General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun Deaths Since Newtown
Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)
I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but it bears repeating.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)And gun humpers still think they have the right to their little Precious.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Was the continued presence of the "mom shoots intruder" thread. Because finding one case of self defense is somehow proof of something....
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Two robbers shot dead in Hollywood, North Miami-Dade
A pair of would-be robbers were shot and killed by their victims in separate incidents in Hollywood and North Miami-Dade.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/15/3183760/two-robbers-shot-dead-in-hollywood.html
1/14/2013
------------------------
Robber faced Madera pharmacist who's an expert shooter
An attempt to rob a Madera pharmacy of cough medicine Tuesday night ignited a short but deadly gunfight between a gang member and a store owner who is a competitive pistol shooter.
Police Chief Steve Frazier said Thursday that it appeared the store owner, Bryan Lee, had little choice but to return fire when Aquilla Bailey, 31, burst into the Almond Avenue Pharmacy firing a .45 caliber Smith & Wesson pistol at Lee and his mother, Sophie. Lee, an Army veteran, returned fire with a 1911-model Colt .45.
Frazier said Bailey shot six or seven times, with one round hitting Sophie Lee in the leg. Lee fired five back, mortally wounding Bailey and also apparently shooting Bailey's fellow Dogpound gang member Jonte Harris, 27, twice in the leg.
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/11/3129344/bandit-opened-fire-at-pharmacy.html
CPD: Man Defending Infant Son Shoots Robber
According to the police report, a man told officers he was defending his 2-month-old son when he shot a suspect who robbed him at gunpoint in the driveway of his brother's west Columbus home Monday night.
http://www2.nbc4i.com/news/2013/jan/07/11/one-person-shot-during-robbery-ar-1303869/
Victim fires shots at burglar in East Ridge
A South Seminole Drive resident fired shots at a man trying to break into a home early Sunday, East Ridge police said.
Police spokesman Erik Hopkins said police responded at 1:47 a.m. to a reported burglary in progress.
On the way, they were told by dispatchers that shots had been fired at the scene. Officers arrived and found the suspect still on the porch of the home. He was taken into custody without further incident.
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/13/victim-fires-shots-burglar-east-ridge-chattanooga/?breakingnewshttp://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/13/victim-fires-shots-burglar-east-ridge-chatt
Would-be burglar shot at Sherman scrap yard
GRAYSON COUNTY, TX - The Grayson County Sheriff's Office is investigating an early morning shooting at Stinky's Scrap Metal off 1417 in Sherman.
The sheriff's department got a call at 3:30 this morning that an employee had shot an intruder.
Lt. Rickey Wheeler says there were two intruders on the property trying to steal scrap metal.
http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Man-shot-at-Sherman-scrap-yard-186988931.html
Burglars Shot in Deadly Confrontation
Police say an alleged burglar is dead and another in critical condition after they are confronted by a resident.
It happened just after 2 a.m. in the 700 blk. of Lightstone.
Detectives say two men were trying to break into a vehicle when the owner confronted the pair.
Police say he shot both men and one of them tried to escape in a car and wrecked the vehicle down the street and died.
http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/vid_13761.shtml
Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her twins, 9
A would-be burglar was looking to cash in, but instead found himself in a world of pain when a Georgia mother who refused to be victimized shot him multiple times in the face and neck.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html#ixzz2ICSId016
------------------------
Man fatally shoots intruder
A HOMEOWNER in the Powelton section of West Philadelphia fatally shot a man who had broken into his house Tuesday night, police said.
Cops said the man was upstairs in his home, on Wiota Street near Spring Garden, when he heard the intruder break into the house through his kitchen door about 9 p.m. The intruder made it to the living room, with a spade shovel in hand, and started up the stairs to the second floor when police say the 37-year-old homeowner shot him three times in the chest.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20130116_Man_fatally_shoots_intruder.html
HPD: Witnesses shoot robbery suspect
HOUSTON -
Two witnesses opened fire on a man after a robbery in southeast Houston, investigators said.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-Witnesses-shoot-robbery-suspect/-/1735978/18093108/-/cdmob7/-/index.html
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)/looks at list above.
