The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

So is denying assisted suicide. Or prohibiting the termination of a fatal pregnancy. You can certainly shoehorn purposeless cruelty under pro-life accurately enough.

Given everything known about suicide from a public health standpoint, the point you're trying to make simply isn't correct. Most people who attempt suicide and fail recover from their suicidal crisis and go on to live just fine. What's pointlessly cruel is saying we shouldn't even try to intervene and should just let them die. It also borders on dishonest to conflate assisted suicide of someone who is at the end of their life anyway with a person undergoing a suicidal mental health crisis.
 
From a column in my local paper this morning:

...In 2020 the national suicide rate was 13.96 per 100,000 people, according to the CDC. In New Mexico, the rate was much higher, at 24.18. In Wyoming, it was higher still, at 30.46. In fact, all the Rocky Mountain states have high suicide rates.

The anomaly is so pronounced that an entire body of scientific research explores the link between suicide and high altitude.
A 2022 review of the literature in Public Health Nursing reported that 17 of 19 studies found a positive association between the two variables.

If you’re like me, you’re thinking that alcohol and drugs plus social isolation plus guns plus a lack of mental health care equals a more convincing explanation than oxygen deprivation. But those conditions exist at low altitudes, too. And our common sense runs up against the numbers crunched by those 17 teams of researchers.

One might suppose that suicide and overdose death rates would be correlated. The distinction between the two calamities isn’t always clear, after all, and both are termed deaths of despair. But that’s not what the statistics show. The suicide hot spots of the northern Rocky Mountains have some of the lowest overdose rates, according to the CDC.

Only one state can be found in the top 10 for both: West Virginia, which ranks #1 for overdoses and #10 for suicides. New Mexico is the only other state to come close, at #12 and #4, respectively. Those numbers suggest different factors are at work in the two categories of tragedy....

 
we shouldn't even try to intervene and should just let them die
This is not "take the quick tool."

But, I suppose it is internally consistent with the point that when an individual's agency matters the most, it's our agency, not theirs. Very mandate-religious.
 
From a column in my local paper this morning:



I just google scholar'ed that, there are loads showing this link in the US, and they do not mention anything about outside the US in the abstract, in fact they do not usually acknowledge they are US only. On the first page three from non-us, from Turkey and Argentina that did not find an effect and one from South Korea that does. I think a holistic global study is called for.
 
This is not "take the quick tool."

But, I suppose it is internally consistent with the point that when an individual's agency matters the most, it's our agency, not theirs. Very mandate-religious.

Very based and blackpilled
 
Yes, tragedies all, but inconsequential from a public health perspective. Getting the asbestos out of baby power, the vast difference in carcinogen risk of sunlight over agrochemicals, salted sidewalks to prevent hip fractures, medical access, the constant grinding despair of the socially outcast. All consequential. It's not that high of a bar, but the flashy news stories don't clear it.

Is there any reason we can't address these issues and also address the mass shootings that make for a flashy news story?
 
Yeah yeah, get in line. Do your work. But only if you're on the right team. :lol:
 
Is there any reason we can't address these issues and also address the mass shootings that make for a flashy news story?
Well, the first part would address the second, but it's hard and complex compared to just removing people's fundamental abilities and rights because of media sensation.
 
I just google scholar'ed that, there are loads showing this link in the US, and they do not mention anything about outside the US in the abstract, in fact they do not usually acknowledge they are US only. On the first page three from non-us, from Turkey and Argentina that did not find an effect and one from South Korea that does. I think a holistic global study is called for.
Like many things, there can be interesting and unexpected things underlying how people behave with suicide among them. Guns, in any case, are not a deterrent and likely an enabler.
 
Well, the first part would address the second, but it's hard and complex compared to just removing people's fundamental abilities and rights because of media sensation.

There is no means of addressing the first or second without drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation. The hard and complex part is persuading people to disentangle gun marketing from their sense of identity.
 
I just google scholar'ed that, there are loads showing this link in the US, and they do not mention anything about outside the US in the abstract, in fact they do not usually acknowledge they are US only. On the first page three from non-us, from Turkey and Argentina that did not find an effect and one from South Korea that does. I think a holistic global study is called for.

