Cost of Gun Reform

Where I come from the will to live is seen as a basic condition implemented by nature. The absence of that will, people becoming suicidal, is regarded to be a temporary medical condition requiring psychiatric treatment (even against the will of the individual). People after suicide attempts (which is not an offense, neither is "assistance to suicide") spend a few days up to 2 weeks on a closed ward until a psychiatrist regards them to be no more "self endangering". I work in emergency medicine since 25 years and the idea that gun control would reduce the incidence of "hard suicides" ("soft suicides" are attempts by drugs or steeple climbing. always accompagnied by suicide notices. Almost all of them fail. "Hard suicides" are railway jumpers, hangmen, high altitude jumpers, drug overdosers and (very popular since published in the internet) people sacking themself with a small acetylene cylinder in a plastic sack and before they loose consciousness lighting a match). "Suicide" certainly is not a problem of available "tools". Where I live guns are "controlled", even if my country is on place 15 in world wide gun possession (30% of the population own fire arms). I have seen hundreds of "hard suicides", "soft" suicide attempts I cannot count. Among those I have seen 2 suicides with firearms of which one had failed.

 

The problem is that there is no activity with a zero rate of fatalities. Some accidents happen and always will happen.That is why I said "84 per year is less than the death rate of people swimming into Australian jellyfish". That death rate is accepted by society. Nobody makes the attempt to prohibit swimming completely (although it is "controlled", meaning that swimming in jellyfish polluted areas is prohibited). Therefore some death rate in every activity is "acceptable" which doesn't mean that not everything must be done to reduce it.

 

Please read the first two sentences of that link, and recognise the absolute contradictory nature of those two sentences. It then goes on to say: they have become amazing, accurate clairvoyants in stating "they know" what deceased people were suffering with, without being diagnosed.. This is the kind of absolute rubbish that should never be allowed to see the light of day or be published, or be taken as accurate data or facts for the general public to read. This is also the kind of garbage that inflames the situation, and is designed to cause nothing but trouble.

 

Seems to be a lot of guessing in the figures above. According to the US Center for Disease Control Suicide is on rank No. 10 on the list of death causes. 12.7 per 100.000 US citizens committed suicide in 2010, of which 6.4 /100.000 used a firearm, 3.2/100.000 suffocated themselves and 2.1/100.000 used poison.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

 

Why do people have this fixation with a firearm as tool used in homicides and suicides? The tool is irrelevent, it's almost as if they have this illogical, emotive idea that the tool was somehow the cause of the homicide or suicide! Why aren't they campaigning to have all sharp knifes locked up in a safe? Far more people are murdered using the kitchen carving knife than ever get shot by a gun. Anti gun nuts operate purely on an emotive level, there is no evidence to support their stance. Think about it, if they really wanted to save lives they would be campaigning to have everyone wear crash helmets while driving cars.

 

Very valid point. If anyone wants to look at this issue rationally, then they need to look beyond the tool that causes deaths and contributes to crimes.

Motor vehicle deaths and deaths caused through social alcohol consumption has caused more deaths than guns ever have, but we don't see anti-gun groups demanding more restrictions on the use of motor vehicles and alcohol consumption to the same extent as they do with guns. WHY? Is the death of an individual through motor vehicles and alcohol more acceptable than guns?

 

My mother's aunt tried to commit suicide by drinking Drano. She failed and tried again 10 years later and succeeded. She meant it both times. No gun needed. In countries with a lot of guns there are more gun suicides but people that are going to commit 'hard' suicide will just use some other method if guns are not available.

 

This is true, but at least we have lowered the number of fatalities due to guns. Yes maybe other methods are being used, but I am sure stats will show that guns have a higher success rate. If there was some sane reasonable way of banning anything that could be used, we would, but as this is unfeasible, at least strict gun laws have reduced the number of people who blow their brains out.

It's not the whole answer, but it is a start. It also helps to change our views of the world etc, it's not just about gun laws, it's about our society and what we stand for. In Australia we stand for peace, and a gun free society, No we will never achieve it, but we do try.

P.S. I have a shooters licence and three weapons. A WW1 .303 for memorabilia, and my great grandfather's 2 shot guns, for keepsakes. I sold my .222 Tikka I used for fox hunting as I no longer hunt, to dangerous, too many idiots.

 

Just because someone's Aunt tries to commit suicide with something other than a gun does not mean we should not enact legislation that will save lives

Not all children died by drowning in backyard pools and not all child drownings occurred in swimming pools but that did not stop us from mandating all pools to have a fence

 

In my lifetime the legal alcohol level has been lowered and there is a push to make it zero

 

That is because it can be demonstrated that your driving ability is affected by alcohol. There is absolutely no connection, and no comparisons can be made between the two separate issues of legal alcohol levels and gun ownership.

 

not only that, but drunk drivers are barely punished, if at all. They should have their hands broken, so that they can't drive ever again. Drunk driving is COMPLETE contempt for the safety and rights of others.

 

Except the inherent propensity for human stupidity

One of the reasons we have the restrictions on guns that we do is because some twonks got stupid with guns

- - - Updated - - -

Not here in Australia

You can be charged with manslaughter

 

But that is the whole issue, the restrictions on guns hasn't, doesn't and won't do anything about twonks going stupid.

 

nobody is charged with manslaughter if nobody's been hurt. I'm talking about bustingup drunk drivers BEFORE they hurt somebody, "just" for their callous disregard for life. by moving their cars while VOLUNTARILY impaired.

 

Keeps them out of the hands of Twonks

 

Again it depends - the charges range from fines to "reckless endangerment". And even if it is a fine it is still a "serious offence" which means your permanent record

 

And yet the gangs and bikies still shoot at each other in western syd night after night with guns that were illegal to begin with..... Why is that inconvenient so soon to be forgotten by the anti gun people... oh thats right cos it doesnt fit into their agenda. DERP

 

How so?
Anyway, who needs a gun, John long killed fifteen with a box of matches. And what was that case, in S.A. I think, where 12 people were alternately drowned, electrocuted and strangled and the bodies put in garbage bags. If you look at the history of multiple killings in Australia I think you will find hardly any of the perpertrators used a gun. I believe knives and strangulation have been the prefered methods.

 

We could ban cars and kitchen knives too. Do you know what the human cost of cars is?
In fact, we could control just about everything in the name of keeping people more safe.

 

They DO???? They must miss a lot then because we still have one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world

- - - Updated - - -

Bad analogy because no one is suggesting we ban guns - but that guns should have the same safety precautions and legislation that cars do

 

MMMMM not sure if being deliberately obtuse or you live is such a bubble that you dont see the realities of gun crime.... Its not the LEGAL guns and gun owners you need to worry about. You say

.... oh like the licensing and registration procedures that have already been put in place and have NOT stopped the crime gangs from shooting at each other????

 

The point is, the stupid regulations have not prevented them from having guns and shooting at each other.

Not overtly, but admit it, that is what you and all the anti gun campaigners really want.

Why? What will safety precautions and legislation do to stop me from getting out one of my guns then going to a shopping centre somewhere and opening fire on the Christmas crowds? Will safety precautions and legislation stop me from getting into my 4x4 and driving into a shopping centre and running people down?
Why can't anti gun nuts get that through their thick heads, regulations and laws are just words on paper, they only make life more difficult for people who are no threat to anyone. Regulations and laws will in no why prevent gross acts of murder by madmen and criminals.