Guns make impulses of despair like this,like every other murder/ suicide too easy, too accessible, too common.
From the HuffPo and the AP :
Terminally Ill Ohioan Darlene Gilkey Dies On Day Of Son's Funeral: Saw Husband Shoot Relatives
01/15/12 03:06 PM ET
LOGAN, Ohio — A terminally ill woman has died days after her husband fatally shot their adult son and her two sisters in front of her at a southeastern Ohio home and then killed himself.
Authorities said the shootings last Monday in rural Logan apparently stemmed from family tensions over the care of the cancer-stricken woman, 59-year-old Darlene Gilkey. She was not hurt in the shootings and was taken to a medical facility afterward.
Her daughter-in-law, Heather Sowers, said Gilkey died Saturday, hours before the funeral for her 38-year-old son, Leroy Gilkey of Columbus.
Another son, Ralph Sowers III, told 911 dispatchers that he witnessed the shootings by his stepfather, Paul "David" Gilkey, who was found dead on a porch. Sowers said his stepfather let him leave the scene because he has children.
"Guns make impulses of despair like this,like every other murder/ suicide too easy, too accessible, too common."
ReplyDelete-----
Um, no. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not do anything, unless acted upon by a being with opposable thumbs. Sorry, dog, but you're wrong. Again. Still.
Don't be so patronizing, Moonshine. We all know that guns are inanimate objects. For you to pick on everything that's not spelled out to your liking makes the discussion a drag.
ReplyDelete"Guns," in this case = "gun availability."
But, did I really have to tell you that?
"For you to pick on everything that's not spelled out to your liking makes the discussion a drag."
ReplyDelete-----
And for you to require moderation of every comment makes the discussion a drag. But as for the point you think you can make, no, gun availability has zero proveable effect on murder or suicide rates.
Moonshine writes:gun availability has zero proveable effect on murder or suicide rates.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see you back that statement up with something other than you wish it were true.
In point of fact there are numerous studies that have been peer reviewed thoroughly to check for accuracy which DO show that gun availability directly affects both murder and suicides.
We've posted them here many times. The one that comes to mind that was most critical of gun availability in suicides for example was a Swiss study, but there are others, in this country and internationally.
Try again. You have a tremendous barrier to overcome with the murder and suicide rates in countries with effective stricter gun control producing significantly lower rates for those kinds of violence.
But if you can by all means do so.
We already know you can't, we've researched this fairly well, but show us what you've got.
Um, no. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not do anything, unless acted upon by a being with opposable thumbs. Sorry, dog, but you're wrong. Again. Still.
ReplyDeleteGuns are inanimate objects which are by design and intent lethal weapons.
That they enable people with an impulse to act to kill, injure or threaten is a point of proven fact.
That they are used impulsively more so than other weapons, and that because of the impulsive appeal of firearms they are used differently than other weapons - this goes to the issue of substitution of other weapons btw - THAT has also been demonstrated to be true.
Apparently you need to do more and better reading, not just listen to the noise in the gun nuts echo chamber.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion that I draw is that we need to teach better impulse control, rather than taking away personal freedoms.
"Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe conclusion that I draw is that we need to teach better impulse control, rather than taking away personal freedoms.
January 17, 2012 5:09 PM"
And, who, sagacious one, will be doing the teaching. You hatez the mental healthcare PROFESSIONALS; who's left?
Dog gone: “In point of fact there are numerous studies that have been peer reviewed thoroughly to check for accuracy which DO show that gun availability directly affects both murder and suicides.”
ReplyDeleteYou are doing it again. You are saying “homicide” and “suicide”, but I bet you are thinking “gun death”. If you sent us a link to the studies that you are thinking about, I bet three quarters of them will be measuring “gun death”, and if not it will be “controlling” for enough variables to prove causation when there isn’t even a correlation- a big statistical no-no. Don’t you remember this thread?
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-recent-post-on-statistics-for-deaths.html
Or this one where we compared the US’s suicide rate to all those countries that you LOVE to compare us to for murders. The fact is the US has a pretty low suicide rate compared Western Europe, and the rest of the world too.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-gun-violence-from-legal-guns.html
Hey Democommie, I saw this old question of yours on the first thread I just referenced. I try to do my best to answer questions directed at me specifically (sorry it is so late).
ReplyDeleteDemocommie: “Are you saying that some %age of LAGO's are fucking morons who have no idea about proper firearm handling procedures or that some %age of LAGO's are just sociopaths who don't give a flying fuck about their families, friends, neighbors and the general public. Are you saying that some %age of LAGO's are drug/alcholo abusers whose judgment is impaired, thus making them a risk to others if they have a weapon that allows for impulsive, incontrovertible acts of aggression towards others? Or would you more likely say, ‘No, LAGO's, all of them, know and practice the FOUR RULES and would never, EVER violate them. So we don't need no steenkeen regulations!.”
