What's wrong with gun suicide?

[TPaine7]

Really, what's wrong with any suicide, but since gun suicides are a subject of concern, I posed the question as I did.

What right has one human being, or many for that matter, to tell another that s/he must continue living? Why is it wrong to kill oneself? (By wrong, I mean an offense against society which it is justified in defending itself against, not an offense against God or a religious code.) And how does the need rise to such a level as to require broadly infringing everyone's rights to the means of self-defense? Should we disarm millions of US adults to protect 14,000 people who want to die, because we are better able to make their life and death choices than they are?

That seems to me to be exceedingly arrogant, but I would like to hear other opinions.

[Juche]

1. Banning guns to stop suicide?

That makes no sense. First of all even if they were illegal people could still buy them the way they buy drugs, on the black market.

Secondly, if a person is hell bent on suicide they can make a gun out of a shotgun shell or revolver bullet and a piece of pipe. So banning guns won't accomplish anything if a person can get a bullet and find a hardware store.

Thirdly, people commit suicide by other means too. Hanging, poison, car wrecks, etc.


All in all that is a weird argument I've never heard before, banning guns to stop suicide.

[crim son]

2. Nothing's wrong with gun suicide.

It's just super.

[Genevieve]

8. Yes

:crazy:


:hi:

[crim son]

31. ...

:hi:

Shall we dance? :P

[Mz Pip]

3. They're messy?

Other than that, I can't think of a thing. People who want to kill themselves will find a way, gun or not. Seems pretty absurd to bans guns on the off chance that someone won't use one for suicide.

If it were me, and I have thought about this, I would be as neat as possible - maybe a drug overdose (let's ban prescription drugs!) or maybe walk off into the ocean after drinking a bottle of something more than 13% alcohol.

I guess I would want to spare my family the pain of having to clean up the mess. But that's more a a woman thing. I seem to remember that women don't often use guns. We're more of a pills type. Much neater.

[aspergris]

9. Suicide, mess and gender

"I would be as neat as possible - maybe a drug overdose (let's ban prescription drugs!) or maybe walk off into the ocean after drinking a bottle of something more than 13% alcohol."

Actually, this is a primary difference between men and women - suicide.

Women 'attempt' far more often than men (a great majority being more cries for help than real attempts- such as swallowing a bottle of tylenol, etc.) and very rarely use guns even when they have access to them. The mess thing is spot on. Women before they commit suicide will frequently (this is funny but true) CLEAN UP the house, etc. Women who do shoot themselves will (far moreso than men) shoot in the abdomen vs. the head (which is where nearly every man does it) partly argued because they don't want to leave a mess, other - don't want to mess u the face.

Study suicide - the gender differences are fascinating.

In regards to drugs - arguably the easiest and most painless drug to commit suicide with is over the counter in many states (like mine) - insulin. In any state where needles are OTC (like mine) or easy to come by, it's really a no brainer suicide method.

[JeanGrey]

36. Drug overdose is notoriously hard to do. The body tries

mightily to reject the offending drugs and usually does which leaves you getting your stomach pumped and afterwards committed somewhere for a while. Not that people don't succeed, but it is much harder than you think!!

Also you are taking a chance that you WON'T die with a drug overdose and you will just do a great deal of brain damage and then you'll be tied to a wheelchair drooling down your chin for the rest of your life. I wouldn't recommend it. Guns are better. Messy but quick and final.

[Liberal Veteran]

4. It's a shitty thing to leave for others to clean up.

Otherwise, I am indifferent to the manner in which others want to end their lives.

[JeanGrey]

37. So go into the woods.

[Longtooth]

5. Nothing more than with ANY suicide.

[Tab]

6. You have two questions here...

Are you questioning suicide in general, or suicide by gun?

Guns are messy for suicide, but I guess if you don't care who finds you or you want to make a statement, that's your choice.

Suicide in general is another topic altogether. Given that you posted in the gun forum about GUN suicide, I'll keep away from the question about suicide in general.

Banning guns won't prevent suicide, at best it'll limit suicide by guns.

What exactly is your question?

[TPaine7]

11. Actually some of both.

I think the argument against gun suicide is weak for reasons that apply to suicides in general.

My questions are, to put them slightly differently, 1) is suicide an actual offense against society which it is entitled to defend itself against? and 2) if not, don't many of the arguments against gun suicide fall apart under their own weight?

Your point about messiness and who finds you and has to clean up is valid. In the abstract, if those problems could be alleviated the issue would go away.

[Tab]

29. I'm not convinced it's an offense against society

But it is very distressful and devastating for those who love you and whom you leave behind. If you're trying to make a point punctuated by your suicide, it usually doesn't work - all it does is leave everyone devastated and wondering what went wrong and how they could have averted it and why you didn't ask for help.

Of course, as Cecil Adams once said, the laws are tricky - the penalty for attempted suicide is death; the penalty for a successful suicide is life in prison.

So consider your choices carefully.

[TPaine7]

30. In that sense it can be wrong, and often is

But it is very distressful and devastating for those who love you and whom you leave behind. If you're trying to make a point punctuated by your suicide, it usually doesn't work - all it does is leave everyone devastated and wondering what went wrong and how they could have averted it and why you didn't ask for help.

I absolutely agree.

[katandmoon]

7. A close relative who was bipolar shot her head off during a bout of depression

She left two young children.

Yes, she was under a doctor's care and on medication. It wasn't enough. She bought the gun with the EXPRESS purpose of killing herself with it. She'd been threatening to do this. Nobody could stop her.

YOU try telling her children that there was nothing wrong with that.

ETA: I hate guns and I wish they were all banned. There is something wrong with somebody who is obsessed with having guns and protecting the right to own guns at the cost of human life. Something very very wrong.

[TPaine7]

16. I understand your perspective.

A very close relative made a decision to avoid medical treatment that was based in a religious belief. I disagreed with her belief but agreed with her authority over her own body and her right to die as a result.

I have very strong views of personal sovereignty, even when guns are not involved. Guns are not actually the point, they are a tool.

Mental health issues are not the point of the OP; people with mental health disabilities are supposed to be banned from gun possession.

"There is something wrong with somebody who is obsessed with having guns and protecting the right to own guns at the cost of human life. Something very very wrong."

Many rights cost human lives. IIRC, the police had the Zodiac mass murderer but lacked sufficient evidence to keep him locked up. If they had been able to search his house without warrant, torture him into confession, and forced him to tell them the murder methods, the locations of the bodies, and other details, they could have proven that he was the murderer and saved many lives.

Do you agree that

"There is something wrong with somebody who is obsessed with having <Bill of Rights freedoms generally> and protecting the right to <exercise them> at the cost of human life. Something very very wrong"?

If not, why are Second Amendment rights in a special category? Is it because you hate guns?

With the greatest respect to your feelings (and I say that honestly without a hint of sarcasm), shouldn't public policy be based in principles--rules that work across the spectrum of rights?

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

26. More than 1% of gun owners have vaginas and ovaries.

You need to re-check your statistics.