I don't think those are quite even. You may want to dig up some more.
You might also try to explain why all these examples that did not use assault rifles require keeping assault rifles legal. Or high-capacity magazines.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)In one case, it was the owner of a scrap metal yard who shot two guys who were trying to steal material from his property. All the owner had to do was call the police and wait.
In another case, a homeowner shot two car thieves in the street in front of his house as they were trying to escape without harming the homeowner.
In another case, two passerby with guns opened fire on a mugger AFTER he had robbed (and left unharmed) a third party.
In another case, the man claiming that he was "defending his two month old son" shot the armed robber as he was fleeing the scene without harming the victim (or his son).
I'm totally sympathetic to people who feel they need a handgun to protect themselves and their homes. I'm totally sympathetic to the case (in the post above) of the store owner who being robbed and gunpoint and shoots his attacker. You point a gun at somebody, you should face the consequences. No arguments in the least.
But about have of the cases you cite are people who are basically exacting vigilante justice by shooting a criminal when the criminal is not making any attempt to harm them. In the cases I mentioned here, they were all just trying to get away and were not threatening the victim.
So we're talking 900 homicides vs. a half dozen justifiable shootings.
And has been pointed out elsewhere, none of these cases involved assault rifles, much less high-capacity magazines.
Fail.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)And you think is some acceptable ratio?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Do you think the suicides won't happen if there are no guns?
How many of those deaths were done by law-abinding people?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You posted this same question just a few hours ago.
You need to get a new talking point.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Almost all gun violence is committed by criminals. Your laws will not effect them. So how do you hope that taking my guns away will have any effect on gun violence?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)There are these places called prisons. We put criminals there. For a long time. The problem is that putting people in prison is an attempt to solve the problem after-the-fact. The crime has already been committed. The classroom has already been shot to pieces. The families are already grieving.
You're suggesting that since criminals will always commit crimes, that we should make it easier for them. Do you leave your doors unlocked at night? Keys in the ignation? No? Then why would you oppose a law that makes it harder for a criminal or a mental patient to obtain a firearm?
And as long as you remain a law-abiding citizen, nobody is taking your guns from you.
mikeysnot
(4,756 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Criminals don't have to turn in their guns because they use their guns. When they do, the gun is seized and destroyed.
Or had you failed to notice fully-automatic weapons are virtually never used by criminals today? "Tommy guns" and other automatic weapons were quite popular among criminals before they were banned. It appears banning those got them out of criminal hands.
And as mentioned below, other methods of suicide allow the person to have second thoughts and stop the process, and a very large number of suicide attempts result in the person deciding to not "finish the job". Gun-to-the-head is not reversible.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Movies greatly overrate the usefullness of full-auto. FA is hard to conceal, and runs out of ammo in a real hurry. In the movies, AKs never have to be reloaded, and with one sweep of fire cuts down enemies like wheat before a sythe. In real life you turn a lot of ammo into noise with no guarantee of hitting anybody.
If FA was actually in demand by criminals the same network that smuggles in drugs could bring in real assault rifles.
The black market keeps criminals well supplied in guns to replace those siezed. That is why I support Aoamz's efforts against gun trafficking.
Many suicide attempts are not genuine attempts at self-ending, but are "almost suicide" moves with the real goal of making a statement as a cry for help or to manipulate others. Some one chooses a gun really wants to get the job done.
If I should decide that I need to self-end (I'm not suicidal, but the possibility painful disease is a reality) then I will buy a bottle of pure nitrogen and rig up a mask and breathe pure nitrogen. Fast, painless, not messy, and you get a high on the way out. (Be sure to empty bowels and bladder first.) Do you want to outlaw possession of nitrogen? (It makes up about 77% of the air.)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)we noticed that criminals were quite fond of full auto back when they were legal. Yet they are exceptionally rare today. It's not like full auto just started to use a lot of ammunition in the 80s.
Why would they bother? Way more dollars per pound smuggling drugs.
