themselves out legally. So far, Ashcroft has been unable to stop Oregon's Suicide law, although it's heading to the supreme court.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Perhaps suicidal males are much more impulusive than thier famale counterparts thus choosing guns which are readily available and quickly employed rather than potassium chloride, prescription drugs or illicit drugs which take time and mg/kg calculations to be effective? Like males quick improvisional *thinking?* rather than carefull planning which females are noted for. Same goes for suicide.

You raise some interesting points. By this particular article males are twice as impulsive with regards to attempt and are more likely to use violent means than women. But women who are impulsive are also more likely to use violent means. Psychiatry (and society) operates on the principle that if you want to kill yourself there's something wrong upstairs. Which is certainly debatable. But people are not "quick thinking". These people that make impulsive attempts rarely endorse anything resembling deliberation. They use whatever is available. Hence, the reason for my post. If a guy can plan a fantasy baseball team or mods for a ricemobile he could certainly plan a suicide . . .

Russ might be a perfectly competent gun owner. But children are always a black box . . . we are never really sure exactly what's going on in their minds. And much of what they KNOW they arrive at only by experience. As a parent, it is Russ' responsibility to decide if the need for a firearm outweighs the risks. He (and his significant other) are the ONLY people that can make that decision. Population stats only have use as generalizations. I will lean heavily towards not having guns in the home. I ask every parent. I even ask if the neighbors have guns. I provide parents with what I know from a public health perspective but do not make any judgments about the NEED to have firearms . . . that's soley their responsibility. Mine is to a child with POTENTIAL access to firearms . . . which is essentially always a bad idea.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Probably proving how burned out I am on suicidal patients, but we (health care professionals; Dr's, nurses, allied health care workers) talk about a "How To" book or "Suicide for Dummies" when we deal with failed suicide attempts, particularly the folks who have multiple attempts.

Bali, are you med student, resident or fellow?

 

[Zebo]

<< Probably proving how burned out I am on suicidal patients, but we (health care professionals; Dr's, nurses, allied health care workers) talk about a "How To" book or "Suicide for Dummies" when we deal with failed suicide attempts, particularly the folks who have multiple attempts.

Bali, are you med student, resident or fellow? >>



LOL. You know you could publish a web site "suicide for dummies". I think we all know most attemps are just that, and all they want is some help and attention.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Probably proving how burned out I am on suicidal patients, but we (health care professionals; Dr's, nurses, allied health care workers) talk about a "How To" book or "Suicide for Dummies" when we deal with failed suicide attempts, particularly the folks who have multiple attempts.

Most people don't realize how often people fail to kill themselves. But repeaters are clear management failures.

I'm a student but here we get to do everything except ECT . . . that seems easy enough. Admittedly, I am curious about what happens when you jack the voltage and omit the muscle blockers . . ..

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

LOL. You know you could publish a web site "suicide for dummies". I think we all know most attemps are just that, and all they want is some help and attention.

I'm at a academic center so we tend to see the outliers but the overwelming majority of the suicide attempts I've seen were people trying to do themselves in. Regardless, they probably gave clues beforehand that were cries for help and attention. Our society is just better at hearing gunshots and bottles of Tylenol.

 

[glenn1]

<< I provide parents with what I know from a public health perspective but do not make any judgments about the NEED to have firearms . . . that's soley their responsibility. Mine is to a child with POTENTIAL access to firearms . . . which is essentially always a bad idea. >>



If you've arrived at the personal conclusion that you think that firearm ownership among the groups you listed is a bad idea, i don't have a problem with that.

If during your the course of your professional and personal life, you put forth an articulate, well-reasoned, and factual argument to folks supporting such a personal position on firearm ownership, and then allow your charges to reach their own conclusions, i don't have a problem with that.

If, however, you begin to start advocating the MANDATORY removal of firearms from people in your personally determined "risk group," i do have a problem with that.


Unfortunately, not a few of the people who would tend to agree with your point, will also fall into the category of being those who would like to remove the rights of ANY citizen to keep and bear arms. For your own sake, i urge you to be careful of the company you keep. I think your heart is in the right place, but i'd hate to see you (or your well-reasoned statements of opinion) used as a tool in someone else's political agenda.

 

[Polgara]

One thing that does need to be stated again, is that the presence of a firearm does not impact the decision to attempt suicide. It might facilitate it, being a tool it cannot differentiate between good and evil uses of it's capabilities.