Otherwise, I respect your erudite and level-headed opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Source?

99% is my favorite made up statistic.

How do you define people who 'might actually need one' and people who 'think the world is out to get them'?

[jody]

99. “99% of people who buy guns for self protection . . .are paranoid and cowardly.” You insulted

80 million law-abiding citizens out of some 200+ million potential voters.

It's attitudes like that that cost Gore and Kerry the White House.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

105. It's a shame you cannot discuss topics without becoming hysterical. I hope you live a very long time

because this day might be the best you will ever have.

Peace and goodbye, :hi:

[iverglas]

110. my congratulations

just for sticking to the point:


They are the gun nuts. Not the 70+ million others. Just them. They are the ones that whine about 'gun grabbers' whenever anyone suggests a reasonable restriction that will help keep guns out of the hands of crazies and criminals.

But go ahead. Conflate the two.


Because we know how hard they will work to do the conflating.

I would be slightly gentler perhaps on many of these people who buy firearms "for self-defence".

The fear is sold to them, and it's a very hard sell. The fear is what they need to feel if they are to be conscripted into the racist misogynist right-wing cause they are needed as foot-soldiers in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

111. Thanks, but congratulations are unwarranted.

After all, I'm hysterical.

[TPaine7]

25. Then I am sorry for your loss

and wish you the maximum peace possible.

[beevul]

44. Interesting...

"... gun obsessives are - They froth at the mouth over any HINT of control over their precious weapons? Why? There are plenty of limits on other rights in the Bill of Rights."

I am having trouble understanding who you are talking about. Who are these "gun obsessives" you mention? Is there any significant presence of them hereabouts? If so, could point them out to so that the clear majority of us---we who support instant background checks and restrictions from purchase and possession on violent fellons , domestic abusers, and violent mentally ill - that is.

Why do some gun owners act as if their very dicks and balls are at stake at the mere suggestion of putting some limit on their right to point and shoot with their dick extensions (which is what I consider guns to be for many men)? Their fiction of guns for "self-defense" is just that -- FICTION.

Yes indeed. And those of us who keep things like fire extinguishers and spare tires and life preservers around...we're just paranoid too, after all...the fiction of fires and flat tires and situations where someone would drown without a life preserver -- FICTION. :sarcasm:

Heres a little something to chew on for a while...if more people acted "as if their very dicks and balls are at stake" where FISA or the patriot act or attacks on the first and fourth amendment
were concerned, they might be as intact as the second is.

Of course...it would be so much easier to do that, if you had a bunch gun owners on your side, rather than letting republicans grab up their votes while simultaneously making them deaf to anything you might say on other issues.

[DrCory]

53. The Method Is...

Irrelevant. Tens of thousands of Japanese manage to extinguish their lives with methods other than gun-shot per year. A dear friend of mine, actually a woman I was madly in love with, jumped to her death. Should I now despise multi-story buildings and advocate "stringent controls" on them?

"Their fiction of guns for "self-defense" is just that -- FICTION"

Having used a firearm in self-defense, I can assure you fiction it is not.

[SteveM]

114. You hate guns, but you seem to loathe gun-owners as well...

"Froth at the mouth," "...act as if their very dicks and balls are at stake...," "dick extensions," "gun-lovers' mindset."

With respect, you really need to re-examine your own mindset.

BTW, almost all of us have had severe family problems at one time or another. These require counseling, family members changing, sometimes legal action with regards a family member. Grasping for a massive social engineering scheme centered on prohibition is only a distraction from the problems at hand.

[iverglas]

42. how can you be this ...

you know what.

Mental health issues are not the point of the OP; people with mental health disabilities are supposed to be banned from gun possession.

That statement is false, and you know it is false.

People who have been found to be incompetent (a completely separate issue from what is under discussion here) or who have been in-patients (involuntarily committed, as I recall offhand) for psychiatric treatment are supposed to be precluded from purchasing firearms.

You know perfectly well that a huge proportion of people with schizo-affective disorders or, particulary, mood disorders, are never in-patients.

So why would you try to deflect this argument with this kind of trash?


If not, why are Second Amendment rights in a special category? Is it because you hate guns?

Translation: is it because you are a person of subnormal intelligence and/or delusional and thus judge / have emotional reactions to inanimate objects?

Alternative translation: am I a disingenuous demagogue?



typo fixed

[TPaine7]

74. For decent bystanders who may not see what is going on here.

I'll elaborate.

I said: "Mental health issues are not the point of the OP; people with mental health disabilities are supposed to be banned from gun possession."

iverglas said:

People who have been found to be incompetent (a completely separate issue from what is under discussion here) or who have been in-patients (involuntarily committed, as I recall offhand) for psychiatric treatment are supposed to be precluded from purchasing firearms.

You know perfectly well that a huge proportion of people with schizo-affective disorders or, particulary, mood disorders, are never in-patients.

So why would you try to deflect this argument with this kind of trash?

I stand by what I said. Laws have been put in place to keep the mentally disqualified from possessing guns. A family who has a member with a diagnosed mental health issue who as a result is threatening to purchase a gun for the specific purpose of suicide should be able to have the person declared incompetent. If that is not possible under the law, the law regarding the purchasing of guns by diagnosed patients who threaten to commit suicide should be changed. This is no excuse to ban guns or any class of guns.

As for a disingenuous demagogue, I would expect her to:

1) Twist the arguments of others to manufacture problems
2) Avoid dealing with the perfectly legitimate, principled questions raised
3) Fabricate words to put in the mouth of another poster to distract from her avoidance of the substantive questions raised

[iverglas]

82. beeg whoop, boyo

I stand by what I said. Laws have been put in place to keep the mentally disqualified from possessing guns.

This is called petitio principii. I think you may have shaken hands with the concept in the past.

"Mentally disqualified" is a term of art in your sentence. It refers to exactly what I said it did: people who have been found incompetent or involuntarily committed for treatment.

Do you often find that repeating yourself without responding to rebuttals of what you have said works well in the classroom?

All you have done is repeat yourself and begged the question.


A family who has a member with a diagnosed mental health issue who as a result is threatening to purchase a gun for the specific purpose of suicide should be able to have the person declared incompetent.

That's nice.

Well, actually, no, it's not. It is the biggest misrepresentation of fact I've seen in a while.

I believe I said it in the post to which you are supposedly responding: INCOMPETENCE and ILLNESS are two completely separate issues. ILLNESS is the issue here. It has absolutely nothing to do with INCOMPETENCE. As I already CLEARLY STATED.

Incompetence is a determination that a person is not fit to handle his/her own affairs, perhaps because of Alzheimer disease or dementia, perhaps because of developmental disability.

People with a psychiatric ILLNESS are not ordinarily adjudged incompetent. A severely depressed person should not have his/her right to dispose of his/her own income and property taken away, and that would not generally happen. The people with a psychiatric ILLNESS who are disqualified from firearms possession are people who have been determined to present a danger to themselves or others.

