Understanding the Risk of Firearms: Suicide vs. Homicide - page 6

If you watch the news or TV shows, you might be led to believe that there is a high risk of firearm homicide. Researchers from Northeastern University, University of Washington, and Harvard... Read More

  1. by   akulahawkRN
    Quote from BCgradnurse
    I also want the strictest laws possible, but I believe there are a lot of responsible owners like Dude who should be able to have a handgun or hunting rifle. I don't see the need for an arsenal. I also think the Second Amendment is outdated as written. So there.
    And therein lies the problem. Who decides what constitutes an arsenal? Who decides how many is too many? If the Second Amendment is outdated as written, what other Amendments are also outdated as written? That's a very deep rabbit hole. While the various Amendments do have their limits, they also protect modern era stuff. You cannot have one Amendment protect only those items of the era in which it was written while simultaneously having other Amendments that were written in the same era protect modern things too.

    The Second Amendment is a Fundamental Right. That alone limits how strict the laws concerning arms can be. Because the field of Second Amendment decisions is very small and limited, we haven't yet seen the full scope of what the Second Amendment covers. It's been less than 10 years (as I write this) that the Second Amendment has been applied to the States. In that time, there have been conflicting decisions across the Court Circuits that have yet to be resolved. I guarantee you that the Supreme Court is looking for "the right" case to resolve the conflicts in a very clean manner. Most of the cases petitioned to that court aren't all that clean and SCOTUS doesn't want to wade into those cases. There's a case out of Hawaii that's very clean and may eventually reach SCOTUS. If it stays reasonably clean, it will probably be taken for consideration. It's a pure "bear" case and is better than some of the cases that originated in California.

    I'll say it again: This is a subject that's still very new to the Courts. It's going to take years, if not decades, to fully flesh this out to where the public has a good grasp of what's protected and what isn't.
  2. by   akulahawkRN
    Quote from klone
    Thanks, Tomi.

    I'm sure that fact gives a lot of comfort to the parents of the babies who died at Sandy Hook, or my personal friend, who's daughter was killed in the Santa Fe High School shooting last May.

    It doesn't stand for Assault Rifle?? Well, THAT'S sure as **** a relief!
    Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, killed his mother and then stole her guns before going to the school...

    Also, in case you didn't know, the Santa Fe HS shooting didn't involve ANY semi-auto weapons. None. Explosives and a Molotov Cocktail were also employed (thankfully didn't go off). The shooter stole those from his dad.
  3. by   klone
    I didn't actually do research to determine which shootings took place with AR-15s and which ones didn't, because it's frankly completely irrelevant.
  4. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from akulahawkRN
    There really is no further need to clarify. When it comes to "mass shootings" do understand that there is no fixed definition of what this is. Broadly, it can refer to more than 3 victims, whether killed or just injured. The FBI has used a definition of more than 4 persons murdered in a single event or within close proximity. They have also used a definition of 3 persons murdered in a single event or in close proximity. If you look at "just" injuries, the number of incidents skyrockets. If you use a much more restrictive definition of 4 persons murdered, the number of incidents plummets. Under one definition, there could be around 300 incidents per year, using another, it's less than 100, often substantially lower.

    I go by what the FBI uses because that's a common reference that all law enforcement can use to report such incidents nationally.
    Did you not understand my questions? You haven't answered any of them. How a mass shooting is defined isn't actually what I asked, because I think we both know that even if we fiddle with semantics, the *amount of gun violence* in the U.S. still far outweighs that of other countries with stricter gun laws.

    I'll ask again---if you think mass shooters in the U.S. do it for "fame," why do you think this is a phenomenon unique to the U.S.? How could that be explained?
    Last edit by LibraSunCNM on Dec 6 : Reason: syntax
  5. by   pixierose
    Quote from akulahawkRN
    Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, killed his mother and then stole her guns before going to the school...

    Also, in case you didn't know, the Santa Fe HS shooting didn't involve ANY semi-auto weapons. None. Explosives and a Molotov Cocktail were also employed (thankfully didn't go off). The shooter stole those from his dad.
    I think there is a point being missed here.