Is a gun safe? No. A gun is a weapon.

I cannot describe to you how learning to shoot transformed me. I am no longer at the mercy of wolves. No one can do anything to me, because I have been empowered to resist.

Daddy sent me to a NRA Refuse to be a Victim Seminar. I went thru gun handling and gun safety classes. And he is sending me to something called Gunsite Ranch out west to take a shooting class this summer.

I will not be the victim of random violence.

Sarah <== pistol packin' Southern Belle


EDIT: The Eddie Eagle Gun Safety program works well wherever it's been implemented. It has four tenants for kids:

1. Stop
2. Don't Touch
3. Leave the area
4. Tell an adult

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<That's because you're childless. Whether you agree with guns or not if you have children and a gun in your home irresponsibly placed there is a much higher chance of one of your kids dying from the gun than you stopping any home invasion.>>

Hmmm, in that case 3 generations on both sides of my family have been at risk to a large degree and yet have somehow managed to avoid the temptation of sending a a couple ounces of lead through our skulls. There was one thing and one thing only that I needed to know about my father's gun when I was little; If I played with it, it might kill me, but when dad found out that I had played with it, he would kill me. My parents were very clear on that.

ZV

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Let me be clear if there existed a Constitutionally-consistent method of MANDATORY removal of firearms . . . admittedly I would support it. But since the Constitution is likely to remain unaltered for the near future . . . as long as we can keep the Flag People and Pro-Lifers at bay . . . I will stick with what I know.

1) Most people will make good use of accurate information.

2) Advocacy groups often make poor use of most information (NRA and the pro-gun control/abolitonist movement).

3) The only clear negative to not owning a firearm is not being able to use a firearm (access and training) in the highly unlikely event that you need one. I don't care whose stats you use I'm talking about something nearly impossible to quantify; situations where ONLY a firearm will produce a favorable outcome.

4) The clear negatives for gun ownership: suicide, homicide, accidents, cost.

5) Trust people to make good decisions but take prudent steps to reduce risks.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

One thing that does need to be stated again, is that the presence of a firearm does not impact the decision to attempt suicide. It might facilitate it, being a tool it cannot differentiate between good and evil uses of it's capabilities.


Be clear in your choice of words. No one has shown that having a gun impacts the decision to attempt suicide. It just introduces a violent (and unfortunately succesful) method. If you go for the pill bottle but change your mind, you may be only an EMS and activated charcoal away from living, unscathed from a brush with poor judgment. The point of the research was to address issues pertinent to suicide and impulsivity.

1) 24% in Houston, TX were impulsive acts.
2) Impulsive acts were more likely to be violent.
3) Men are more likely to impulsive and violent than women.
4) Screening has not been adequate in identifying impulsive and/or violent suicide attempt individuals.
5) An adjunct to better identification and treatment will be reducing access to violent means.

US Vital Statistics 1996 CDC
1) 31,000 suicides
2) 18,000 by firearm

You're right a bullet doesn't pick good or evil uses but it can't identify poor uses either. Firearm to protect your life (if actually needed) is a good idea. Firearm to protect your possessions . . . sketchy. A perp looking to take your stuff is no threat he's an annoyance. A perp looking to hurt you or your family is different animal altogether. Why not just put a "Disturb my Rest and Get 6 in the Chest" sticker on your window or sign in the yard? In your home, a good security system, locked doors, a big dog, and nosy neighbors are hard to beat at keeping your home safe and secure. On the street, if you are aware of your surroundings escape or assistance is almost always available.

I cannot describe to you how learning to shoot transformed me. I am no longer at the mercy of wolves. No one can do anything to me, because I have been empowered to resist.

I don't doubt your sincerity but there's a chasm between perceived safety and actual safety. The best way to avoid random wolves is identical to nonrandom ones; avoid the situation. The firearm does not reduce your danger it just introduces a variable that will typically be in your favor.

I will not be the victim of random violence.

Particularly as a woman it is far more likely that you WILL be the victim of NONRANDOM violence. Granted, that risk may decrease when the people you know are aware that you are packing heat.