People who are determined to be INCOMPETENT do not necessarily present a danger to anyone. They might just be in the habit of handing out wads of cash to strangers on the street.

Do you really, really not have a clue what you are talking about? Or are you intentionally misrepresenting reality?

People with a family member who appears to present a danger to him/herself or others because of a psychiatric ILLNESS might succeed in having that person involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility. If there is a bed available, if the person doesn't present as non-suicidal when interviewed, if they're lucky, etc. And in theory, that person's confidential, private medical records will then make their way into the NICS system where they will operate as a bar to firearms purchase. In theory.

And a person who has no family or is not in touch with family, or who is carefully concealing his/her illness and/or suicidal ideation/intent from family, and from anyone else with whom s/he is in contact? Fuck 'em, eh? And anybody else s/he might decide to take out when s/he goes.


If that is not possible under the law, the law regarding the purchasing of guns by diagnosed patients who threaten to commit suicide should be changed.

I see. If it is not possible to have the right of people with psychiatric illnesses to handle their own affairs taken away from them, the law should be changed? I think you'll encounter some opposition from people who defend the rights of those people. Of course, I think that if you'll educate yourself, you'll find you're spouting nonsense.


This is no excuse to ban guns or any class of guns.

If you'll point us to the source of ths straw that is apparently getting up your nose, we may be able to help you dispel it.



html fixed

[TPaine7]

117. Pitiful

"Mentally disqualified" is a term of art in your sentence. It refers to exactly what I said it did: people who have been found incompetent or involuntarily committed for treatment.--iverglas

I was, in context, talking about a person disqualified from possessing weapons for mental reasons.

Since the Brady gun control act was passed in 1993, states have been required to submit information to a national database on people who are not allowed to buy firearms under federal law. Those prohibited from gun ownership include convicted criminals, those involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and those whom courts have deemed “a mental defective,” meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14guns.html

So according to the New York Times, a court can declare someone a "'mental defective,' meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others" for mental reasons.

Now here's what I said:

A family who has a member with a diagnosed mental health issue who as a result is threatening to purchase a gun for the specific purpose of suicide should be able to have the person declared incompetent. If that is not possible under the law, the law regarding the purchasing of guns by diagnosed patients who threaten to commit suicide should be changed.

And iverglas:

Well, actually, no, it's not. It is the biggest misrepresentation of fact I've seen in a while.

LOL. Occasionally, iverglas is truly amusing.

Reading comprehension. Sigh.

This is not a misrepresentation of fact. It is not even a representation of fact. It is an opinion of what should be.

More iverglas:

I see. If it is not possible to have the right of people with psychiatric illnesses to handle their own affairs taken away from them, the law should be changed? I think you'll encounter some opposition from people who defend the rights of those people. Of course, I think that if you'll educate yourself, you'll find you're spouting nonsense.

Now iverglas actually has a point here. I apparently misused the term "incompetent." Someone please congratulate her.

But if you aren't a desperately dishonest sophist, I trust the context to make my real meaning clear. I didn't mean what this technical term implies. I didn't mean that bipolar people should not be in control of their lives generally, simply that the subset of bipolar people who are threatening to commit suicide as a result of their condition should be subject to be forbidden to possess arms through some legal process.

Those who have read her for awhile ask yourself if you think she actually disagrees with me on that.

Pitiful.

[iverglas]

120. you are, in context, talking in a fucking circle

I was, in context, talking about a person disqualified from possessing weapons for mental reasons.

They are DISQUALIFIED because they have been made the SUBJECT OF OFFICIAL ACTION.

**NOT** because of mental illness -- because of the ACTION TAKEN because of their mental illness.

Mental illness IS NOT a disqualification from possessing firearms.

INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT and DETERMINATION OF INCOMPETENCE are disqualifications from possessing firearms.

A person who is seriously mentally ill BUT HAS NEVER BEEN INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED is NOT DISQUALFIED from possessing firearms.

So you can stand by what you said all you fucking want.

I stand by what I said. Laws have been put in place to keep the mentally disqualified from possessing guns.

It's still A GREAT BIG CIRCLE.


You say:

So according to the New York Times, a court can declare someone a "'mental defective,' meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others" for mental reasons.

and allegedly in support, you quote -- I include your emphasis:

Since the Brady gun control act was passed in 1993, states have been required to submit information to a national database on people who are not allowed to buy firearms under federal law. Those prohibited from gun ownership include convicted criminals, those involuntarily committed to mental health facilities, and those whom courts have deemed “a mental defective,” meaning they are a danger to themselves or to others.

Perhaps your first clue here would be "according to the New York Times". Last time I looked, the New York Times was not an authority on mental health law or firearms law. The New York Times is WRONG.

Those INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED TO MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES are the ones who are "a danger to themselves or others".

Since you seem to like newspapers as sources, let's try the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/24/AR2007042402524_pf.html

But most of those records are generated by involuntary civil commitments to state hospitals, criminal judgments in which a person has been found not guilty by reason of insanity, or court proceedings that have determined a person "legally incompetent" or "mentally incapacitated" -- that is, unable to function in society.

The Post got it RIGHT.



You said:

A family who has a member with a diagnosed mental health issue who as a result is threatening to purchase a gun for the specific purpose of suicide should be able to have the person declared incompetent.

And that continues to be complete and utter BULLSHIT.

A suicidal person is in almost all cases NOT INCOMPETENT.

S/he IS a danger to him/herself and/or others, and thus may be INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED. **NNNOOOTTT** declared incompetent.


You have nothing to lose by acknowledging this, really. Your statement works perfectly well if you just make it correct:

A family who has a member with a diagnosed mental health issue who as a result is threatening to purchase a gun for the specific purpose of suicide should be able to have the person INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED.


And the facts remains that

- access to this solution is limited by underfunding
- an individual who is truly suicidal may be perfectly able to present as non-suicidal
- many people do not have, or are not in contact with, anyone who is in a position to do this


This is not a misrepresentation of fact. It is not even a representation of fact. It is an opinion of what should be.

No, it's BULLSHIT. No one "should" have his/her authority over his/her own income and property taken away because of depression or another psychiatric illness or disorder.

If you would do two minutes' research and find out what "declared incompetent" MEANS, you might be participating in a discussion here, instead of spewing nonsense.


I apparently misused the term "incompetent." Someone please congratulate her.

Good fucking god. You very certainly did, and still are, spewing nonsense.


I didn't mean that bipolar people should not be in control of their lives generally, simply that the subset of bipolar people who are threatening to commit suicide as a result of their condition should be subject to be forbidden to possess arms through some legal process.

Oh gosh. So you figured you'd spend a few dozen thousand words posturing and prating and INSULTING, and conclude with the admission that you were spewing nonsense, and I caught you at it.

You deserve the congratulations here, I'm afraid.

[JeanGrey]

38. My life was saved twice because once I had a gun; the other

time someone else had one. So it really depends on what side you're on!

