Understanding the Risk of Firearms: Suicide vs. Homicide

Gun violence is a hot topic these days. Turn on the TV for any length of time, and you will hear stories of firearm homicide. But, did you know that firearm suicide is more common in the U.S? Learn about the statistics of this public health issue and if nurses have a role in the firearms debate. Nurses General Nursing Article

Updated:  

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 University conducted a study into the perceptions of gun violence and the leading cause of death in the United States. They found that the presence of a firearm in a home increases the risk for suicide, which is more common than firearm homicide.

So, what's behind our misconception about gun violence and how do you educate the community about the real dangers?

Looking at the Numbers

According to the Brady Campaign, the oldest organization in the gun violence prevention movement, 96 people die every day in the United States from gun violence. Of these 96, 34 are murdered, and 59 die from suicide. That means nearly twice as many people die from firearm suicide compared to firearm homicide. There are also 246 people shot daily who survive - 183 are injured in an attack, 49 are shot unintentionally, 4 are shot in a legal intervention, and 11 survive a suicide attempt.

A 2014 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine reported that access to firearms in the home increases your risk of violent death by suicide, homicide, or unintentional injury. There was a direct correlation to the risk of suicide among people who had access to firearms compared to those without access. The study also reported that the US has one of the highest rates of access to firearms in the world.

Could impulsivity and the ease of access to a gun place some people at a higher risk of committing suicide or homicide? The study suggests that it's possible. Yet, there are no hard data to support the claim. States with the highest rates of firearms, also have a higher percentage of firearm violence compared to non-firearm violence.

Is it a Public Health Issue?

According to the American Public Health Association (APHA), gun violence is an issue that is deeply rooted in our culture and must be addressed through a public health approach. Violence research should be conducted to ensure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands. APHA also believes that access to mental health services must be expanded to those who need it most to decrease the number of suicides by firearms.

Do Nurses Have a Role In the Firearms Debate?

Every day nurses in Emergency Rooms across the country come face-to-face with the gun violence issue. They might deal with victims of homicide, suicide, and unintentional shootings.

Nurses who work in schools have become far too familiar with the issue over the past few years. The National Association of School Nurses released a Position Brief in which they state that school shootings in the US are an urgent public health crisis. The NASN advocates for safe school environments for all children and recognizes the emotional and physical effects that gun violence has on our students. This doesn't account for nurses in the ICU, rehabilitation units, and many other settings that might care for gunshot victims.

Unfortunately, healthcare workers can fall victim to gun violence, too. Recent research has highlighted the prevalence of suicide among nurses. And, gun violence in hospitals and other healthcare facilities seems to happen at an alarming rate. In fact, just a few weeks ago, a young doctor was killed in the parking lot of Mercy Hospital in Chicago at the hands of her former fiancee.

What Can You Do To Help?

Gun violence is a hot political debate these days. No matter which side of the aisle you stand on, as a nurse there are a few things you can do to help keep patients safe:

  1. Educate patients about the risks inherent in having a gun in their home. It's particularly important to speak to parents of young children about safe storage of all firearms.
  2. Connect patients with mental health concerns to services as quickly as possible. Many patients have mental health needs that if left unattended can quickly lead to violence towards themselves or others.
  3. Participate in violence prevention and intervention programs at your hospital or facility. None of us want to discuss or consider that a shooting could happen at our workplace, but unfortunately, the risk is real.
  4. Write to your elected officials to make your viewpoints on the issues known.
  5. Advocate for more research to be done to increase our understanding of homicide, suicide, and those who commit both.

What are your thoughts on the firearm statistics? Do you feel that nurses have a place in the firearm debate? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.

Specializes in Public Health, TB.
I hesitate to participate in any political discussion, but I do think history is always relevant. If you study the rise of the Third Reich, and the gradual occupation of other countries by the Nazi regime, you will find confiscation of legally owned and registered weapons belonging to citizens was an initial step in occupation. An excellent, first-hand account can be found in Jack can see Geest's ___Was God On Vacation?_________

Can you show where the original post suggested confiscating arms?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Can you show where the original post suggested confiscating arms?

I don't believe it did.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in school nurse.
Can you show where the original post suggested confiscating arms?