I hope you never have to use your gun other than shooting pictures and personal belongings of the ex- . . . but not his car that might land you in the pokey for domestic violence.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<A perp looking to take your stuff is no threat he's an annoyance.>>

And if you have a firearm, he's an annoyance that is easily dealt with. Replaceable or not, it's much less hassle to scare the perp away by having a firearm available. I don't know about you, but I really don't care to live in a world where I cannot defend my possessions, I mean, you might as well put up a sign that says "Free Stuff" if I'm not allowed to defend it from anyone who might want to take it. Considering that I plan to live several miles out in the countryside, your neighborhood watch idea doesn't exactly work for me. I intend to put up fair warning around my house, but unannounced visitors at 04:00 are not going to be passively ignored as I hide under my bed waiting for the police. The great fallacy to the handgun control debate is that if we outlaw handguns then they won't be used in crimes. Unfortunately, handguns used in crimes are by majority not legally acquired anyway. Why does a criminal care if his gun is legal or not? Gun control is great for the criminals, it means that no-one is shooting back and that they have more freedom.

ZV

 

[glenn1]

<< No one has shown that having a gun impacts the decision to attempt suicide. It just introduces a violent (and unfortunately succesful) method. >>



And living in a high-rise apartment complex introduces a violent (and unfortunately successful) method, namely, throwing oneself out of a window. So should parents with children in your identified high-risk groups be required to live only in ranch houses?

Sorry doctor, i appreciate you taking the time to present your thoughts, but some are even points well taken, you're just simply wrong when you arrive at the conclusion that you would support a "Constitutionally consistent method of removing guns."

That's okay though, you're a doctor, telling us "guns are bad" is your job. Kinda like it's the Pastor's job to say that sex out of wedlock is wrong under any circumstances. It sounds good, and it's consistent with the POV which fits your role in life, but flunks the common sense test out there in the real world.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

People should not have to cower in fear under their beds. But most random perps will be discouraged by sound and movement within a house . . . assuming that they are looking to take your stuff. Repeat after me . . . security system, locked doors, secure windows, big dog, nosy neighbors. If you live in BFE all you lose is the nosy neighbor. Criminals with guns will not be addressed by gun control directed at law-abiding citizens. But then again manufacturing millions every year doesn't help either.

On the topic at hand, balance improved security versus risk of ownership. Guns clearly improve the security of some people while they clearly increase the risks of harm to others (not including perps). It would be nice to see a good study comparing advertisement of "gun on premises" vs "concealed" and whether it is truly the weapon or the clear prospect of a weapon that improves security.

 

[pandapanda]

The area in which I live: statistically you have a 1:4 chance of being a victim of violent crime in your lifetime. We have the highest rate of 6 or 7 of the 8 index crimes the FBI uses to track crime in metropolitan areas. I don't consider it a remote possibility that some wacko might decide I look like a good person to rape, beat, or kill. And in all likelihood, because I am in a 5 person household, one of us will have some violent crime situation to deal with. I am a responsible gun owner. In about 3 months I hope to be a responsible carrier as well (paperwork, paperwork).

My children have all watched the Eddie Eagle videos, and when the time comes they will go to the local firing range and start the airgun classes there. I refuse to raise my children to be victims. They have no access to weapons. The kids don't know where they are stored, and even if they did a search job sometime (would have to be years off as they are never home alone now) they would be hard pressed to find and access a gun.

Responsibility is the main issue here. Suicide has little to do with the problem...guns are quick and easy if you have one around, but it's just about as easy to run your car into a brick wall. I think knowledge of guns and their power can actually prevent some of the suicides by gun. Once you know the actual power of a gun, I can't imagine willingly turning it on yourself. Once you have seen a gunshot wound, I don't think there are a lot of people who would continue on to shoot themselves. Education is a key. And, I think it is also important to consider if we actually have the right to deny a person the right to end their own life--that's a whole nother topic though.

 

[pandapanda]

Have you not heard of home invasion? These people break into your home BECAUSE you are there. They want your stuff, and they want to scare you sh!tless, and they may beat you just because they can. You can't assume that people are there just for your "stuff". In TN, we don't have the right to shoot someone over property. You have to reasonably know that you (or an innocent third party, say your child) are in immediate danger of serious bodily harm or death before you can shoot someone without being classified as a bad guy. You can't just throw your hands up in the air and say please don't hurt me mr robber guy, because they do NOT CARE.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Bali, I sympathize with your concerns, but do not share them, and suspect after you've been in practice for a while, have a nice house, wife & kids, you'll also own a gun to protect all of the above...