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tburnsten]

78. In all fairness

no FFL is required to follow through with any purchase, even if it is ok'ed by the NICS, and people who give the impression that they intend to harm themselves or others can and will be told they can't buy a gun that day. Not that that helped your neices/nephews, but try not to sling blame where it isn't due.

[bluerum]

10. I'm more concerned about people that don't want to die at the end of a gun.

If someone does want to die perhaps that in itself should be discussed, rather than the method.

To place more importance on ones right to carry a gun than someones else's life is at least as arrogant as telling people that something is wrong with them because they want to die.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Huh?

To place more importance on ones right to carry a gun than someones else's life


Who is doing that?


David

[Real_Talk]

55. depends on who's life

[Skittles]

12. here's what's arrogant

trivializing suicide in a gun forum

Skittles
daughter of a father who used a gun to blow his brains out

[TPaine7]

17. Asking a sincere question is not trivializing.

I have had a close relative die as a result of a sovereign decision over her own body. See my post above.

I am sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent to offend anyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Sorry for your loss.

Where else should one discuss gun suicides on DU? I guess he could cross post to the health forum, that would probably generate more constructive conversation.


David

[Skittles]

23. discussing them is one thing

trivializing them is another - it is readily apparent the OP has no concept whatsoever (even with some experience) of what suicide really means - they're statistics to him

[TPaine7]

28. Whether or not suicide is "wrong"

as defined in the OP is not subject to objective analysis. If I decided to kill myself, I do not think it the government's legitimate business to stop me.

Your assertion that I have no concept whatsoever of what suicide really means is unjustified and frankly rude. My relative is not a statistic to me. It is best to stick to the subject matter and avoid personal characterizations about things about which you are profoundly ignorant.

I told the doctors that she would refuse treatment and personally enforced her rights at her request after trying to convince her to change her mind (not that that's any of your business). You have no foggiest idea of what you are talking about with respect to my knowledge. Even after your display of judgment here, I would not dream of disparaging your knowledge of suicide based on your experience. We disagree on human rights, you are entitled to disagree. So am I.

[iverglas]

45. it's the sophomoric self-absorption

that has been on display for some time here now.

Thank you.

[SteveM]

116. Please remove your full-body blotter and things might dry out (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. No one has trivialized anything here.

People have offered you condolences and have posted thoughtful post about the subject. The America's Shooting Gallery updates are the clearest example of the sophomoric self-absorption that Iverglas refers to and to trivialization of tragedy that you refer too. Again sorry for your loss. It will likely be impossible for you to see this discussion as anything but a personal affront to you and your family so I would ignore it for your own peace of mind.

David

[SteveM]

115. I think you are trivializing the problem...

The post brought up suicide in a gun forum because one of the arguments gun-controllers use is that readily-available guns encourage suicide or drive up the rate of suicide; the OP is a response to these arguments.

What do you mean by "arrogance?" Do you suggest banning/severely controlling guns to prevent suicide?

[Cirque du So-What]

13. The only thing worse than being successful

is being unsuccessful. The link below has a photo of James Vance, one of the two teenagers who were the catalyst for the lawsuit against the band Judas Priest for 'subliminal messages' to commit suicide.
http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/03/remember_1985_w.html

Although his attempt at suicide by shotgun blast was unsuccessful, he committed suicide by overdose of painkillers two years later. Curious that he didn't attempt suicide by gun again, isn't it?

[east texas lib]

14. Sometimes, when the pain of living becomes exceeds one's capacity to bear that pain...

Some will opt to leave this life. Two people in my family have done so. An uncle and a cousin, one
chose a firearm, one inhaled a refrigerant. Both left behind devastated family members. But it was
their life to live or not live. What more profound choice can one make? If they wish to employ a
firearm as the manner of their demise, so be it. Since one cannot truly know another's mind or
heart, pain or joy, who are we to deny what manner that one chooses to depart this life?
And why would we infringe upon the rights of others(in this case gun owners) because some elect
to do so? We should not.

[Flatulo]

15. A good friend killed himself with a revolver 10 years ago this week.

This was a total shock to everyone who knew him. He seemed to be one of the happiest and upbeat guys I knew.

He had already gone through one divorce, and his second marriage was in trouble. He drank a bottle of Tequila and blew his brains out, leaving a darling 3 year old daughter and a stunned network of friends.

I cannot help but think that the alcohol caused him to make this terrible decision, but there's no way to know.

He was a very responsible gun owner, as I am. I've never mixed guns and alcohol, but then I've never had a suicidal thought in my life.

In retrospect, I can't help but wonder if or how he would have done this if he hadn't had guns handy. On the other hand, I have this strong libertarian streak that tells me that he was the owner of his life and his decision to end it was none of my business. If I had had the opportunity, I would have attempted to talk him out of it, but he had moved to the west coast years earlier and we had not had regular contact.

[Longtooth]

20. I battled with depression and suicidal thoughts for a number of years. And I

can tell you that the gun does NOT enter the picture as part of the mental torment of to "do it or not".

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. But it does make it easier, and likelier.

It is one of two reasons why I will not own a gun. One, I'm not scared enough of the world to think I need it. Two, I am tired enough of the world that a bad day might be all it takes if I had one handy - so in my sane and sober moments I resolve not to make it easy to end things in a not-sane unsober moment.

[Longtooth]

33. No it does not, on either count.

If you have any stats to say that more suicide attempts are successful with firearms than by other methods please share them. However it is my (unsourced) understanding that the most successful attempts are completed by asphyxiation. Just from the research I did many years ago. Successful attempts of suicide by firearms has about the same success rate as slitting your wrists. (again that is unsourced but from what I recall from years ago.)

Your other text is not relevant to the OP and as so, I will not respond to them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

108. Yeah?

http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/07/01/WorldNation/Suicide.Rate.Highest.Among.Gun.Owners-3386798.shtml

"More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore."

[Novus Collectus]

40. It does not make it more liklier

"It is one of two reasons why I will not own a gun. One, I'm not scared enough of the world to think I need it. Two, I am tired enough of the world that a bad day might be all it takes if I had one handy - so in my sane and sober moments I resolve not to make it easy to end things in a not-sane unsober moment."

I have to ask, how did you cross the street or take the subway? A truck, a bus or a train comming by is always a quick and easy way which prevents itself repeatedly......does traffic make suicide more likely? Think about it.

The easy way is hanging, jumping too. The success rate for jumping in Japan is high and even in the US the success rate for hanging is almost the same as it is for firearms, and just about everyone not in a psych ward or a prison cell has access to some sort of ligature.

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. You do not apparently understand depression.

Sure, jumping is very effective, if you make sure you jump from a high enough spot. So you have to find that spot, climb up to it, and jump. Depending on your choice, and your locale, that could take anywhere from 10 minutes to hours. Therefore, only those who are DETERMINED to kill themselves will do it that way.

In the midst of the bleak night, when seized by an overwhelming, but momentary, impulse the depressed person has the option to end it NOW - just take the pistol from the drawer and do it. It's over.

That same person, seized by an overwhelming, but momentary, impulse is not going to jump - the moment is over by the time he gets to his jumping place.

