A 53-year-old man died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at a Taylorsville gun range Wednesday night.
The shooting, which has not been ruled a suicide or accidental yet, occurred just after 5 p.m. at Doug's Shoot N' Sports, 4926 South and Redwood Road.
Taylorsville police Sgt. John Cooper said there were other people in the gun range but no one witnessed the shooting.
The gun involved was a pistol and police believe only one shot was fired.
Fire officials said the bullet struck the man in the head.
Do you think I'm going out on a limb calling it "suicide?" I guess it's possible to accidentally shoot yourself in the head, but I'm guessing this one was suicide.
Suicides with guns are certainly not rare occurrences, but how often do they happen at the shooting range? I would imagine they could be more numerous than the occasional reports we see in the press. What with all the shootings that happen every day, these might not make the front pages. And surely most gun suicides happen in the home, that just stands to reason.
What's to be done? Reduce the number of guns in the hands of these unstable people. That may result in an overall reduction of guns in the hands of people generally, it certainly will result in increased inconvenience to the law-abiding and mentally sound gun owners, but what else can we do? I wish someone would tell us.
Please leave a comment.
"What's to be done?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely nothing.
Unlike other forms of "gun violence", suicide is a consensual act. It's something that all parties involved agree too. So if someone wants to kill themselves, why should we try to stop them? Especially at my expense?
In my opinion, self-elimination with a firearm is as much of a human right as self-defense with a firearm.
Why don't you ask Laci?
ReplyDeleteShe's the one begging gun owners to commit suicide on her blog.
Nice company ya keep, MikeB.
Hey MikeB, ask laci, she's the one who tells them to off themselves and says she'd gladly kill us herself....
ReplyDeleteBTW - I think people have every right to kill themselves (with a gun if they so choose)
You're absolutely right. Hell, if we follow Japan's lead and completely ban guns and almost completely remove them from civilian life, maybe someday we can hope to have their impressively low suicide rates.
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteTalked about this on my site
http://3bxsofbs.infamousanime.net/?p=901
There is no evidence to show that if you take away firearms that other means won't be used.
"Hey MikeB, ask laci, she's the one who tells them to off themselves and says she'd gladly kill us herself...."
ReplyDeleteHmmm, kinda sounds like a terrorist threat. Perhaps I should call Homeland Security and alert them to Laci's death threats, and MikeB's constant adoration for her views.
The gun-happy USA reporting... you heard about Fort Hood, now Orlando is happening.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33726074/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts?ocid=twitter
I think it really is time to get rid of the guns...
AztecRed said "In my opinion, self-elimination with a firearm is as much of a human right as self-defense with a firearm."
ReplyDeleteWell, that sounds like tough talk but what if you had a teenage child or some other loved one who was suffering from a transitory problem with depression or addiction and wanted to escape using suicide? Would you support that as a "human right?"
Self determination is self determination. It doesn't go away when you don't like the choices a person makes.
ReplyDelete(Note that the child example is cheating a bit; we accept that those under the age of majority have curbs on their right to self determination that adults don't.)
And why are you stopping at guns? If we outlaw or restrict aspirin, won't that also reduce the "flow" of suicide tools to the people who need you to save them? Isn't that worth the inconvenience to people with headaches? And what about restricting access to depressing books, movies, paintings, poems, and plays for people we consider at a heightened risk of suicide? Wouldn't that have some chance of saving at least one life, and therefore be worth inconveniencing artists and citizens?
Hell, why don't we give government free run of everybody's mental health records, to screen them for suicide risks and compel at-risk people to accept therapy? We could suspend Fourth Amendment and due process protections; it'd be okay because with so many lives on the line, we can't get bogged down in a discussion from the perspective of "rights". Sure, it might inconvenience some people who aren't contemplating suicide, but if it could save lives that's an inconvenience that people should accept for the good of all, right?
This is what we come down to: is violating a person's Constitutional rights and his right to self determination a mere "inconvenience", or is it an evil in itself that we resist even if that resistance has consequences?
"I think it really is time to get rid of the guns..."