On the suicide note, I know of 3 folks that suicided, all with guns, all would have driven a car into a bridge, OD'd etc to end their lives.

One of the statistics ignored is single car, single occupant fatal crashes... Ruled driver error, etc... No one talks about taking cars out of peoples hands.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And living in a high-rise apartment complex introduces a violent (and unfortunately successful) method, namely, throwing oneself out of a window. So should parents with children in your identified high-risk groups be required to live only in ranch houses?

As I noted before analogy only works if it is comparable. A domicile is a necessity; guns are not. But any reasonable parent will take multiple precautions to prevent the opportunity for a child to fall (or leap) out of a window.

you're just simply wrong when you arrive at the conclusion that you would support a "Constitutionally consistent method of removing guns."

I tried to state clearly that I have a strong bias. I see great potential harm and little potential good (in general for firearms) that couldn't be accomplished by other means; improved law enforcement, secure homes, afterschool/evening programs, better job training, you name it. I'm not claiming my Prohibition (against handguns) has any real support other than my biased view of the research . . . heavily favor risk studies, while discounting benefit studies. Granted, studies like the suicide risk/impulsivity are more sound than more complex work such as Kleck or Lott. One can't dismiss all of their findings (Kleck and Lott).

That's okay though, you're a doctor, telling us "guns are bad" is your job.

Licensed to kill (I mean treat) soon. I never stand in judgment . . . well I try not. My father owned several rifles and shotguns, personally I was fond of the 30-06; in a household of 4 boys not a good idea. I was the good child well aware of the danger and I still played with them . . . when no one was home. Dumb child but not THAT dumb. As Jayson Williams can attest you kill playmates with rifles but handguns are an equal opportunity threat.

It is your decision to keep firearms based on your needs. I focus on risks and the risk from crime is infrequent for most law-abiding gun owners. But intentional personal injury from someone close, yourself, and accidents become far more serious when firearms are available. That tidbit plus questions about how weapons and ammo are stored and of course (do the kids know) is all I say. Many parents that say the kids don't know . . . are out of the loop. Kids know where everything is in the house . . . who does everybody ask when they can't find their keys?!

A doctor, psychologist, or trained counselor telling a patient to quit smoking is one of the most effective interventions for smoking cessation. In the case of a doctor it costs nothing b/c you were there anyway . . . my responsibility is to ask and make you think.

Pandapanda, I have no real qualms with your perspective. But most Americans will never be actually threatened by home invasion or random crime on the street. Now the perception is very different which I attribute largely to our violent media (particularly the news). I bet people felt safer when Clinton was in office b/c they talked about was the Prez's smoking habits . . . oh and Lewinsky's.

suspect after you've been in practice for a while, have a nice house, wife & kids, you'll also own a gun to protect all of the above...

Grew up in a nice house with family and all the adults and neighbors owned rifles and shotguns. We were not safe b/c of firearms we were safe b/c it was a safe place to live. I was a teenager before I ever saw a handgun. I will likely raise my children some place without ready firearms . . . US (Pac Heights, SF), France, Thailand, or UK. The safest homes are in safe communities. We pride individuality in America; which has definitive benefits. But the strength of the collective particularly when it comes to community safety is definitely superior.

 

[mikebb]

<< The best way to keep drunk drivers off the road would be alert bartenders, real friends, and a substance counselor.... >>



Right, just as the way to lower suicide rates is to alert friends, counselors, and loved ones of the troubled, not blame the gun (car in the drunk driving example).



<< I also support vigorous enforcement of current laws . . . >>



Right again, except when it relates to guns, most fail to realize that most gun laws in effect AREN'T enforced. People who see a gun problem just push for new legislation. Enforce the existing laws before you enact new ones.



<< But the most effective means of controlling drunk drivers would be asking ALL drunk people not to drive and providing assistance for people who can't control themselves but are willing to try. The criminal justice system will deal with the rest. >>



ASKING people not to drink and drive? How just telling them that if they do, they'll be punished?

This is the second time you've used the word ASK, the first being:



<< That would greatly reduce suicide rates but as long as 3/5 choose firearms for successful attempts it makes sense to advocate practical (and Constitutional) means of limiting access . . . the best being to ask people not to keep and bear arms >>



Well, here you've got the correct use of ask. The Gov't can ASK me all they want not to keep and bear, but once they TELL me, I've got a problem with it.