Good idea. Are you going to look up suicide rates in high altitude countries like Ethiopia, Peru and Tibet etc and give us some graphs ?
 
There is no means of addressing the first or second without drastically reducing the number of guns in circulation. The hard and complex part is persuading people to disentangle gun marketing from their sense of identity.
We have the situation where 1/20 Texans owns an AR-15(that was upthread, i didn't verify). "The problem" with the flashy, and it's still an inconsequential public health problem.

Nope it's just and easy and cheap misdirection that justifies telling people how to live and what they can't do, which is often popular enough!

Blackpilled, eh? I recognize that from the unwiped sweaty quad asscrack of the internet, but I'm not going to google it. Care to break it down for me? If you want.
 
Good idea. Are you going to look up suicide rates in high altitude countries like Ethiopia, Peru and Tibet etc and give us some graphs ?
It would probably be easy, but useless. The inter country variation is likely to overwhelm the effect of altitude. You probably need to look at within country divisions, and see if you can find a significant trend across countries where the higher subdivisions within countries tend to have high suicide rates that the lower ones.
 
it's still an inconsequential public health problem.

Hundreds of completely preventable deaths each year is not inconsequential unless you're, uh, "mentally sick" or whatever phrase you used...

Blackpilled, eh? I recognize that from the unwiped sweaty quad asscrack of the internet, but I'm not going to google it. Care to break it down for me? If you want.

It originally meant a specific strain of incel ideology but is now more broad shorthand for despair/fatalism.

I used it here because your last few posts seem to evince a lack of concern over or desire to prevent preventable deaths, so a meme referring to despair/fatalism seems an appropriate response. If we can't agree that human life matters and is worth saving there is little purpose in our discussing any public issue.
 
I would describe "take the tools" in this context as a truly "pro-life" position.
Of course "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just slogans, for anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights... its kind of like when folks who are anti BLM would say "well if you really think black lives matter why don't you focus on black on black crime or heart disease" or similar.

My gut feeling on this issue is that there isn't going to be any "taking" so long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, particularly as it has been interpreted by SCOTUS.
60 dead in the top one compared to somewhere around 40,000 that whole year. All the mass shootings added together are a relatively small fraction of total firearm deaths in the US, which varies depending on how mass shootings are defined. In 2021, 706 people died in incidents where four or more people were shot, which is probably an expansive definition of mass shootings that includes things like gang shootouts that are not the typical picture of a maniac going to a public place with regular people and trying to kill as many as possible.

Anyway, that same year there were >48,000 total gun deaths in the US of which around 20,000 were murders.
My feeling on this... is that the arguments against gun-control that use the relative and/or per capita deaths caused vis-a-vis some other cause of deaths is luring folks who want gun control laws passed/implemented down a red herring path.

Mass shootings, school shootings, mall shootings, public gathering shootings, etc., specifically the increase in frequency of these shootings is unacceptably disruptive to people's sense of safety, stability and ability to go about their normal lives with reasonable degrees of stress. I'm reminded of Heath Ledger's Joker character's soliloquy about "the plan"... yes people die every day, all the time for all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with mass shootings, and maybe many more people die from stuff other than gun violence, particularly mass shootings, but people those deaths don't create the same degree of social unease and disruption to the perception of the stability of society, so the comparisons aren't apples to apples. It's not just about the number of deaths.
Given everything known about suicide from a public health standpoint, the point you're trying to make simply isn't correct. Most people who attempt suicide and fail recover from their suicidal crisis and go on to live just fine. What's pointlessly cruel is saying we shouldn't even try to intervene and should just let them die. It also borders on dishonest to conflate assisted suicide of someone who is at the end of their life anyway with a person undergoing a suicidal mental health crisis.
I meant to ask you this before... maybe I did, but I forgot your response. What approach do you envision? Again, my attitude is that 2nd Amendment repeal would be the only viable option for comprehensive gun control, however, that would require a dramatic political shift, obviously. So the gun-control advocates would have to get a supermajority as a fist step. Do you see it differently?
 