Gun suicides are, above all, quick. There's no preparation, like finding a strong rope and figuring out how to hang yourself in an apartment with 7.5' ceilings and no overhead fixtures. There's no chance of calling 911 after it's started, like with pills or wrist cutting.

It's impulsive. Easier and likelier, and one of the most effective.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. Do you have a car and a hose, prescription meds, a knife, a rope and tall building nearby?

I never have figured out why you oh so brave gun grabbers want to ban all the guns if you aren't afraid of anything.


David

[RaleighNCDUer]

106. Self delete -

I thought you were replying to my post above, #40, which addressed those exact points, and went off an a completely unjustified rant, considering you were actually replying to #27.

My sincere apologies.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. No worries.

[rzemanfl]

22. It's messy and sometimes people survive, requirng medical

care for years.

[JeanGrey]

39. THAT is true of all suicide attempts unless you fall 100 feet or

something. Especially drugs. Guns usually work.

[stillcool]

32. It has nothing to do with the person..

it has to do with those they leave behind. Which is ironic.

[russ1943]

35. Murder-suicides

The fact is that most of the 30,000 people who die each and every year from gunshot wounds, pulled the trigger themselves. The issue of suicide is important to the general discussion of guns. The availability of firearms as referenced in post # 27 is accurate, their easy access does make suicide easier and likelier. Most serious academic “studies” won’t provide easy answers, since they use terms like “potentially effective” “high risk factor” “reduce the likelihood” and “significant contribution” but that is the nature of that beast.

I’d like to comment in this thread regarding a related issue that doesn’t seem to be noticed or discussed much. The issue of “murder suicide”.

Certainly no one can be in favor of murder suicides. Many of the most well known tragic shootings are disturbed people who want to take someone, or too often, “as many as possible” with them. Firearms like assault weapons designed to kill as many as possible with a minimum of effort are understandably IMHO subject to criticism as a result.

“…………Most people think of suicide as a solitary act, affecting only one person. Yet,
the effects of murder-suicide go far beyond the shooter: family, friends, co-workers,
and absolute strangers are among those who are killed as a result of these acts of
desperation. Moreover, murder-suicide often leaves children parentless. During the six-month period tallied in this study, there were 234 suicides—yet the total number of deaths was 554. More people died from murders associated with the
suicide—320—than from the suicides themselves. These numbers call into grave
question the common belief that suicide, especially firearms suicide, is a solitary act
that affects only the shooter…………….”
http://www.vpc.org/studies/amroul2008.pdf

[Novus Collectus]

43. 9/11

9/11 was a gunless murder suicide and in one day they probably took more lives than all the murders in murder suicides (not including suicide pacts) using a firearm there was in this country for the past fifteen years combined.

If you want to kill as many people as quickly as possible, then blow up a building like in Oklahoma city or just like Andrew Kehoe did when he blew up a school in Michigan killing scores of kids.

If you live in an unarmed society where no one has guns, then kill as many people as you want with a knife like how it happens so often in Japan lately. Some were murder suicide too.

You want to take out as many people as you can quickly and easily? Drive your car at high speed into a dense crowd of people.....I bet you take out more people than a Uzi with a 30 round clip would.


"The fact is that most of the 30,000 people who die each and every year from gunshot wounds, pulled the trigger themselves. The issue of suicide is important to the general discussion of guns. The availability of firearms as referenced in post # 27 is accurate, their easy access does make suicide easier and likelier. Most serious academic “studies” won’t provide easy answers, since they use terms like “potentially effective” “high risk factor” “reduce the likelihood” and “significant contribution” but that is the nature of that beast."

The fact is that Japan has more suicides a year, every year, than we have people die a year from all causes of gunshot wounds combined and 99.9% of their suicides are without using a firearms.
Easy access or no access to firearms makes no difference to the suicide rate. Hangings are just as effective and means for hanging are easy available and accessible almost everywhere. When access to firearms is restricted, the suicide rate remains stable.

[iverglas]

47. if

If you want to kill as many people as quickly as possible, then blow up a building like in Oklahoma city or just like Andrew Kehoe did when he blew up a school in Michigan killing scores of kids.

What might this have to do with the people (mainly men) who actually want to kill their spouses (mainly women) and children, and then themselves?

Why would they blow up a school? What is going on in your mind? Desperate spinning, maybe?


The fact is that Japan has more suicides a year, every year, than we have people die a year from all causes of gunshot wounds combined and 99.9% of their suicides are without using a firearms.

And the facts are that
- suicide is a very different phenomenon in Japan, socially, economically and demographically, from what it is in the US
- Japan has had virtually no suicide prevention strategies or services, until the last three years or so, and its strategies and services are still light years behind what are implemented and available in the US, for instance

So your comparability quotient is just too low to hold water here, I'm afraid.



typo fixed

[Novus Collectus]

48. Eh?

"What might this have to do with the people (mainly men) who actually want to kill their spouses (mainly women) and children, and then themselves?"

If you notice the person brought up so called "assault weapons" and killing a bunch of people that are not their family or spouse.That is why I brought up suicide bombers and mass murderers that did not use firearms.

Not too many so called "assault weapons" are used for murder suicides and even their own link said something like less than 3% involved a rifle of any kind. I am not the one who went off tangent.


"And the facts are that
- suicide is a very different phenomenon in Japan, socially, economically and demographically, from what it is in the US
- Japan has had virtually no suicide prevention strategies or services, until the last three years or so, and its strategies and services are still light years behind what are implemented and available in the US, for instance

So your comparability quotient is just too low to hold water here, I'm afraid."


Lol, and you accuse me of spin and desperation.

The comparison that matters -if you took the time to notice- is that more guns does not mean more suicides and Japan is the perfect example of no firearms available and people still find the means to commit quick and easy ways for suicide that are just as likely to succeed.

Firearms do not make one more likely to kill themself or to succeed if they try. Hangings are just as accessible, just as easy, and just as effective. This is where the Japan comparison is is used, but it is not the only evidence there is. It is however a good example.

[iverglas]

54. blah de blah de blah

Some embellished blah blah blah in this one.


If you notice the person brought up so called "assault weapons" and killing a bunch of people that are not their family or spouse.That is why I brought up suicide bombers and mass murderers that did not use firearms.

So did you want to address the spousal/family murder-suicide thing at all? That was there, too.


The comparison that matters -if you took the time to notice- is that more guns does not mean more suicides and Japan is the perfect example of no firearms available and people still find the means to commit quick and easy ways for suicide that are just as likely to succeed.

No, the comparison that matters would be an all things being equal comparison, where the demographics, the economic situation, and other relevant factors were factored out before doing the comparison. One biggie being, of course, the motivation for the suicide.

One reason would be that method of suicide varies considerably with those factors within a population, so why you would think you could compare populations without controlling for them, I wouldn't know.

Apart from that, to compare populations in a situation where one population is influenced by suicide prevention strategies and has access to suicide prevention services, while the other doesn't, is simply not quite candid.

