The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Farm Boy]

Losing different people isn't the same, no. If I had to sum up my theory of that, it revolves around how much of yourself you have put outside yourself and into that person. How much of the internal you is your interactions with that person. And yes, I'd guess most people have less of themselves invested in their elders than, especially, their kids. The kids actually hold your dreams for the future, the parts of you that you see as bigger and longer lasting than you. So losing that and being left with just... you. "Hollow" and "empty" seem to be words that bounce around, like a tree set to collapse under its own weight. If I quote the friend of a co-worker who lost a husband, then a child, it would paraphrase: When I lost my husband I lost myself. When I lost my son I lost everything.

Well, there are two things at work there: First, a state of mind or pattern of behavior has to be harmful ("maladaptive") to be diagnosable as a disorder. Second, a person needs to be diagnosed by a professional for us to say they have a disorder (and I think it has to be in a clinical setting - mental health professionals aren't supposed to diagnose someone from a distance). We can't declare that anyone who's lost a loved one has a disorder as a result. Being sad isn't a disorder. I was thinking that probably 100% of the people in the study group are sad, but then it occurred to me that some of the people diagnosed with a disorder might not be sad. Not being sad after losing a loved one is probably a symptom of something. "Lack of affect" is a symptom of depression, for example.

So if we translate that to who is diagnosed/disordered, and who is "not disordered," we kinda sorta back to who is trundling along just fine for everyone else and being useful enough.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Losing different people isn't the same, no. If I had to sum up my theory of that, it revolves around how much of yourself you have put outside yourself and into that person. How much of the internal you is your interactions with that person. And yes, I'd guess most people have less of themselves invested in their elders than, especially, their kids. The kids actually hold your dreams for the future, the parts of you that you see as bigger and longer lasting than you. So losing that and being left with just... you. "Hollow" and "empty" seem to be words that bounce around, like a tree set to collapse under its own weight. If I quote the friend of a co-worker who lost a husband, then a child, it would paraphrase: When I lost my husband I lost myself. When I lost my son I lost everything.

As someone who doesn't have any children, that sounds plausible to me. I'm not going to ask any of the parents here to ponder something so terrible just for my edification, though; I can go read a book, if I really want to know.

So if we translate that to who is diagnosed/disordered, and who is "not disordered," we kinda sorta back to who is trundling along just fine for everyone else and being useful enough.

Indirectly. What it means is that people with a medical problem who haven't sought medical help can't be counted as having a medical problem. In this particular study, they're probably only measuring those who told them they'd been examined, diagnosed and/or treated. It seems weird that someone would agree to participate in a study and then lie, but you never know. More likely, someone could have a condition that hasn't been diagnosed because they haven't felt the need to get examined. I've never been diagnosed with the flu, but I've had my share of bad colds over the years. Is it possible I've never had the flu? Sure. But I can't know that, because I don't go to the doctor when I have a cold. I would need to be so sick that it was worrying before I went to a doctor to find out if I had the flu. So, yes, the study group could include any number of people who are "trundling along just fine" but aren't, in fact, fine.

 

[Farm Boy]

if I really want to know.

Having something to blame is at least having something to blame.

If we're counting things that barely matter, I guess.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Having something to blame is at least having something to blame.

If we're counting things that barely matter, I guess.

The feeling of a loved one dying does have notes of feeling like you've been robbed by someone above-the-law, there's nothing you can do about it and you're absolutely not getting back what was taken. But like you say, its different when you have no actual "robber" to blame besides god. I can't say for certain which is "worse", just that they are different. In the first place, like you referenced earlier, how you feel about a loved one's death is inextricably intertwined with all the interactions and nuances and relationships you shared with that particular person. Losing a relative you only saw at Thanksgiving may not feel the same as losing a classmate that you ate lunch with everyday.

But the second part is that having someone, or even something meaningful, tangible to blame can change how you feel about it. Having some sense of "why" is involved there I think... but again, I can't really define it as worse or better... just bad, in a somewhat different way.