Exactly. People equate any reasonable policy e.g. background checks, mental health limitations as a slippery slope. The trouble with slippery slope arguments is that they can be applied to any limitation to any issue. (And keep those reasonable policies from being enacted as well.)

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Because the gun is NOT a factor. It is simply the item chosen to do the deed.

Exactly. The deadliest school massacre was in Bath, MI. Andrew Kehoe, who was seeking revenge for losing an election set up bombs that he could set off himself at the school. This was in 1927.

Michigan's Bath School massacre remains deadliest of its kind...

I don't own a gun, probably never will, but I support the our 2nd amendment. The point is that if someone decides to go on a rampage, they will find a way - with or with guns. We need to address the issues that cause people to go in this direction.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, ICU, Prehospital.
What could be more straight than I won't give up my guns ever. Not to you, not to the the police or even the government. When they start to try confiscations by police, then we have become a totalitiarian society and it is our duty to stand up to it. I would fight and die for my rights and yours. I spent many years in the military doing just that. Oh wait...according to some in power that makes me onenof the largest group of terrorists. A white, ex military male gun owner...

Gosh. I am...going to be sorry I did this.

Kyrshamarks, have you been to the VA recently? Are you aware of the statistics (lowballed) being put out by the Armed Forces as a whole on Veteran Suicides?

I've been reading some of the comments, and there are some fantastic points. I do believe, however, that the OP's original spirit "may" have bee (IMO) how to prevent gun violence in other ways than to Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Raising hand here...All Military Family. Bestie is a Staff Sgt in the Army. I was too much of a coward to enlist. I admit it, because at the time, I was far too selfish to put my life in someone else's hands to do with what they would.

I own a gun. Two, in fact. I see no reason to deny a psychologically sound person the OPPORTUNITY to own one. However. That being said. Just because I was of sound mind and a clean background check when I purchased the gun, doesn't mean squat for a year or ten later. Lots can change. Reupping your license is easier than initial permission, in most places.

My angle is the rate of suicides among Veterans and those around them. The mental health system for this demographic is appalling, right along with the mental health system for every American. Some of these men and women have gone through things that most ordinary humans can't even conjure in their worst nightmares. At times, it may not even be the violence that they see or are participating in (willingly or unwillingly)---it may be the pressures and environment of prolonged deployment and other factors.

When we talk about the right to bear arms, Kyrsha---I get your point. I appreciate the right to defend myself if needed. What I think most of these other posters are saying is that the atmosphere in this country is so steeped in fear---most of it manufactured by the press and propagandists. In my years on this planet, all of my travels---in places all by myself, in cities and in the country and all along the way---I have placed myself in situations (unknowingly) that most would shake their head and ask me if I were insane.

I have experienced a break in....once. My dog came around that corner with teeth bared, snarling...all 95 lbs of him....LONG BEFORE I could grab my weapon and get to the room where this stupid had kicked in my door. He was long, long gone.

Where this feeling of being threatened, at all times, constantly---I don't see where this is reality. I was a RN traveler---didn't see the need to have my weapon on my hip at Starbucks. Ever. Or in Home Depot. Ever.

The cases of mass shootings---each one...mental health was the issue. So....wouldn't it be prudent to put into place not only very firm controls on who can purchase a gun? Did you see here what I did? I said----who can PURCHASE a gun? I didn't say....who can OWN a gun. Anybody can OWN one. I can go down the street and buy a pistol right now for $125 from a guy I know. That's not the point here.

Responsible gun owners aren't threatened by this stuff. We don't go around spouting stuff like "You'll take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands". In fact, most responsible gun owners don't even let anyone (other than those at the range) KNOW they have guns.

The ones who collect orificenals, play dress up, let everyone know their rights and their intent to USE THEM IF NEEDED (and when was the last time you needed to use your weapon in the states?)---those are the ones who need an evaluation.

I am most concerned about the mental health situation in this country---not the legal wrangling. Anybody can own a gun, and it's just that easy. Our country doesn't protect or nurture those we have indoctrinated and inculcated and exposed to extreme violence and the necessity to use violence.

We spend $681.1 BILLION DOLLARS on our military budget.

$17 billion of that is apportioned for HHS. Now before you get all huffy---remember...that is for everything from NIH research on AIDS to Suicide Prevention to Opiate Addiction studies....very little goes towards direct, patient intervention.