[Real_Talk]

56. Don't need a gun

Women are murdered all over the world without the use of a gun. Men are bigger,stronger and demonstrably more violent on average. The truth is that a man doesn't need a gun to kill his wife and children. Maybe some men who are physically challenged might need a gun to kill their family, but the average physically able man doesn't need any help to kill people who are likely caught by surprise.

Living with another person requires one to trust that person with your life, gun or no gun.

[iverglas]

57. and yet ...

they overwhelmingly use guns.

Scenarios:

strangle wife, go jump off bridge
poison kids, shoot self in head
drown whole family, take overdose
stab wife, suffocate children, fall on sword

Funny how

shoot wife
shoot children
shoot self

just seems so much easier ... and so much more likely to happen ... and in fact happens so much more commonly in places we're actually talking about.

Or perhaps you somehow managed to miss the fact that this little chat is about MURDER-SUICIDE, not murder.

[Real_Talk]

64. does it matter?

Once you have decided to kill your family and self, does it matter how you do the deed. I will agree that a gun makes the killing easier, but I don't see how it makes it more likely. There is too much chicken and egg going on there to know the truth.

A quick google of murder suicides seems to show that it isn't that rare to go with the first scenario you trotted out except it seems like strangle wife is more likely to be followed by hang self than jump off bridge, although I did see one slash girlfriend and then jump off tall building.

If you are sick enough to do the things these people do, It doesn't look like lack of firepower will stop you.

[iverglas]

65. ah, you "did see one"

Congratulations. I believe what you found is called anecdotal evidence.

The VPC analyzed the actual data. Has someone else done that? You? Anyone? We'd all be happy to see the results, I'm sure.

I'll be going with what actual suicide prevention experts say about it all, and what they say is not what you say.

[Real_Talk]

69. The VPC

has a real heavy agenda if you had not heard. That would be like linking to Stormfront for black cultural studies. If you ask a car salesman or not you need a new car;the answer is yes. if you ask the VPC if guns make women less safe at home; the answer is yes.

I never disagreed with the idea that people shoot their wives. I only said that their is no way to know if people are more likely to kill because they have a gun, the VPC study only talks about what people do, not why they do it.

I saw more than one non-gun murder suicide in about 45 seconds on google btw. I understand that people commit crimes, not tools. When you live with a person and they have unlimited access to you, taking the guns,knives,blunt objects, etc... from the home is no guarantee of safety. Life is a gamble,always has been,always will be.

[iverglas]

71. the numbers

Disprove 'em. Or die trying, eh?


the VPC study only talks about what people do, not why they do it.

Gaaawwwwd. Did you want to volunteer to interview THE DEAD PEOPLE?


When you live with a person and they have unlimited access to you, taking the guns,knives,blunt objects, etc... from the home is no guarantee of safety. Life is a gamble,always has been,always will be.

Yada yada ding ding ding.

We are talking about people who decide to kill someone else AND THEMSELVES. Can you try to remember this?

[Real_Talk]

83. What do the numbers prove?

The numbers that the VPC puts out say that most people in a murder/suicide use a gun, that is it, that is all the numbers say. As you said, no one interviewed the dead murderer. Since their is no explanation, it requires some stretching to say that the presence of the gun caused the crime. Maybe you feel comfortable making that leap, I do not.

When the WWE wrestler strangled his wife, smothered his son and hung himself, was the presence of cord the problem? When the guy in the Chelsea Section of NYC slashed his ex's throat and then went flying off a building, was the knife the cause. When the guy beat his kids to death with a hammer and then shot himself, which was the cause, the hammer or the gun? I think we would all agree it is silly to blame everyday household tools for their owner's misuse. So why do some people assign magical powers to another dumb,mindless tool?

[iverglas]

84. I just dunno

So why do some people assign magical powers to another dumb,mindless tool?

Why are some people so dim and/or disingenuous as they so obviously are??

Don't worry. I won't ascribe any magical powers to you.

[iverglas]

46. fine minds

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x178395#178922

No response there either.

[Novus Collectus]

49. VPC?

Wow, VPC is a well respected think tank....that is only listened to by the gun cotrol lobby and their supporters. A "study" by them is like the NRA conducting a study and expecting people to think they were unbiased.

The VPC never stated what their criteria is for "murder suicide" and they also did not say how many were suicide pacts that would be listed as murder-suicide if the one person assisted the other.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they did such a study every six months for years and they just used the one with the highest number.....but a biased and partisan, special purpose, gun control group wouldn't do that, now would they?

[iverglas]

51. blah blah blah?

Yes, that's what I thought you said.

[pipoman]

50. Quoting the VPC,

one of the most demonstrably dishonest groups of Rethugs on the planet and expecting people in these parts to respond with anything short of <yawn> is very optimistic to say the least. Using them as your sole source is like using NRA stats to demonstrate a point in these parts, it only serves to have the entire premise of the assertion dismissed summarily without further consideration.

[iverglas]

52. oh, blah blah blah!

Demonstrably dishonest blah blah blah, this time.

[pipoman]

58. As usual

no substance just blah, blah blah....this time literally.

[JeanGrey]

73. Most people who want to kill themselves will suceed with or

without a gun. And yes it affects others. So does adultery and people still do it.

[iverglas]

81. one of those self-fulfilling prophecies

Most people who want to kill themselves will suceed with or without a gun.

So obviously, people who try to kill themselves and don't succeed just didn't want to kill themselves!


And yes it affects others. So does adultery and people still do it.

Yes, and that would be very relevant if someone were proposing to outlaw suicide attempts.

(I know attempting suicide is a criminal offence in most parts of the US, but that is obviously unconstitutional, and it has nothing to do with the discussion here anyway.)

[JeanGrey]

118. Do you really think that a gun alone is responsible for a

suicide?

[iverglas]

119. oh yes! absolutely! I believe it 100%!!!1!1!

Why, isn't that just EXACTLY what I've been saying????

[JeanGrey]

121. It still blows my mind when I hear stuff like this.

If someone wants to kill themselves bad enough they WILL. No matter what they have to do.

[iverglas]

123. not nearly as much

as the utterly moronic and unspeakably disrespectful question you asked me blew my mind, bub.

Oh, not to mention how much it blows my mind to imagine that you would even pretend to think my reply was not so laden with sarcasm it's a wonder this entire site didn't sink under it.

[iverglas]

41. who said???

What right has one human being, or many for that matter, to tell another that s/he must continue living? Why is it wrong to kill oneself?

Which human being(s) told anyone s/he must do this? Who said it was wrong?

I hope you don't pay too much for that straw you seem to have such a huge supply of.

Did we really need yet another thread here about suicide this weekend, or do you just like to see your name in lights?


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/03/MNG9UFHK811.DTL

Al Birney was not on the Toronto City Council. He was not a mental health expert. He was a 63-year-old retiree who lived in Ontario with a son suffering from schizophrenia. But he had worked in public relations for decades, so he knew how to bring attention to a cause.