About the guns... a couple critical differences can be the relative unexpectedness of it, as well as the deliberate nature of it. This was a loss that was inflicted unexpectedly, and in many cases on purpose... as opposed to the relative who was very sick or elderly who everyone knew was leaving soon. Even the unexpected car crash, is something that everyone knows was an accident.

They all feel potentially very different. But as you say... on some level, it barely matters.

 

[choxorn]

Indeed. The study found a 250-500% increase in psychiatric disorders among parents who lose a child to gun violence (and a 30% increase even among parents whose children survived being shot). I'm still unable to read the full study, but I'm curious why that range is so big. I'm wondering if the effect of gun violence on survivors' emotional and psychological health is so severe that it was actually beyond the study's ability to measure with confidence, like the radiation dosimeter that only goes up to 30 Roentgen when the reactor explodes. Until other studies are done, we can't take this one as definitive, and it's totally possible that this paper underestimates the effects of violence.

Personally I'd be surprised if any significant number of people weren't developing psychiatric disorders after their kid gets shot to death, that's the kind of thing that will fudge up any normal person.

 

[Broken_Erika]

US appeals court revives Mexico's $10bn lawsuit against gunmakers​

A US appeals court has ruled that a $10bn lawsuit filed by Mexico against US gun manufacturers can go ahead, reviving a long-running legal battle.

Mexico's government argues that the "flood" of illegal guns across the border is a result of "deliberate" business practices by the US gunmakers.

A lower court had dismissed the case in late 2022, prompting an appeal from the Mexican government.

The gun industry's trade association has denied any wrongdoing.

Among the companies named in the lawsuit are Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta, Barrett, Sturm and Ruger.

Mexican authorities allege that tens of thousands of US-manufactured guns are trafficked south across the border each year, providing drug cartels with easy access to massive arsenals used to fight each other and the Mexican government. Some estimates put the total at over half a million weapons each year.

More than 30,000 people were murdered last year in Mexico, which has extremely restrictive gun laws. The country is home to only one gun shop, housed in a Mexico City military complex.

The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2021 in a federal courthouse in Massachusetts - where several of the companies are based - argued that the manufacturers knew that guns were being sold to traffickers fuelling violence in the country.

But in 2022 a US federal judge dismissed the case on the grounds that the gun manufacturers were protected by a 2005 law known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The law, also known as the PLCAA, shields gunmakers from damages "resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse" of their products.

• Mexico's fight to sue US gun manufacturers for $10bn
• US and Mexico target migrant smugglers at border

Mexico's government swiftly appealed, arguing that the law only applies to injuries that take place in the US and does not protect the defendants - which include seven manufacturers and one distributor - from liability.

On Monday, a US appeals court ruled that the Mexican lawsuit "plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt" from the PCLAA, which only covers lawful gun sales.

Mexican and gun control advocates in the US quickly claimed the ruling as a victory, with Mexican Foreign Minister Alicia Bárcena calling it "great news" on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.

In a statement, Jon Lowy, the president of Global Action on Gun Violence - who serves as Mexico's co-counsel on the case - said that the ruling is a "huge step forward in holding the gun industry accountable for its contribution to gun violence, and in stopping the flood of trafficked guns to the cartels."

"Not only did the Court recognize the right of another country to sue U.S. gun companies, it also pierced the unfair legal shield that gun companies have been hiding behind since 2005," he added.

Larry Keane, the senior vice-president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents the US firearms industry, defended the manufacturers.

"Mexico should spend its time enforcing its own laws [and] bring Mexican criminals to justice in Mexican courtrooms, instead of scapegoating the firearm industry for their unwillingness to protect Mexican citizens," he wrote on X.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68071549

Next up SCOTUS

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

yeah but who sold the guns to the traffickers?
story just says that the companies "knew" that it happened.