At the VA, every single human there is tasked with the mental and physical safety of the patients, colleagues (many are vets) and families who enter those walls. It's our DUTY to care for them. This is not the attitude of the American Public at large.

While everyone is bickering over verbiage---OWN vs. PURCHASE---and what the actual need is to have 16 gun safes and 1m rounds in your garage and buried in your backyard---Veteran's and those with mental illnesses are suffering and dying because guns are available and the mental health system has failed them miserably.

I don't care why the 2nd Amendment was enacted. I can Google just like everyone else. That doesn't help anyone. The system is what we have and the question is---what are we, as Americans, willing to do in order to help these individuals that have mental illnesses, be it depression or something more profound---find alternatives to using those weapons they own against themselves or others.

Here's another thing, just as a P.S. Just because I was permitted to own a gun 10 years ago, passed all the background checks and everything---

does NOT mean that I didn't let my permit lapse and I altruistically gave up my weapons.

Let that sink in.

Ten years ago, I may have been clean as a whistle all ways to Sunday---and I legally owned an orificenal. Now....I may have developed schizophrenia. Or BiPolar disorder. Or have become suicidal because my house was foreclosed on when I lost my job and my wife divorced me. Do you think I really just went to the sheriff's dept and handed over my weapons?

New owners are what all of this is about, this permitting. It means nothing. It's a red herring. It diverts and distracts from the underlying problems that are going on here---we spend next to NOTHING on mental health for our citizens, yet we have the largest military budget on the planet, EVER---and all of that adds to the "impression" that we all need to "defend ourselves" from.....each other?

You're not a terrorist, Kyrshamarks. Nobody ever said you were. You do, however, strike me as someone who, perhaps because of past experiences in the military---feels that you are profoundly unsafe and that may need to be a conversation worth having.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I hesitate to participate in any political discussion, but I do think history is always relevant. If you study the rise of the Third Reich, and the gradual occupation of other countries by the Nazi regime, you will find confiscation of legally owned and registered weapons belonging to citizens was an initial step in occupation. An excellent, first-hand account can be found in Jack can see Geest's ___Was God On Vacation?_________

I think knowing our history is extremely important, but I wonder about the conclusions you've drawn.

Of course I've heard the same claim you're making here, many times from other gun rights advocates in the U.S.. (Not a common narrative anywhere in Europe as far as I know).

So is it your opinion that Hitler managed to take power, murder millions of Jews, socialists, communists, intellectuals, liberals, gypsies/Romani and other people he deemed undesirable and invade and occupy several European countries, because of confiscation of legally owned weapons? Are you going as far as implying that the Holocaust wouldn't have taken place if the Jewish people in Germany had been better armed?

In my opinion, you would have been better off using Mao's China or Stalin's Russia/USSR if you wanted to demonstrate that totalitarian leaders sometimes try to disarm the general public.

I'm not sure if you're simply regurgitating a talking point you've heard or if you've actually taken the time to study European history from the early 1900s to the end of WWII?

Gun laws in Germany were arguably stricter during the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) than during the Third Reich (1933-1945).

In the first years following the end of WWI and the from a German perspective, humiliating Versailles treaty; Germany faced a growing post-war economic crisis, marked by worsening debt balances, food shortages, hyperinflation and political turmoil. From the mid to late 1920s, Germany experienced some temporary relief with a period of relative stability and it saw a growing economy, decreasing unemployment and less civil unrest than during the years immediately following the war. Then the Great Depression hit worldwide and Germany was severely affected by it and things took a turn for the worse again.

Hitler was appointed Chancellor in early 1933 in the midst of the Great Depression. The Nazis restored economic stability and ended mass unemployment through using heavy military spending and extensive public work on infrastructure, including the construction of Autobahnen, was undertaken. The return to economic stability served to boost the regime's popularity. Antisemitism, was from the beginning a central feature of the regime. Hitler was actually reasonably popular amongst Germans, at least the non-liberal, blond and blue-eyed ones. Germans were primed by the defeat in WWI and the economically very challenging years that followed, to be wooed by the "charms" of a strong-sounding demagogue who promised them economic success and a status as the superior race.