Which is why you find all sorts of banned weapons among criminals.....oh wait, you don't. They almost always use guns that aren't banned.
Or is drunk, which is actually the most common condition where someone uses a gun for suicide. But that's that pesky "reality" thing again.
You aren't this dumb. Please stop pretending that you are. The problem with guns for suicide is there isn't a way to reverse it. You could take off the mask, making it as reversible as the other methods under discussion.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.
In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.
The small children were innocent, but most of the rest (except for suicides) were criminal victims of other criminals. Legalize all drugs and that problem would greatly decrease.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)Since only criminals get shot, let's issue unlimited guns to anyone and give them a free pass as long as they shoot only people who have been arrested at least once. OK? Innocent people have nothing to fear, apparently.
The all-drug legalization is just a non-starter. You don't know many actual meth or heroin addicts, do you?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It is well known among criminologist that most murder victims are themselves criminals.
True, I don't know any addicts. But I do know that a very violent criminal underworld supplies them. Legalize drugs. It is their freedom to pollute their own bodies.
mbperrin
(7,672 posts)You really need to get to know some addicts - they don't just pollute their own bodies - meth and heroin people are the ones I know and are related to, and they create more damage, both to simple real property as well as your non-addict peace of mind, security of home, and future happiness as well.
Well, this has turned really non-productive, and has turned into a low-content discussion, so I'll wish you well and see you around DU.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Post it to my wall just now. Thanks for sharing.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)There's no dot where Santa Fe is, and we've had at least two gun deaths, probably more in the past month.
I do want to ask each and every gun apologist just where they draw the line. How many gun deaths are acceptable? How about the death by gun of your wife, or your child, or your parent? Oh. I see. It's okay if they die by guns, just so long as you can keep yours.
Fuckers.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)How many automobile deaths are acceptable?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Just like guns, right?
And automobile deaths, as tragic as they are, have been declining steadily since 1969. Too bad we can't say the same about gun deaths.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Really? People don't hunt or target shoot with them?
I wish I had known I've been using them wrong all these years.
Response to holdencaufield (Reply #35)
Post removed
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Unless you want no one under the age of sixteen to own a firearm.
Unless you want a written test to determine if you can own a firearm.
Unless you want a state-issued license to own a firearm.
Unless you want to have mandatory liability insurance to own a firearm.
Unless you want registration of all firearm transactions.
You want to bring up the brain-dead analogy between cars and guns? Okie Dokie, we'll start treating gun ownership the same as car ownership.
License and registration, bub.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)ME: Owning firearms is a right, defined by the Constitution. Driving is not
YOU: Sure, as long as you belong to a militia
ME: The Heller Decision defines he right as individual, not dependent on militia membership
YOU: Yea, well Heller sucks
ME: But our own, Democrat, President has confirmed the same thing on several occasions
YOU ??
As long as the argument in favour of banning guns is safety, the comparison with other unsafe practices that cost lives (driving, swimming, marriage) remains valid and not "brain dead".
Unless, of course, you want to go with Sheila T's argument.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)You have a right to own a gun (what you're putting forward is called a "straw man" argument). And I'm not suggesting that you don't have a right to own a gun.
Your second-most brain-dead argument is that because a right is enshrined in the Constitution, it is somehow inviolable and unrestricted. Try sending classified military information to North Korea and see how far your First Amendment rights get you. Under the Fourth Amendment, police have to obtain a search warrant, except for the multiple exceptions to the rule that the Supreme Court has recognized over the years. For that matter, try carrying a handgun onto a commercial airliner and patiently argue about your Second Amendment rights with the TSA.
There's no such thing as an absolute right. And when your right to own a gun conflicts with society's right to walk the streets without taking a stray bullet, then as a society we have the right and the obligation to regulate when, how and if you're going to be allowed to own a gun. Now there are places in the world where that's not the case. There are places where nobody will legally question your gun ownership.
And I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Agree wholeheartedly, never said there was ...