    With Adam Lanza, there was an entire *dynamic* going on there. He didn't merely steal guns; his mother purchased these types of guns for him. So many, many factors came into play with Sandy Hook that ultimately failed those 26 people who lost their lives. This was a kid who was on the radar briefly, whose mom all but gave up, whose dad and brother hadn't spoken with him in about 3 years. He was anorexic. So many things failed.

    Mental illness played a role with this kid. But the shear amount of weapons in this household, the high number of rounds he was able to unload in such a short amount of time, also played a role.

    Relative to other countries, we do not have a disproportionately high number of mentally ill people. We do not have a disproportionately high number of extremists. What separates us from every other developed nation in the world is the sheer number of guns that exist in this country and the ease with which they can be acquired. We have 120.5 guns for every 100 people; that's more guns than people.

    A March 2016 study in the American Journal of Medicine found that Americans are 25 times more likely to die from gun homicide than people in other wealthy countries. Why?

    Women in the U.S. are 16 times more likely to be killed with a gun than women in other high-income countries. Why?

    And in case we begin to lose sight ... Firearms are the second leading cause of death for American children and teens and the first leading cause of death for Black children and teens. Black children and teens are 15 times more likely than white children and teens of the same age to die by gun homicide. A very real public health issue, indeed.

    So what do we do?

    We focus on mass shootings and wring our hands, blasting lack of mental health services. But that ain't the whole of it. Then give our thoughts and prayers and wait for the next one.

    We focus on those darn inner cities and thank our lucky stars "we don't live there and WE'RE safe, gosh darn it ... I'M responsible, it's those hooligans in the cities." And then we forget about it the next moment, forgetting that "hey, this is actually a public HEALTH concern too ..."

    Slippery slope or not, if the government decides to go all rogue, the peashooters don't stand a chance. We don't have years, decades, to wait for what's protected. There needs to be a change; it won't happen and people will keep dying.
  6. by   OldDude
    Quote from klone
    I didn't actually do research to determine which shootings took place with AR-15s and which ones didn't, because it's frankly completely irrelevant.
    Very good point...the AR15 has been targeted as the poster child for mass shooting/gun violence and everything evil and wicked about guns...I have "traditional" deer rifles that are considerably more powerful than the AR15, shoot just as fast, and could be outfitted with the same magazine capacity, but have a lot of polished wood, a gleaming barrel, and look like you grandpa's gun displayed over the fireplace. No relevance, exactly, no relevance.
  7. by   rzyzzy
    Quote from pixierose
    And THIS, THIS post is a big part of the problem.

    You have no clue what you're talking about, making it impossible for both sides to meet in the middle. You have pre conceived notions of what these "moms/mayors/high schooler students against guns" are.

    I'm part of the Sandy Hook Promise. I'm actually a promise leader. We're not out to take every damn handgun out there. We're not even funded by rich New Yorkers. We start at the community level, working with schools and students ... we focus on mental health initiatives. And yes, we work on gun control initiatives.

    What a disgusting comment, "parkland students and gifford's are all puppet organizations ..."

    .... I'm going to go ahead and say that those who experienced mass shootings and gun violence first hand can have center stage allllllllllllll they want. Do I need to even say why?

    I'm not against guns. I'm not against people like OldDude owning guns. I'm against misinformation like you just spouted as a reason to keep your guns. I'm against the whole, "it's my right as the second amendment intended!" as a reason to keep your guns. I'm against the NRA having so much power.

    We have to talk about gun violence. The sad fact is, many gun owners (as seen by this thread) don't want to. They point to, "well, I'm safe and most of us are." Ok. Great. So what can we do about those that kill? Because something has to give, and it ain't all mental health, lack of family values, or everybody else's fault.
    It's not even a secret that both moms against gun violence and the parkland "survivors" are funded by Michael Bloomberg. David Hogg was / is not a "survivor" of the parkland shooting, he was at home when it happened. Giffords is literally a puppet of her money-chasing husband - this has all been well documented. And the Brady campaign is still "handgun control inc", with the same agenda today that they had in 1975.

