A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Teallaura]

This is supposed to be a sane discussion about guns, not a liberal nit pick fest.

Hey Carpe, can I report this?

[Teallaura]

My apologies to Teal and to you. That was a gut reaction and not done in the spirit of the thread.

Drat, guess not...

[Adrift]

Pathetic.

Again, I think he's just kidding around with you at this point.

[Teallaura]

I feel a need to clarify the post that bred this apology. I do strongly believe that any blame to the victim of a gun theft, for the gun related crime of whoever stole the gun is pathological. When society does this it is exhibiting a break from reality. The only person responsible for a crime is the person who committed it.

It is pure nit pickery to require that I lock my guns in a separate locked box, inside the already locked box of my house. That is not sane at all. We, my wife and I, do keep our hand guns in the safe with the bolts from the rifles. This is not because I think I am somehow endangering society if I do not. It is purely because our pathological society would irrationally apply blame to me if the guns were stolen and used in a crime. All the limit access to guns ideas I have read fall into this same pathological pattern. It makes sense to blame the criminal for his crime, not blame the victim of a different crime. I do recognize that our society is moving further into this pathology every day, but that does not make it right or sane.

Negligence isn't an irrational concept - and requiring people to take responsibility for their property is perfectly sane and reasonable.

[Teallaura]

Again, I think he's just kidding around with you at this point.

No, he does that all the time - it's rude and dismissive. It's not cute or funny. I amended my post when I saw you'd chosen to take it that way when he did it to you, but I don't share that opinion.

[Teallaura]

"First let's kill all the lawyers" really does sound like a good idea sometimes.

Ya know, I originally thought abolition was the best solution. In listening to gun owners over the years, I modified my view since abolition didn't appear fair. But if the argument is that gun owners should be able to disregard the safety of others because they find the definition of negligence too unwieldy, then I see no point in such compromise - that's far more unfair than disallowing gun ownership.

Gun proponents are often their own worst enemies.

[Teallaura]

Along those lines, when you check somebody else out from a psychiatric hold, they will ask you if there are guns in the house but not about knives and other potential methods.

Not that anyone cares, but that's to ensure that they aren't a danger to others as well as themselves.

[Teallaura]

Someone who is determined to kill himself can easily do so without a gun. The anti-Constitution crowd citing gun suicide rates is a red herring.

Get a grip - the Second wasn't incorporated for over one hundred and fifty something years. And since incorporation, most laws are still on the books - so it CANNOT be a blank check.

[Adrift]

No, he does that all the time - it's rude and dismissive. It's not cute or funny. I amended my post when I saw you'd chosen to take it that way when he did it to you, but I don't share that opinion.

Right, no. I totally get what you're saying, and I agree, but I took his second "wow" (especially after you edited your posts to say "never mind - Adrift had already answered and I didn't see it until later.") as him being sort of self-deprecating. Maybe I misunderstood that though cause humor is hard to read on this sort of format, and I probably watch too many Woody Allen films.

[Teallaura]

Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University, Liza Gold, points out,

I doubt lethality is the sole consideration. Killing yourself with a knife is a painful matter - guns are efficient and likely to be less painful.

[Teallaura]

In Japan the preferred method is by hanging with jumping from a high place coming in second. They often go to an isolated area to help ensure that they are successful. A 2004 study found that in the U.S. hanging is the method of choice for Asians (not just Japanese) living in the U.S.

So militaries use firearms why again, exactly?

This isn't compelling - that the culture made an adjustment to the absence of weapons isn't a good argument to return them.

[Adrift]

I doubt lethality is the sole consideration. Killing yourself with a knife is a painful matter - guns are efficient and likely to be less painful.

Absolutely. By the way, the link I typed for the source for that article doesn't look correct. Here's the correct link. https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/gun...ss-statistics/

[Teallaura]

While a shotgun blast to the head is the most "effective" method taking cyanide ranks right up there. And getting hit by a train and jumping from a high place are considered to be over 90% effective. Hanging is just under 90% effective.

Cyanide is regulated....

[Mountain Man]

Who? I'd love to see the names of those persons who have argued that guns are the ONLY effective method of killing.

You are, by implication, when you downplay other methods people frequently use to commit suicide. The high rate of non-gun suicides in other countries was pointed out, and your response was "Imagine how much worse it would be if they used guns!" It seems you really don't care about suicide rates, you just want to vilify guns.

[Jedidiah]

See my response to CP.

So I see you have no examples of anyone denying the effectiveness of guns, just distortions of what people said.