Hundreds of completely preventable deaths each year is not inconsequential unless you're, uh, "mentally sick" or whatever phrase you used...



It originally meant a specific strain of incel ideology but is now more broad shorthand for despair/fatalism.

I used it here because your last few posts seem to evince a lack of concern over or desire to prevent preventable deaths, so a meme referring to despair/fatalism seems an appropriate response. If we can't agree that human life matters and is worth saving there is little purpose in our discussing any public issue.
That's really not it. I do care. At least I try to live like I do, at least some of the time.

You only get the choices you get - and really not for all that long. So how we make them and what parts of them we respect is really all we ever really get. The problem is upstream of the symptom. It's so easy to focus on the loss that survivors feel - the absence, that we overlook the loss that was the despair. The cost of that on the sacred life that was.

I'm trying to come up with an appropriate hyperbole. I think it should definitely be something along the lines of this: https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-formerly-enslaved-household-of-the-grant-family

Edit: I suppose since I can't figure out how to shorten the whole article enough, I'll go with the costs of obesity vs the costs of malnutrition.
 
Last edited:
Of course "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are just slogans, for anti-abortion rights and pro-abortion rights... its kind of like when folks who are anti BLM would say "well if you really think black lives matter why don't you focus on black on black crime or heart disease" or similar.

My gut feeling on this issue is that there isn't going to be any "taking" so long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, particularly as it has been interpreted by SCOTUS.

Yeah, I'm really thinking about this now in terms of persuasion rather than in terms of gun confiscation or whatever the idea is.

I meant to ask you this before... maybe I did, but I forgot your response. What approach do you envision? Again, my attitude is that 2nd Amendment repeal would be the only viable option for comprehensive gun control, however, that would require a dramatic political shift, obviously. So the gun-control advocates would have to get a supermajority as a fist step. Do you see it differently?

We have to win the hearts and minds. We have to fix whatever's wrong that people think they can fix with guns. I don't entirely know what that looks like, but we have to start trying to figure it out.

Anyway, step 1 in terms of public policy is take away (most of) the guns from the police.

The problem is upstream of the symptom.

I think maybe I'm getting at that above?
 
its kind of like when folks who are anti BLM would say "well if you really think black lives matter why don't you focus on black on black crime or heart disease" or similar.
given the fraud and violence involved, would make sense to at least disambiguate the concept (which should be obvious) with the organization/2020 actions (which were criminal). many people will be anti-fraud and anti-violence w/o consequences, while far fewer will be against the assertion that lives matter.

i do note hypocrisy on both sides of the isle when switching between those riots and abortion policy preferences though.

Mass shootings, school shootings, mall shootings, public gathering shootings, etc., specifically the increase in frequency of these shootings is unacceptably disruptive to people's sense of safety, stability and ability to go about their normal lives with reasonable degrees of stress. ...... but people those deaths don't create the same degree of social unease and disruption to the perception of the stability of society, so the comparisons aren't apples to apples. It's not just about the number of deaths.
the perhaps sad reality is that this just flatly isn't true. people don't have that much empathy for complete strangers. it only gets attention due to the degree it's emphasized in news and political discussion. these "mass" shootings are a tiny fraction of homicides in usa, yet the degree to which they're reported relative to plain homicide is wildly disproportionate.

people's "sense of safety" calibrates to expectations, and reporting influences those expectations. in using still rare events as a lynch pin for arguing policy, one is more or less using a megaphone to claim they're arguing an agenda rather than a legit platform of safety. though truly random mass shootings do seem more common now than two generations ago, despite tighter gun controls, so maybe there's something to the unease where the shootings are a symptom, increasing in frequency despite tighter controls.

remember, there's no fundamental reason a mass shooting in tx or a guy defending himself from assault with a knife in nyc make national news. those stories were chosen, to fit agendas. sometimes agenda is just to make money, but sometimes it's to push narrative/cater to the typical political views of their viewers.
 
The TX shooter was a Nazi: RWDS patch and swastika tattoos.
 
Back
Top Bottom