ReplyDeleteDaisy you are a mal-adjusted idiot.
"Well, that sounds like tough talk but what if you had a teenage child or some other loved one who was suffering from a transitory problem with depression or addiction and wanted to escape using suicide? Would you support that as a "human right?"
ReplyDeleteBeing someone who has gone through episodes of depression and anxiety and dealt with suicidal thoughts, i've come to the conclusion that the suicidal can't be stopped.
Those who want to kill themselves will do it, regardless of the amount of intervention. So whether I support their right to kill themselves or not is irrelevant. Like all natural rights, the right to end ones life exist whether other's support it or not.
Just as you can't stop people from defending themselves, you can't stop people from killing themselves. In some people, their desire to die is as strong as your desire to live.
Think about that for a minute.
A teenage kid can't legally own a gun.
ReplyDeleteAnd I could voluntarily move my guns to a friend's place if I felt that was the best idea.
Then again here in Mass with our onerous permitting system I might not be able to do that.
So essentially you'd rather I just never own guns at all.
You're anti-choice! Classy!
Availibility of firearms has absolutely no effect on the overall suicide rate, just on the method used. Japan has much higher suicide rate than us, yet no private gun ownership. Trying to lower the suicide rate by getting rid of guns does not treat the underlying cause.
ReplyDeleteAztecRed, This is my very point: "In some people, their desire to die is as strong as your desire to live."
ReplyDeleteI said transitory problems with addiction or depression. In most suicides we're not talking about "as strong a desire to die as to live," we're talking about a passing problem. Are you so rigidly fixated on the individual rights idea that you wouldn't try to help someone in a situation like that. Some depressed people are not a strong as you, they can't get over it by themselves, and for them to blow their brains out is a mistaken option.
If it were my daughter, let's say, I'd physically restrain her before I'd let her kill herself. Wouldn't you? She'd have to really be convincing before I'd believe she was of sound enough mind to truly know what she was doing.
Guav said, "Availibility of firearms has absolutely no effect on the overall suicide rate, just on the method used."
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that, Guav? The gun is the most effective means of killing yourself, you've seen those stats, haven't you, not that stats are necessary to prove such an obvious proposition? If suicidal people all had to resort to other means, fewer of them would die.
This means that many of the unsuccessful Japanese suicide attempts whoud have been successful if they'd had guns. And as high as there suicide rate is now, it would be even higher if they had a gun culture like we do.
So mikeb, with a country like Canada (the most demographically similar to the US) that has increased the amount of gun control and decreased availabiltiy, we would expect to see the suicide numbers before the restriction higher than the numbers after restrictions. Would you agree this is a fair characterization of your hypothesis?
ReplyDelete"If it were my daughter, let's say, I'd physically restrain her before I'd let her kill herself. Wouldn't you?"
ReplyDeleteYou can't restrain someone 24 hours a day. Suicides happen all the time in the most secure of places. Jails, prisons, mental wards, etc.
It matters not whether they have access to guns or not. If someone really wants to kill themselves, they'll do it.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteHow can you say that, Guav? The gun is the most effective means of killing yourself, you've seen those stats, haven't you, not that stats are necessary to prove such an obvious proposition? If suicidal people all had to resort to other means, fewer of them would die.
You've been to my site, you've seen the post on suicide.
Yet another case of the evidence being presented and you not caring.
"The gun is the most effective means of killing yourself, you've seen those stats, haven't you, not that stats are necessary to prove such an obvious proposition?"
ReplyDeleteI assume you are referring to the Harvard study last year that all the hoplophobes breathlessly posted everywhere?
"If suicidal people all had to resort to other means, fewer of them would die."
There is no evidence to support this claim. In act, the evidence says you're wrong.
"Yet another case of the evidence being presented and you not caring."
ReplyDeleteI'm with Bob on this. I honestly have seen NOTHING on your behalf that shows that you care about anything but restricting freedoms of lawful people, MikeB.
I could ask you to state your case, but I don't think you have one...and I know you'll claim I'm somehow testing you.