Nazi gun control argument - Wikipedia

Few German citizens owned, or were entitled to own firearms in Germany in the 1930s. The Weimar Republic had strict gun control laws. When the Third Reich gained power, some aspects of gun regulation were loosened, such as allowing ownership for Nazi party members and the military. The laws were tightened in other ways. Nazi laws disarmed "unreliable" persons, especially Jews, but relaxed restrictions for "ordinary" German citizens. The policies were later expanded to include the confiscation of arms in occupied countries.

Disarmament of the German Jews - Wikipedia

The Jewish people were targeted early on, before Hitler, and they were not allowed to own guns. However, they were singled out. This wasn't an effort to disarm all Germans, "only" and specifically an identified and targeted minority.

As far as confiscation of guns in occupied countries, didn't that come after the occupation? Of course an invading country will want their continued presence to be met by as little resistance as possible, so that makes sense from their perspective. However confiscations of guns didn't lead to countries being invaded and occupied, the confiscation came after.

If there's anything we can learn from history here, it's that it's extremely dangerous for freedom and democracy when a majority of a population actively support or at least silently accept, when a minority population is being vilified, demonized, and persecuted. I'll let you draw your own modern-day conclusions, if any, regarding that.

No matter what your reason for bringing up Hitler's Nazi regime, you must realize that the ship has sailed on "you the people" figthing off a tyrannical goverment with whatever arms you have at your disposal. You are overpowered many times over. Have your guns if you feel you need them for defense against ordinary criminals, if you like to hunt or enjoy shooting for competitive purposes, but don't kid yourself into believing that they could keep you safe if your government in the future decides to come after you.

If you want to safeguard against a tyrannical government, you are in my opinion much better served by "nipping it in the bud" by keeping your government accountable and actively calling out any anti-democratic/totalitarian/authoritarian tendencies you may witness. But hey, that's just my $0.02.

Exactly. The deadliest school massacre was in Bath, MI. Andrew Kehoe, who was seeking revenge for losing an election set up bombs that he could set off himself at the school. This was in 1927.

Ah yes, and almost one hundred years later, how many more school bombings in the U.S.? How many mass shootings? If you add up the number of children murdered, do bombs or firearms "win"?

To a grieving mother or father or sibling it doesn't make the tiniest ******* difference, whether their murdered child or brother or sister was one of 44 or one of 27.

The only acceptable position in my opinion, is coming up with a plan on how to better protect children and keep them alive and safe. This attempt at normalizing one horrific crime by referring to another horrific crime, makes me slightly sick.

Why do you think that the fact that one man used a bomb translates to guns "not being a factor" when so many murders are carried out with firearms? To me, that's just poor logic.

And I'm sure you have just as little evidence to support your quote, as the poster who originally wrote it and who you quoted, has.

You are free to make the unsupported claim that guns are NOT a factor, but until you show me the evidence the backs up your claim, I'll treat your "expertise" and authority on the subject the same as I regard my "Doctor Google" patients.

If you happen to know a forensic behavioral analyst, ask him or her about what usually motivates a school mass murderer and what psychological profile is most common? What kind of feeling/result are they hoping to achieve? Then you can ask them whether in their experience and professional opinion, a perp with that typical profile is more likely to "do the deed" with firearms or a bomb?

What I do know is it is now 0341, I'm tired and I probably am guilty of a million typos and language abuse.

Also, this type of debate is hard for me to type. I'd rather talk. And have a few beers.

I agree, it's easier to have these conversations in real life. And a beer or two never hurts :lol2: Don't worry about any potential language abuse, I'm one of the worst offenders myself. My vocabulary is fine, but my butchering of your grammar is quite brutal. Anyway, thank you for your reply :) I appreciate that you took the time to write a serious response. That earns a "like" from me eventhough I might not agree with everything you say.

I am not involving other countries in my answer. I live in the US. But I will say other countries are busy trying to kill each other so they've got their own problems to worry about.

If we ever get the same high homicide rates as you have, I promise I'll shut up :)

Seriously though, I think doing an international comparison and analysing what factors are the same or similar in other countries and which factors are different, might provide some valuable insight.

Let's say the government asked that all firearms be turned in. I will assume all the good law abiding citizens will comply. The bad guys will not.