YOU (paraphrased) -- if you compare cars with guns then the same rules of possession/ownership should apply to each
Me (paraphrased) -- apples and oranges, one is a right, the other a privilege
It is more logical to compare gun ownership voting -- both rights under the Constitution, both limited by law (age, criminal convictions). Neither can be legally impinged by onerous regulation (taxes, complex registration, or -- is some states -- the possession of valid ID).
Should people be trained in the basics of and be knowledgeable about voting or shooting -- absolutely! I would submit that more people have been killed by bad voting than by firearms in our country -- the Civil War, Indian Wars, Vietnam War can all be attributed to bad decisions, ultimately in the hands of the voters.
Am I looking to create a gun-anarchy like Somalia? Of course not, Somalia doesn't have a surfeit of guns because it protects gun rights, it does so because it protects NO rights. It is a failed state where gun ownership is enforced by the clans -- and only clans have guns.
I wish you had the power to return me to Middle School. I would buy a shit ton of ammunition because it would be a better long-term investment than gold.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)If government has the right to limit and regulate one's right to vote, then it has the right to limit and regulate one's access to a firearm. The notion that because you have an right spelled out in the constitution, if therefor cannot be abridged, is a fantasy.
Note: The Constitution does not specifically include an affirmative right to vote -- it simply includes a series of clauses that specify people against whom discrimination is not permitted. Unless you live in Washington, DC, in which case you're just shit out of luck.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)But, there have been so many precedents striking down impingement/restrictions on voting I believe it is held in the same regard legally as if it were in the Bill of Rights.
Arguments that have been put forward here, such as a bullet tax or needs tests, are undoubtedly un-Constitutional and would not survive a SCOTUS challenge.
Bans on magazine size, cyclical rates, stock materials ... etc ... would not be un-Constitutional UNLESS they can be demonstrated be impinging on the basic right. That is where I believe the New York law will run into trouble. By banning magazines over 7 rounds (and other factors) it places a de facto ban a great number of standard and readily available firearms. Because it can be argued that rifles like the semi-automatic AK and AR are so common that to restrict them is a impingement on the 2A, I believe we will see this law in court again and again for a while to come.
But, I have a problem with those kind of bans other than their potential Constitutionality. I believe they will do nothing to do anything of the thing about which people are most upset -- illegal shootings. The time, energy, and political backlash it takes to pass an AWB would be better spent tightening up existing laws concerning background checks and creating a system that restricts access to firearms for those with a history of mental illness. AWBs and their like are simply a waste of time and a political liability, in my opinion.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)A limit on magazine capacity is not an infringement upon your fundamental right to own an AR-15. It simply regulates how you can use it -- something that will undoubtedly stand up to a challenge in the Supreme Court (actually something like that is not likely to ever be heard by the court).
Beyond that, a ban on assault weapons (depending on its exact wording) is also likely to be upheld by the court. The City of Denver has an AWB that has been in place for twenty-three years, and multiple challenges have not overturned it. Remember also that even in the Heller case, Scalia's opinion clearly left open the ability to ban weapons other than handguns.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)If you point out the many differences, why the comparison in first place?
I do realize it's wonderful comparison often made... then derided by the very same who bring it up in the first place when the comparison looks less than stellar.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Weakest argument the gunners have. It really shows they are losing the debate and are becoming more desperate.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)With the obvious exception of the school shootings, the rest of those were almost completely done by people who were already criminals. It is extremely rare for a law-abiding person to suddenly commit murder.
Those killings were already illegal. Do you think a murderer is going to be detered by yet another law? All your law will do is make law-abiding people into easier victims by disarming the law=abiding.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)By criminals I mean someone with a prior violent conviction. Do you really think that violent criminals will willingly turn in their guns?
How many were suicides? Do you really think that taking a gun away from a suicidal person will stop them from using poison, rope, knives, cars, etc? Do you think that guns radiate a "suicide field effect" that make people off themselves?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)This is so fucking misguided I'm not really sure where to begin. Will a suicidal person not commit suicide if they don't have a loaded revolver in their hand? Probably not. Because EVERY OTHER METHOD is far less lethal and takes more time -- and at any point (say, while the person is taking the time to fashion a noose) they might decide to stick it out.