    There's no need for a "conversation" that involves only one side sacrificing their constitutional rights.
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from rzyzzy
    It's not even a secret that both moms against gun violence and the parkland "survivors" are funded by Michael Bloomberg. David Hogg was / is not a "survivor" of the parkland shooting, he was at home when it happened. Giffords is literally a puppet of her money-chasing husband - this has all been well documented. And the Brady campaign is still "handgun control inc", with the same agenda today that they had in 1975.
    I'm a gun owner and supporter of the second amendment, and it's people like you who are the biggest threat to the preservation of rights for gun owners. As a sort of separate issue, your contention that David Hogg was "at home" during the shooting, which has been well debunked, as well as putting Parkland "sruvivors" in quotes minimizes and discounts what kids go through in these situations, which makes you a generally horrible human being.

    Quote from rzyzzy
    There's no need for a "conversation" that involves only one side sacrificing their constitutional rights.
    The best protection of the second amendment is not to overplay our hand, which is what people like you do. The second amendment protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners to own guns which are primarily for a lawful purpose. None of the commonly proposed 'gun control' laws violate these rights, and it's these measures that will best protect the second amendment.
  9. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from rzyzzy
    It's not even a secret that both moms against gun violence and the parkland "survivors" are funded by Michael Bloomberg. David Hogg was / is not a "survivor" of the parkland shooting, he was at home when it happened. Giffords is literally a puppet of her money-chasing husband - this has all been well documented. And the Brady campaign is still "handgun control inc", with the same agenda today that they had in 1975.

    There's no need for a "conversation" that involves only one side sacrificing their constitutional rights.
    "Survivors" in quotes? Are you implying the shooting at Parkland was a hoax? Do you realize how despicable you sound?
  10. by   OldDude
    OK...here goes. I've said it before and I'm saying it now. Regardless of your point of view about the subject, guns in the US are here to stay, and the best route forward is to deal with those who will use them to try and kill innocent people. Regardless of regulation, guns will be available to bad guys, good guys, and the entire spectrum of guys between those book ends. I believe once we stop trying to control the guns and wholeheartedly concentrate on the woefully lacking mental health climate in the US we can make a difference in the senseless loss of life and grief as has been inflicted to now.
  11. by   BCgradnurse
    Quote from rzyzzy
    It's not even a secret that both moms against gun violence and the parkland "survivors" are funded by Michael Bloomberg. David Hogg was / is not a "survivor" of the parkland shooting, he was at home when it happened. Giffords is literally a puppet of her money-chasing husband - this has all been well documented. And the Brady campaign is still "handgun control inc", with the same agenda today that they had in 1975.

    There's no need for a "conversation" that involves only one side sacrificing their constitutional rights.
    This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read.
  12. by   Sparki77
    Quote from klone
    Thanks, Tomi.

    I'm sure that fact gives a lot of comfort to the parents of the babies who died at Sandy Hook, or my personal friend, who's daughter was killed in the Santa Fe High School shooting last May.

    It doesn't stand for Assault Rifle?? Well, THAT'S sure as **** a relief!
    Klone-

    If you are referring to "Tomi" as in the Tommy Gun that would constitute an example of a fully automated rifle. They were around during prohibition and no, I'm not related to Al Capone. I did get a laugh at the spelling if that was your intention.

    I am sorry for your loss Klone. I'm sorry for everyone that was affected by the shootings. I'm pretty sure my words of sorrow do not offer any comfort to those you speak of just as my clarification of what AR actually stands for doesn't either. That was the point of my post you quoted. It has an undeserved reputation due to mislabeling, assumption, lack of understanding and/or education et al. That was my intent.
    Last edit by Sparki77 on Dec 7 : Reason: Changed & added text
  13. by   klone
    Quote from Sparki77
    Klone-

    If you are referring to "Tomi" as in the Tommy Gun that would constitute an example of a fully automated rifle. They were around during prohibition and no, I'm not related to Al Capone. I did get a laugh at the spelling if that was your.
    No, I was referring to Tomi Lahren, and her infamous "Geez, stupid lefties, AR doesn't mean Assault Rifle" tweet, as if that REALLY makes a difference in this debate. What it's called and what the letters stand for doesn't change what it is.

close