Ehh.. There's at least one guy in this thread who's proclaimed that he wouldn't surrender his weapons even if they were declared illegal. I may be mistaken but I got the impression that a cop killing or two in order to "protect" his guns wouldn't be outside the realm of the possible. I hope I misunderstood that part. Anyway, that wasn't you.

Again, I don't think the majority of people want or that the people in government are seriously entertaining the idea of asking for all firearms to be turned in. I just think a whole lot of people are genuinely sick to their stomachs from the neverending occurence of bew mass shootings and general gun-related violence and wish to implement policies that at least lower the number of shootings. I peronally don't think taking all guns from law-abiding citizens is necessary to achieve that.

I am stating the "obvious" because people who intend to do harm, including collateral damage, will always find a way.

So you tell me how what I was stating is not obvious.

I think that some of the effects and consequences of various acts/actions aren't as much a foregone conclusion as you may think. I'll try to clarify what I mean.

... the good law abiding citizens will comply. The bad guys will not. There is no way that all of a sudden they will be upstanding citizens.

You're in all likelihood quite correct, I don't see criminals lining up to voluntarily surrender their guns. But there are ways for law enforcement to minimize the number of guns they have without depending on them to volunteer. It's takes an active effeort on their part, but it can be done. It won't be achieved overnight, it's likely a longterm project.

Crime rates of all sorts will increase. Why wouldn't it????

Why would it though? If there was an automatic correlation between the number of guns law abiding citizens have and the number of crimes committed against them, then countries where few civilians are armed would have much higher crimes rates (not to mention being taken over by dictators all the time since we're all defenseless...). Instead it seems in many cases that the opposite is true. That indicates that there are more factors in play.

... the good law abiding citizens will comply. The bad guys will not. There is no way that all of a sudden they will be upstanding citizens. What they will know is that there are an awful lot of people unarmed. Rich people & small business owners..... It wouldn't take much to figure out who they could take advantage of in a myriad of ways.

Just like most people in general don't own guns in my country, a vast majority of criminals don't either. Gun violence has gotten worse over the last ten years or so, but it's still quite rare that innocent people get shot. The bad guys who are armed, tend to shoot their competition.

Money/cash transports are carried out by guards who are unarmed. Although there was one spectacular robbery back in 2005 that involved both firearms and explosives, the two guards were physically unharmed. (Psychologically is likely a different story). That robbery was unusually brutal. It's not uncommon that the robbers show up armed with a crowbar or similar. Since they know that the guards aren't armed, they do not need guns.

I'm a night person and I actually fairly regularly go out for runs in the central parts of town at two, three or four in the morning. I'm definitely aware of my surroundings when I do, but I'm never afraid. I'm female and while I admit being 6'1'', spending a lot of time at the gym and having a decent number of years of jiu-jitsu and krav maga under my belt helps, I certainly wouldn't go out if I had an expectation of meeting a gun-toting fool every 200 yards.

There actually are societies with a whole lot fewer guns in circulation than yours, and I think that the biggest mistaken assumption you make, is thinking that fewer guns in general (among "normal" folks), will still mean that criminals feel it's necessary and be willing to risk the punishment that comes from being arrested while in possesion of a firearm, to still be armed to the teeth at all times. In my experience the majority criminals, unless they've drugged their brains into something resembling scrambled eggs with the same cognitive and analytical capabilities as you'd expect from that favorite breakfast dish of mine, do a risk/reward analysis.

One thing that struck me when I lived in the U.S. was that many people are afraid. Being stopped on routine checks by police demonstrated clearly how the prevalence of guns in your society affects them. They were extremely focused and sometimes even jittery/jumpy and that made me feel that I should probably not even blink as they approached my car. Here, you'd have to pull over thousands of cars until you statistically find one with a gun inside.

I'd often walked to the grocery store (cause walking's good for'ya and the weather in SoCal is beautiful :)) and concerned police officers would stop and ask if my car had broken down. They'd look at me as if I was semi-nuts when I replied, nope, just taking a walk.

Often, when I get involved in these "gun threads", someone always brings up home invasions. I admit I haven't researched the statistics thoroughly, but I have to wonder. Is a home invasion really a more likely threat than being in a car accident? Sometimes I just feel that the fear is a bit disproportional compared to the likelihood of the threat.