Here's a little fact to chew on, genius. Women are more than twice as likely than men to ATTEMPT suicide, but the rates for actual suicides is four times higher in men than in women. Know why? Come on. I'm sure you're a bright little fellow and know that answer already.
It's because men use FIREARMS as their primary method of choice and women use drug overdoses.
Any other gems of wisdom you'd care to share with the group?
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely. You're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun (as Adam Lanza's mother was) than by an intruder's. You are unlikely to have an intruder. But you are very likely to get drunk, get depressed, get in a fight with someone in your house, or have your kid find your gun. That's how people get killed. Having a gun in the house makes it far more likely that you'll get your own head blown off.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/
Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)"Having a gun in your home makes it far more likely you will die. Period."
-- it is only statistically more likely all factors aside from ownership being eliminated -- which in reality they never are.
For example, the likelihood of a person who no training, who purchase a weapon and leaves it on his coffee to play with while he's drunk harming himself -- even if he just drops it on his foot -- is much higher than that of a person who has significant firearms training, is knowledgeable about the weapons he owns and secures them correctly when not in use.
I feel very confident in my (and my family's) ability to safely and properly handle and secure firearms because of experience and training.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Such studies always have one serious flaw. They never take into account whether the gun is possessed legally or illegally. They lump all gun owners as the same. Violent criminals commit almost all gun murders. Law-abiding people almost never commit murder as a first crime.
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. People with violent tempers usually get into trouble with the law early and aquire a criminal record. They get the gun illegally and then do something bad with it. Then you come along and blame honest people for the actions of criminals.
Also, Kellerman counted a burglar's gun as being a gun in the home, even if the occupatants didn't keep one themselves. Don't you think that strongly biases his study? In The New England Journal of Medicine -- September 24, 1998 -- Volume 339, Number 13 Kellerman admits to that. There are numerous other flaws in his so-called study.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)And there are other studies that come around that same 40 number. But nothing recent because the NRA shut down studies like that. Hopefully the President's executive orders will get new studies on board. But I agree, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior--like buying a gun.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Since there are about 80 milion legal gun owners in the nation and only a few thousand murderers per year, it is obvious that very, very few legal gun owners ever hurt anybody with their guns.
But being a violent criminal is highly indicitive that they will hurt someone in the future, and they are at the greatest likelyhood of gun violence if they have a gun. But they can't legally buy a gun so that is already against the law. Taking my guns away from me will have no effect on a violent criminal, except to make me an easy target.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)They want your guns. Not you.
And "legal gun owners" hurt people with guns all the time. Usually it is themselves via suicide or someone in their house.
Just by having a gun in the house, you are 5 times more likely to commit suicide.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)In this part of Texas it is a safe bet that every house has a gun. So a criminal doesn't have to single my house out to find a gun.
When I am carrying a gun, it doesn't print so the criminal doesn't know that I have on on me. If he doesn't know that, he can't target me for the gun.
Guns don't radiate a kill-yourself mind control field. A person who has decided to commit sucide has that right. It is his choice.
Law-abiding people rarely shoot anybody on purpose, and only rarely by accident. Criminology is a well establish discipline and it is well known inside the field that murderers almost always have a past as a violent criminal. Outside the field people think of the murderer as a normal person who suddenly went evil. (Too many Agatha Christie novels, and bad TV shows.)
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. That is why having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I reject your attempts to control my life.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)
EX500rider
(10,837 posts)Really? Even say jumping out of a 30 story window?
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Because you first have to drive to the nearest 30-story building (good luck if you live in South Dakota) and then you have to climb the stair or take the elevator to the top. At any point you can decide to not do it.
With a firearm in hand, once you make the decision and pull the trigger (two events that occur almost concurrently) there's nothing you can do to take it back. One moment of despair with a firearm and your life is over -- virtually every other method takes time -- time during which the person can decide to go on living.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They don't have to. They use them. Then the gun is seized and destroyed.
