vision wrote:Our culture is exceptionally violent. While violence in the United States continues to fall along with world trends, we lag far behind our peers (Europe, Australia, Japan, etc..). That fact alone should be a little disturbing considering places like Bosnia have a lower rate of violence -- and they were involved in a genocidal war just a couple decades ago.
You would have to be blind to not see the gun lust in the US. You would have to be an idiot to not see how guns facilitate fatal violence much easier than other methods such as stabbing, smashing, and poisoning. And, you have to acknowledge the fact that an enormous number of gun deaths are suicides, for witch there is a
hard link between gun availability and prevention (yes, most suicides are preventable). If our society doesn't care enough to help people with mental illness the least we can do is reduce gun access to only the most stable and responsible of our population. If you think that Iran is not responsible enough for a nuke, you should also acknowledge that the average person is the US is not responsible enough for gun ownership. You definitely don't believe everyone in the US should own a nuke even though the 2nd amendment gives me that right. The only difference between you and I is where you draw the arbitrary line between who can own what.
The solution I've proposed before is to increase the requirements for gun ownership and create incentives to reduce the number of guns in circulation.
This is interesting, and I feel inclined to agree with you as far as safety measures (e.g. better security implementation, requiring guns to be locked up in certain situations such as households with minors or at-risk dependents, etc.) go. Yes, guns are sadly a popular go-to for suicidal persons. That's probably at least in part because of the way they are portrayed by media, as efficient killing tools. And while I think it is more important that people with mental illness get the attention and treatment that they deserve, it also wouldn't hurt to try to make their situations a little safer as well.
This of course will do nothing for situational suicide risks, as that sort of thing could happen to anyone, and the only way to prevent a gun being used in that case would be to ban them altogether. I think that is neither necessary nor prudent. What
would be a good idea? More comprehensive background checks. Stricter regulation on family households regarding safe storage and handling. Those two things alone would probably work wonders. However, I think it's important to remember that guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Take away the gun and they will find something else to use. This applies to suicidal people as well - if they can't readily access a gun, they will likely seek an alternate means. Bottom line is, it won't deter them entirely from killing themselves, but it will help.
I think it's a little impractical and naive to assume that simply taking guns out of the equation will make most suicides just 'go away'. People don't just decide to kill themselves because there happens to be a gun readily available. It's much more than that. The gun is not the source of the issue, it is merely a facilitator, and as such, taking it away only delays the inevitable. In some cases, yes, the lack of access to a firearm would 'prevent' suicide in the sense that it would give others that are paying close enough attention to the signs of suicidal tendency the extra time they need to intervene on the suicidal person's part. This is not a guarantee, however, as it still relies on others who care enough to step in and do something, which I think is probably a bigger issue than making guns less available.
Raise suicide awareness. Inform people. Tell them what to look for and how they can help. These things would do much, much more for the suicide rate than simply reducing the number of guns out there.
People need to know that others care.
Now, to make this slightly more relevant:
Arizona law says that any person 21 years or older, who is not a prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license.
State Constitutional Provision: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
Article 2, Section 26.
Arizona has 14.1 deaths due to injury by firearms per 100,000. Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge. Deaths from injury by firearms exclude deaths due to explosives and other causes indirectly related to firearms.
If one only accounts for assault and intentional self-harm, that's 5.62 in 100,000. If you only count assault, it's 2.81. Curiously enough,
the homicide rate for the entirety of the US was about the same at 2.83 in 100,000 in 2012, while the national suicide rate is more than double Arizona's at 6.30 in 100,000.
I'll be intellectually honest here and say that, as I don't know the exact figures for each attributable cause of death due to firearm injury counted in Arizona, I'm estimating by counting each cause as a round 20% of the total. Still, it's worth thinking about.