The cynical side of me suspects that the fear is being meticulously cultivated and stoked by those who stand to profit from gun sales.

Aren't you fed up with living in fear?

Makawake, I love you. Thank you for keeping up with the fight, when those of us who are too close, too broken, and too weary, cannot.

Thank you and right back at ya

It really breaks my heart to read about the things some of you have experienced and lived through. There just has got to be a way to make people agree on ways to decrease the number of senseless deaths that occur way too regularly.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ED, ICU, Prehospital.

Macawake is right on so many levels.

I can tell you how easy it would be for the government to "disarm" and defeat the citizenry if they so chose. **notice I did NOT say, confiscate guns.

1. Bottleneck or ban, all ammunition or the supplies to make ammunition. You can own all the guns you want. Without ammo to fire, you have a really, really expensive and slick looking paperweight.

2. Accuse you of some type of crime against the state. With the Patriot Act in play--they don't even have to tell you what you're accused of, or allow you to consult an attorney. Think Guantanamo.

3. "Find" things on your server---illegal things. People are being pulled down over things as simple as Facebook opinions, all the way up to somehow, that really nice guy whose never done a thing wrong in his life---their IP turned them in for underage Media they downloaded.

I don't advocate or support any of it, I am a law abiding citizen---and I find myself wondering if or when this might happen. The Nazis didn't maintain power in a vacuum. The support of the populace was needed prior to the holocaust. There. I said it.

"All it takes for evil men to prevail is for good men to say nothing." There are a HOST of quotes and sayings just like this---directed at those who stood around and allowed minorities to be targeted

Guess what. This goes all the way down to unit politics. :) See how clever? It's human nature. Those that see bullying or hazing or nastiness---and turn away..."Well, at least it's not me." Maybe, next time, it will be.

So---this fear. This monumental, paralyzing fear---if you dig and try to understand the roots of it, it is not unlike Nazi Germany's government. Fear of "The Other". The Different. The Nonconventional. Pitting citizens against each other. It's a national mental illness that can be created, very easily---and this is how I see the problem at hand.

Mental Illness is stigmatized, they are "other". Not worthy of being cared for--they are a money sink, family should be responsible for them, they brought it on themselves, pull yourself up by your bootstraps!, etc. I know I'm being taxed into oblivion and not a cent of it seems to be going towards the causes I feel are necessary to confront.

I know these debates are brought up to try and spur ideas and innovation---but this problem is a systematic one, deliberately brought into being and continuously poked to keep it raw---by those who would profit from it.

I ask, Cui bono?

There is no money in helping the chronically mentally ill. None. So there is no money to help stem the tide. There IS, however, money to be made in arms sales, ammunition, paraphanelia that surrounds the gun enthusiasts. There is also money to be made in high throughput in EDs and hospitals--long stays are frowned upon, because there is no money in that. Stockholders must be happy.

I heard a Vet's story not long ago--he said that the only way he could keep himself from using his weapon, yet feel safety in the sight of the weapon in his presence---was to unload the gun, take the ammo and put the ammo in his safe that can only be opened with a key. Then he took the key and placed it into a deep container filled with water. Then he put it in the freezer. By the time he could possibly thaw that key out, he knows he could reach out to someone or even talk himself down.

People shouldn't have to live this way. Could you imagine if just 1/4 of our military budget (which, by the way, is triple that of China, who is supposedly some big threat--yet we continue to import pretty much everything from them)---was spent DOMESTICALLY, on programs to heal wounded veterans, mentally and physically--disburse to the states earmarked for mental health facilities that can provide real treatment and follow up for those in need? I know I would sure as s*** not grumble if my taxes were spent for those things.

Just to put this gun thing is perspective at least in my mind---there was a shortage (still is? I don't know) of .22 ammo a few years back. CCI either doesn't make it anymore or...something. Don't care. Point being---all I heard was---how am I going to defend myself now?? This is all (think of the prez in 2012) fault! They're trying to take our guns! Nooope. The manufacturer doesn't make a certain small caliber of ammunition anymore---there is plenty of OTHER KINDS available---but it was translated by some "news outlets" and some "radio personalities" as a hit to the 2nd Amendment.