Yes, people do stupid things with guns, as they do with their whole lives by being drug abusers, sociopaths, etc. Yes, people break the rules of safety, and yes sometimes people get hurt as a result. I don’t mind regulations, but they need to follow some basic criteria: for one, they need to work. If we keep adding regulations, and people continue to do stupid things at the same rate, should we add more regulations? Survey says, “no”.
Some regulations I have no problem with (even without results). If it is really pushing against my ability to lawfully own firearms (through cost, PITA, or most importantly increasing my risk of criminal prosecution for doing nothing morally wrong)- then I better see some results, otherwise I may just oppose the idea.
GC writes:
ReplyDeleteDog Gone,
The conclusion that I draw is that we need to teach better impulse control, rather than taking away personal freedoms.
Apparently we aren't as good at teaching impulse control as we need to be.
In fact, that has sadly NOT proven to be efficacious.
What we need to do is to teach people - like you - to resort to other means of dealing with conflicts that are non-lethal.
Inherent in insisting on carrying guns, in defining freedom as carrying lethal weapons is a violent society. That is why you are part of the problem, and why removing guns is part of the solution.
It makes us less violent. It gives us less to fear from lethal violence from everyone, good bad or - as most of us are - a mix of the above.
Or do you understand so little of passion that you believe we can teach people to never ever have their emotions get away from them, EVER?
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteThe other part of my solution is to hold people responsible for their actions, passionate or not. Taking power away from people because they might misuse it is the tyrant's solution.
GC writes:The other part of my solution is to hold people responsible for their actions, passionate or not.
ReplyDeleteHOW do you plan to do that with murder suicides? You can't.
Taking power away from people because they might misuse it is the tyrant's solution.
Bullshit. There are an awful lot of perfectly, wonderfully FREE countries, all part of the FREE WORLD, that make reasonable limitations to protect the freedom of ALL their citizens from the few who are dangerous to the rest.
So long as it is people with guns killing people without guns, or other people with guns, there is no tyranny in protecting the above by removing guns. People don't have the right to endanger others, and so long as guns do that, it is perfectly within the definition of 'for the common good' to restrict them.
It is true that guns do not, by themselves, kill people. But when people with guns kill people, it makes sense to take away the guns killing people and depriving those people from life and liberty. The choice is the right to be alive by existing human beings...and limit guns. Or have an imbalance that allows people with guns to take away the rights of the tens of thousands of people who are killed, injured or threatened by the people who have guns.
Unless and until you can find a way to stop the people with guns acting that way - and you can't -- the solution is to restrict those guns that are being used to harm all those other people so that THEIR rights are not infringed.
Particularly when your claim to a right to arms and the interpretation of the 2nd amendment is so tenuous and flawed.
No TS.
ReplyDeletehttp://dartcenter.org/content/lethal-impulse
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all
Most suicides in the U.S. are with firearms. The NYTimes source addresses the impulsivity of multiple methods, noting this about it:
For generations, the people of Britain heated their homes and fueled their stoves with coal gas. While plentiful and cheap, coal-derived gas could also be deadly; in its unburned form, it released very high levels of carbon monoxide, and an open valve or a leak in a closed space could induce asphyxiation in a matter of minutes. This extreme toxicity also made it a preferred method of suicide. “Sticking one’s head in the oven” became so common in Britain that by the late 1950s it accounted for some 2,500 suicides a year, almost half the nation’s total.
Those numbers began dropping over the next decade as the British government embarked on a program to phase out coal gas in favor of the much cleaner natural gas. By the early 1970s, the amount of carbon monoxide running through domestic gas lines had been reduced to nearly zero. During those same years, Britain’s national suicide rate dropped by nearly a third, and it has remained close to that reduced level ever since.
"How can this be? After all, if the impulse to suicide is primarily rooted in mental illness and that illness goes untreated, how does merely closing off one means of self-destruction have any lasting effect? At least a partial answer is that many of those Britons who asphyxiated themselves did so impulsively. In a moment of deep despair or rage or sadness, they turned to what was easy and quick and deadly — “the execution chamber in everyone’s kitchen,” as one psychologist described it — and that instrument allowed little time for second thoughts. Remove it, and the process slowed down; it allowed time for the dark passion to pass.
It demonstrates that by removing the methods that make an impulsive act easier, you reduce the occurrence of suicides.