You'll note that fully-automatic weapons are very rarely used in crimes today, despite how popular the "tommy gun" and other fully-automatic weapons were among criminals. That's because the vast majority of guns used by criminals start as legal weapons.
Yes. In that it is much harder to successfully kill yourself using those methods compared to putting a gun to your head.
It's tricky to get the right amount of poison in you and avoid treatment long enough to die. Slashing your wrists with a knife is actually surprisingly ineffective - it's hard to bleed enough to die quickly enough to not be found or have second thoughts. And so on.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Assuming, of course, they are
caught, convicted, sentenced, and the firearm is actually located.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Again, we already did the exact same thing: We essentially banned fully-automatic weapons. People made the exact same argument, that criminals wouldn't be affected.
But it turns out almost all criminals get their weapons through sales of legal weapons. Thus fully-automatic weapons fell out of criminal use despite being incredibly popular among criminals before the ban.
CatFelyne
(76 posts)The correct name of my town is Newtown....please fix the title...Newton is up in Massachusetts...
Sorry to nitpick but when you've had the press up here as much as we have making the same mistake over and over...it's nice when others get it right
Thanks 
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If we ended the war on drugs.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)We were discussing this elsewhere today. I'm sure a quarter to a third of gun homicides have the drug trade as a "root cause"
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I think a quarter to a third is a lowball.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Even if we just de-criminalized marijuana, there would be a significant dent in crime.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)I think that they should all be legal. However, not treated the same.
Pot = 100% legal and can be bought on my way home from work, no tracking, no hassle. With a good sized tax.
All others, 100% legal however only dispenced in a medical facility by a doctor. Here is my kicker... It should be free.
This I feel would have a greater effect on reducing the number of folks addicted to harder drugs. You will have the stigma of it requiring a visit medical facility, lessening the appeal to younger folks.
I believe that the Swiss have this model, or something close to it and it is working well.
A few decades and 1.5 trillion dollars since we declared a war on drugs, the exact same percentage of Americans are addicted today that were addicted back then. The war is not working.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... make it mandatory.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but it bears repeating.
IMO, a person has a right to do with their body as they please. Their body, their rights... to try and control what they do with it (or pretend that a determined individual will not simply choose a substitute method) is pretentious.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)And to sit by and watch a person who is under the influence of drugs or alcohol end his life (25% of male suicides are drunk at the time they take through own life) and not do anything to stop it is also pretentious -- and cruel beyond belief to those who mourn.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Their personal choices shouldn't impact the rights of other people. There are plenty of other quick methods. There are other countries with much higher suicide rates than our own who seem to post those statistics just fine without easy access to guns.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Using a gun don't give them a chance to have second thoughts.
Poisons, knives, ropes and all the others give them a chance to change their mind. Yet they're still plenty lethal if they don't.
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 05:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Edited after some feedback from Meta (and with apologies to anyone who was offended; in retrospect the original was too flippant):
I was not aware that pellet guns were actually that dangerous; I thought that was an urban myth. I'm glad I know this now, and I'm sorry for that kid's family
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)A kid in my school got shot in the eye with a pellet gun and nearly died, and lost his eye. Pellet went directly through the center of his eyeball into his brain. He fully recovered, except for the glass eye he needed after that. He was in the hospital for quite some time though.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts)It entered behind his ear and lodged in his brain.
He missed almost a whole year of school, IIRC. I remember visiting him at home for the whole school year.
Phentex
(16,334 posts)
kentuck
(111,078 posts)Kick
Dpm12
(512 posts)They Republicans say that the weirdos will just come in with knives and machetes. While that may be true, it is not going to be as easy to kill so many people in an amount of time.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)fewer than have dies in cars, small price to pay for freedom, yada yada
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)A few years ago, gun deaths started exceeding deaths in auto accidents.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)keeping it current.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Sort of like when Iran took the hostages in 1979 (I saw Argo last night), and night like kept a daily reminder of how many days they'd been held hostage.
sad-cafe
(1,277 posts)very good