Birney attended meetings of the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. In May 1997, he met a woman who said her son had come to visit on Mother's Day, given her a kiss and the next day jumped to his death from the Bloor Street Viaduct, a bridge connecting Toronto's east and west sides. It was North America's No. 2 suicide magnet. Nearly 400 people had committed suicide by jumping since the bridge was built in 1918. <480 by the time the barrier was built>

... "We were interested in this bridge, rather than subways where people also commit suicide, because it was a magnet -- people were coming from all over to jump," Birney said. "The old argument is: If they don't go here, they'll go somewhere else. That was a red herring. We knew we were right."

Aw, who cares, eh? Fewer schizophrenics and other messy people for the health care system and police and justice system and welfare system to have to worry about.


Should we disarm millions of US adults to protect 14,000 people who want to die, because we are better able to make their life and death choices than they are?

Who said you should?? If you're hearing voices, make sure they're not telling you to harm yourself.


That seems to me to be exceedingly arrogant, but I would like to hear other opinions.

Actually, when it comes to arrogance ... well, it's outshone only by dishonesty in some cases.

[pipoman]

59. I am not

arguing the merit of Toronto's decision to install the suicide guard from a standpoint of the best interest of the city. It seems reasonable in light of the number of non-Toronto residents who apparently traveled to Toronto to use the viaduct to end their life at the expense of the city. Only to question the effect of the installation on the overall numbers of suicides. To assume that the same people who would have previously traveled to the viaduct to end their lives chose not to end their life in another way called in the sited quote a "red herring", has not been demonstrated a "red herring" in any way. Is there any evidence at all that anyone has chosen not to commit suicide because of the barrier?

[iverglas]

62. short times and small numbers

It may never be measurable.

Best I found when searching last night:

http://www.torontolife.com/urban_decoder/2006/oct/16/weve-had-couple-years-suicide-prevention-barrier-a/

We’ve had a couple of years with the suicide prevention barrier along the Bloor viaduct. So who was right? The city, which said it would cut overall suicides, or the critics, who said suicidal people would just go somewhere else?—(name), Midtown

Posted on October 16, 2006

You’re not the only one who’s curious: the Toronto coroner has been contacted by municipalities as far away as San Francisco, which is considering a similar barrier for the Golden Gate Bridge. But the short and frustrating answer is, we still don’t know. Toronto’s suicide rates have been steady over the past half decade, averaging 243 per year, but there’s always a degree of fluctuation from one year to the next. The problem is that the number of deaths that resulted from jumps off the viaduct before the so-called luminous veil was installed is smaller than that annual variation. It’s likely a trend will emerge eventually, but it will take a few more years. In the meantime, the only thing we can say with certainty is that our barrier prevents suicides at its location: since its installation in 2003, there hasn’t been a single jumper.

Something I posted in another thread showed that there was NO displacement from a bridge in DC, I think it was, where barriers were erected, to a barrier-less bridge very close by. And if there were going to be substitution, one would really expect that a nearby identical method would be where the effect would be seen.

[pipoman]

61. I think the biggest problem with

suicides in the US is the lack of mental health treatment, especially for the poor. If we are talking about mentally stable, terminally ill people, I agree with you. If we are talking about mentally ill or depressed people who would likely benefit from treatment, then no, I don't believe they are better able to make their own life and death choices than others. Most depression causing problems are temporary but seem permanent to a suicidally depressed person. Many, many people who wave been suicidally depressed at one time in their life who received treatment go on to live happy, successful lives. I believe society has an obligation to assist these people when they are known.

[iverglas]

63. could I just add

-- having no quibble with anything you have said -- that criminalizing suicide attempts is *not* the appropriate way to get services to people in need of them. Apart from being a rights violation.

Attempted suicide has not been an offence in Canada for several decades.

[pipoman]

66. I believe in my state

suicide is a criminal issue. I also believe that the criminal aspect of it allows the state to force treatment/confinement and the criminal issue is rarely pursued beyond involuntary confinement/treatment.

[iverglas]

67. well, it's still the wrong way, and still a rights violation

If we made doing something bad for yourself a crime so we could conduct interventions, well, somoking would be a crime. Isn't this just the sort of thing that's frowned on around here?

This always strikes me as another of those interesting blind spots. Like "felons" not being permitted to vote. It's how we does it, it's how we always done it, and it works fer us. Never mind that it violates important rights.

Involuntary confinement, if that's what's truly needed, can be arranged very easily without dragging the criminal justice system into it at all, or dragging the individual into the criminal justice system. We have involuntary commitment here, and we have no criminal offence of attempting suicide.

[Spoonman]

68. "Quote one for us"

There must be so many posts of mine to that effect -- could you quote one for us?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=178135&mesg_id=178919

It's how we does it, it's how we always done it, and it works fer us.

Why, that's a nose on your face.

Please feel free to "word-smith" your way around it, we love watching you dance!

[iverglas]

70. I'll leave the jig to you

You're on: what the fuck are you talking about?

My post was a reply to a post. Quel amazement! Did you happen to read it?

Read many posts hereabouts calling for the denial of the right to vote of individuals convicted of crimes to be eliminated? Maybe you can find me some links for that.

[Spoonman]

72. blah de blah de blah n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. He is talking about your denial that you stereotype people from the south.

Then he is using your above post as an example of you stereotyping people from the south. It's really pretty clear, you may want to drink a cup of coffee and come back and read it again. Maybe it will make sense when you are more alert.

David

[iverglas]

79. Dave, Dave, Dave

Sometimes it saddens me that you are so clueless.

No, he wasn't using any post as an example of me stereotyping people from the south. That really, really, really doesn't make an iota of sense.

He directed me to a post in which I had requested that someone offer some evidence of a statement s/he had made about me. Oh, look, it was him. And how interesting it is to note that he never did offer any evidence of that statement -- which would be no surprise, since the statement was totally false, and it's impossible to offer evidence of a totally false statement.

(I have actually never said anything at all about "people from the south", to my knowledge, unless I happened to quote statistics about homicide rates in Birmingham, Alabama, or some such -- and statistics aren't "stereotyping". The statement Spoonman made about me stereotyping people from the south was just something he made up in his own head and pooted out his own bum.)

I don't know whether a few cups of coffee might help you, Dave. I very much doubt it. But you could try.


The actual thing here is that Spoonman said, to me, "quote one for us". The problem here is: "one" WHAT?

[Spoonman]

86. iverglas, iverglas, iverglas

Sometimes it saddens me that you are so clueless.

I was using your post as an example of your blatant stereotyping of people from the south.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You challenged me to "provide" a quote, and I did.
Actually you provided it for us, but that's nothing new, you do it daily.

You really do need that cup of coffee Dave recommended.

On second thought, try Jolt cola, it has double the caffeine!

PS - Some interesting related searches show up when you google Stereotyping.

Searches related to: stereotyping
examples of stereotyping
stereotyping articles
stereotyping in the media
types of stereotyping
racial stereotyping
prejudice
discrimination
racism

[iverglas]

87. well then spoonman spoonman spoonman

You have problems beyond my ken or competence. Someone seeing things that are not there is not within either.