That is equally true of murder suicides.
econweb.umd.edu/~duggan/guns-suic-final.pdf
ReplyDeleteGuns and Suicide: Correlation or Causation?
and from the Neurolaw blog of the Baylor College of Medicine
http://blog.neulaw.org/?p=3578
The Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians strongly opposes this proposition, arguing that emphasis on crime prevention has overshadowed the importance of suicide prevention in weapons regulation. In an open letter to Parliament, Dr. Alan Drummond comments on the “pain of investigating a double murder-suicide as a result of escalating domestic violence.” “Suicide,” he says, “is often an impulsive gesture. Keeping guns away from depressed people is essential.” In Canada, about 75% of gun related deaths are due to suicide, pointing to the need for more informed laws on firearm acquisition. The United States faces similar problems. According to statistics reported by the Legal Community Against Violence, guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal unintentional shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure of kill in self-defense.
and
Spontaneous gun violence to the self or others is indicative of an impulsivity and emotionally instability, dispositions that are both neurologically and genetically detectable. For example, a December 2010 report by John R. Kelsoe reviews the possibility of an impulsivity gene related to neurotransmitter functioning. Specifically, mutations that deplete the serotonin 2B receptor (HTR2B) results increased impulsive behavior by reducing the release of serotonin and dopamine, mood and pleasure related chemical messengers, in the nucleus accumbens. Correspondingly, this mutation was prevalent in violent offenders and can be inherited alongside psychiatric illnesses such as bipolar disorder and intermittent explosive disorder. Even the presence of a gun can provoke aggressive behavior, regardless of innate impulsivity. .
I can cite pages of studies on impulsivity and gun violence, especially suicides and murder suicides.
All of which appear to be resistant to improvement with 'education' and all of which appear to have a positive and causal relationship between guns and impulsive violence.
And YOU TS have exactly what to support your position?
ReplyDeleteYou haven't backed that up yet, and I doubt you can.
And NO, I've made no such error as you claim.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteYou can cite any number of studies, but you consistently avoid the fact that we value freedom over safety, while you make the opposite choice. Until you can convince me that your choice is better than mine, the studies that you name are to no effect.
Dog gone: “And YOU TS have exactly what to support your position? You haven't backed that up yet, and I doubt you can.”
ReplyDeleteDon’t you remember our conversion we had about this before? I even referenced it, so why do you say I haven’t provided anything? When you assumed that Western Europe would have much lower suicide rates than us, I showed you data that turned your assumptions upside down. You even said “bravo” to me, and it lead to Mike hilariously saying he doesn’t think the USA should be compared to Europe (which doesn’t leave you much to talk about).
Start with this: The USA’s suicide rate is quite low compared to other industrialized nations not at war. Since we hear this meme countless time in regard to murder (though they say “gun deaths” more often), and since you place a fair amount of significant on that statement, AND you attribute it to the presence of guns- please explain why our suicide rate is lower than most of those countries. Please explain why there is no global correlation to gun ownership and suicide rates (if you want to jump on our state correlation using data I previously provided, be my guest- but be forewarned that I am quite prepared to counter). All you did is find some articles written by people who agree with you, and I have no doubt there are plenty who share your ideals- usually with the end idea of restricting guns. Where are the stats to back it? Start with correlation. If Britain’s suicide rate dropped with the switch to natural gas, what happened to ours? How about the rest of the world?
TS wrote: Don't you remember our conversion we had about this before? I even referenced it, so why do you say I haven’t provided anything?
ReplyDeleteI'd forgotten that TS, but since you reminded me, I went and looked at the info from Europe. It was pretty variable, with quite a few countries having significantly lower - sometimes only a third our rate - for suicides.
There are a couple that if you average together the countries of Europe really skew the average, notably Finland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Belarus. Hungary has a horrible suicide rate, as do Latvia and Lithuania. If however you look at western Europe, at more civilized/developed/industrialized countries as distinct from those either badly torn by war, or still recovering from breaking away from the soviet union in the iron curtain days.....NO, we really don't have a lower suicide rate. Most of them are similar to us,and some are distinctly lower.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide_rates/en/
Countries like Spain for example have a rate for men of 11.9 per 100,000 and for women 3.4; U.S. is at 17.7 and 4.5 respectively, while the UK is at 10.9 and 3.0; Netherlands is at 13.1 and 5.5; Italy 10.0 and 2.8; France surprised me, 24.7 and 8.5; Germany 17.9 and 6.0; Greece 6.0 and 1.0; Denmark, 17.4 and 6.4
Wheras Finland jumps to 29 and 10, and I was surprised to see Belgium at 26.8 and 10.3
What those other countries DON'T have that we appear to have is the murder suicide rate, where not only does someone tragically kill themselves, they also kill a lot of other people at the same time.
One of these afternoon when I have some free time I will see what I can find about the instrumentality of suicides in those countries where there is a higher suicide rate than ours that should otherwise be similar to our own, and also post a comparison of their murder rate and gun violence rates.
Australia, btw is as 12.8 and 3.6 respectively (men and women) and New Zealand at 18.1 and 5.5 while Canada is similar to us at 17.3 and 5.4
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteAustralia, New Zealand, and Canada all have much more gun control than we do, and yet their suicide numbers are similar to ours. As you pointed out, Europe is all over the map. Apparently, gun availability doesn't have a lot to do with suicide.
Greg, and apparently gun control has nothing to do with tyranny. Those other countries are freer than we are.
ReplyDelete