[Spoonman]

92. I reckon weuns just ain't as brainy as them northern folk

Wait, several others have pointed this out too.

Maybe you just have a problem you are unwilling to address!

[iverglas]

88. I have a theory

You are claiming that me speaking Newfie is "stereotyping of people from the south", even though Newfoundland is and always has been at the pretty extreme northeastern tip of the continent.


http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=1Rbr2dp-Ed8&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3D1Rbr2dp-Ed8

i like the way we does it in newfoundland
throw them and let em suffer that makes them
taste alot better


Fer instance.


PS - Some interesting related searches show up when you google Stereotyping.

I don't actually get related searches when I ask google for something.

But hey, you could try googling dim disingenuous and see what you get.


Lord. Did ETHNOCENTRICITY pop up in those related searches?

[Spoonman]

90. Theory is all you have

You are claiming that me speaking Newfie is "stereotyping of people from the south", even though Newfoundland is and always has been at the pretty extreme northeastern tip of the continent.

I have never mentioned ANYTHING about Newfoundland.
I have several very close friends that are "Newfies", and I would not want to insult them by associating you with them.

Funny how others see what you are doing, and all you have is theories in rebuttal. Hmmmmmmmmm

[iverglas]

93. oh, I have a number of theories

me: You are claiming that me speaking Newfie is "stereotyping of people from the south", even though Newfoundland is and always has been at the pretty extreme northeastern tip of the continent.

you: I have never mentioned ANYTHING about Newfoundland.


Non sequitur much? Total failure to comprehend anything at all much?


You were claiming that me speaking Newfie was me "stereotyping people from the south". You didn't KNOW I was speaking Newfie, fer fuck's sake.

ASS + U != Me.

[Spoonman]

95. Total failure

That is what your "newfei excuse" is.

ASS+EXCUSE = Still smells like shit

This was FAR from the the first time!

GOOD BUY!

[iverglas]

97. good buy?

On sale, was it?

[Spoonman]

98. Typical

Can't counter with substance.

Pitiful, truly pitiful, but so typical of you.

[apocalypsehow]

109. Another diverting sub-thread in the gun forum (you came off badly, I fear).

I used to think it was just my eyes, tricks of light and all. But I've never had any kind of trouble with them, and my oldest brother used to fly tankers for the (Insert name of state somewhere in lower-48 America here) National Guard. So I ruled that out.

Then I surmised that perhaps DU used special filtering software here in the gun forum that scattered words randomly around posts that were deemed insufficiently coherent to be understood by the prototypical human brain, as a pro-active attempt at intellectual mercy.

I even considered the possibility that serious academic inquiry was at work here, and all that that entails.

No longer. Please, do continue: one has to pay serious money for this kind of entertainment in Kansas City.

[pipoman]

91. Wondering...

did you mis-post in this sub thread or am I missing something????

[Spoonman]

94. You are missing something

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=178135&mesg_id=178248

This is only one of dozens (if not more) of posts by Iverglas that clearly demonstrate her narrow minded attitude (stereotyping) of people who believe in RKBA, whereby she broad brush labels all as ignorant rednecks from the south, or something to that effect.
You don't even have to be a supporter of RKBA, if your from the south, she'll lump you right in with the rest.

[iverglas]

96. man oh man

If you want to identify with the family of loons who were my out-laws for a time, you feel free.

You really might want to look up that definition of "stereotyping" again.

Every one of those people was real, right down to Aunt Jan with the fingernails. I think you'll find that reporting on the behaviours of individuals does not fall within the definition of "stereotyping".

Hell, you wanna hear my tale of the week I spent in Chicago? Canadian finds murder victim on front lawn of Chicago apartment building. Talk about yer stereotyping. Obviously, all residents of Chicago die of baseball bat blows to the back of the head.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. So which one of your relatives made the statement you quoted?

No one that you have spent more than 5 seconds around made that statement. You think way to much of yourself to be around people that you consider below you. Elitist is the word that comes to my mind when I see the name Iverglas.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. The above post is evidence.

Really it's not that hard even for a lawyer.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. This post.

IVERGLAS wrote, "It's how we does it, it's how we always done it, and it works fer us."

This is the blatant stereotyping that he is referring too. Is that clear enough for you?


David

[pipoman]

89. I sort of knew what he was trying to say

but his saying it in this sub-thread baffles me. :shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. Sub-thread within a sub-thread.

It does get confusing.

David

[pipoman]

80. I guess I am not following

the rights violation aspect. An involuntary commitment is subject to judicial review which puts the person in the legal system no matter how you slice it. I have known a few people who have attempted suicide and none have came away with a criminal conviction. They were handled much like a diversion where upon completion of their treatment they are released from the system. We have no public health care system. Psychiatric hospitals do not offer free treatment. By the person being in the custody of the state the hospital knows they will be paid for their services. In recent years the pharmaceutical companies have all developed programs to get needed medications to people who otherwise can not afford them. This was due to the Canadian pharm issue and threats from Congress to intervene in the companies business if they continued to hear stories of people starving to death because they couldn't afford both food and medication. The system isn't perfect but is much better than it used to be.

[iverglas]

85. it's a principle

If adultery were illegal and nobody were ever convicted of it, the people who were arrested were just given cards referring them to family counsellors, would that be okay?

Smoking? Arrest and release, with appointments with smoking cessation counsellors?

Suicide is an exercise of liberty. It may be an unwise exercise of liberty, but so is smoking.

People who attempt suicide should be offered every assistance in solving the problems that led them to make the attempt, if that is possible. Sometimes it isn't possible. Sometimes someone really is just terminally ill and in intractable pain and there is no help available.

Exercises of liberty that don't meet the criteria for being proper subjects of criminal law should not be criminalized. Attempting suicide just doesn't meet any of the criteria for criminal law.

Deprivation of liberty is a separate issue from criminalization. People can be deprived of liberty to greater or lesser extents without using the criminal law and criminal justice system. Due process and so on will still apply.


We have no public health care system. Psychiatric hospitals do not offer free treatment. By the person being in the custody of the state the hospital knows they will be paid for their services.

Yes, that's tragic, and there is not a hint of sarcasm in my voice. It's like having to relinquish your children to the state to make sure they get food.

But it still isn't justification for treating someone who attempts suicide like a criminal. An involuntary civil commitment process would have the same effect, without the stigma of the criminal law and justice system.

It sounds like angels on the head of a pin. But consider a terminally ill person in intractable pain who chose to attempt suicide -- and who could not be committed because s/he simply was not irrational or deluded or suffering from any psychiatric illness. Such a person could be deprived of liberty using the criminal law and criminal justice system. And that really is a huge violation of the right to liberty.

[Dukkha]

107. better than throwing themselves off a building

They would then risk taking someone else with them and damaging property below. A gun suicide at home usually just results in a call to the coroner to pick up the mess.

[JeanGrey]

122. No kidding. They might hurt someone else in the fall