With that logic. The government can "disarm" every registered gun owner in this country without changing a single law. The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. It does NOT, however, give you the right to ammunition.

The facts at hand are that the suicide rate and homicide rate in this country are appalling. Homicides are rarely random, by the way. It's usually someone you know. Whether it's a family member or an acquaintance---it's usually someone who has some kind of intent towards you in particular. Yes, mass shootings have a lot of collateral damage--but the intent is usually because of one person or a few people among the mass casualty list that the shooter has a problem with.

What's the solution to that? Not to know anyone? Don't make anybody mad? Don't participate in criminal activities where other criminals come after you? I think it all still boils down to the citizens of this country, for whatever reason (I have my theories... believe that individual rights supercedes the the rights of others. As long as YOU're ok, who cares about anybody else?

Comes back to the mental health crisis very cleanly. If you can't or don't have empathy towards these people, how can you understand their plight and be willing to help them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Macawake-

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my answers from your questions. Very thought provoking. I'd like to reply to what you took the time to reply to but honestly, I'm too exhausted to do so. You raise some great points and I think on the surface we are in agreement for the most part.

This maybe slightly off topic but for what it's worth, you have my respect-all of it- for being part of law enforcement. My bf is also a cop. And all this crap & disrespect ya'll have thrown at you is completely disgusting. I realize there are some bad apples spoiling the bunch just as there is in nursing. But seriously thank you for all you do.

IGY6

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency Department.
My sister was married to an abusive man and they had guns. She had to go to the ED one time and she reported that her husband was abusive. The local police were called and they told my sister that even though her abusive husband owned guns, there wasn't anything thy could do about it.

She attempted suicide not long after that and told the staff at the ED that she and her husband owned guns. They were confiscated.

I was always bothered that it was more important to remove the guns from her house when she swallowed to many Ativan, but not when her abusive ex-jerk (She left him not long after the attempt) hit her. She could have become a statistic. Fortunately, she did not.

I for one am very pro laws like that. And I own guns.

In every state, there's this thing called a "restraining order" that will result in removal of firearms from the possession of whomever's restrained. It's possible for this to be done against one's own spouse. Usually this also should result in separation because the restrained parties aren't allowed within a certain distance of each other. Some States also have a type of restraining order that's specific to firearms and usually family or Law Enforcement are the people that are allowed to petition for this kind of restraining order. In abusive relationships, restraining orders could end up making things worse.

When your sister attempted suicide, law enforcement confiscated all of "his" firearms because they likely couldn't determine if she had access to those firearms. If she had no access to those firearms, even if they were under the same roof, then that's an illegal seizure. When law enforcement doesn't know or can't determine if she has actual access, they will confiscate the firearms as if she does/can have access to them.

As soon as she moved out and separately domiciled, he gets to have his guns back because it's not his issue (suicide attempt) that caused the confiscation, it was hers.

I'm very glad she didn't become a statistic. She very well could have. Abusive jerks can escalate to causing someone's death and in her case, I'm very glad she's OK and no longer with the jerk.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency Department.
Gosh. I am...going to be sorry I did this.

I sure hope not!

Kyrshamarks, have you been to the VA recently? Are you aware of the statistics (lowballed) being put out by the Armed Forces as a whole on Veteran Suicides?

I've been reading some of the comments, and there are some fantastic points. I do believe, however, that the OP's original spirit "may" have bee (IMO) how to prevent gun violence in other ways than to Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Any means to reduce violence, including suicides without repealing the 2nd Amendment or abridging anyone's rights without DUE PROCESS is a great thing.

Raising hand here...All Military Family. Bestie is a Staff Sgt in the Army. I was too much of a coward to enlist. I admit it, because at the time, I was far too selfish to put my life in someone else's hands to do with what they would.

I own a gun. Two, in fact. I see no reason to deny a psychologically sound person the OPPORTUNITY to own one. However. That being said. Just because I was of sound mind and a clean background check when I purchased the gun, doesn't mean squat for a year or ten later. Lots can change. Reupping your license is easier than initial permission, in most places.

In most states, you do NOT need a permit of any sort to be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. In a technical sense, you cannot license a fundamental right. You do not need a license to speak your mind. You might need a permit to hold a rally or a parade because of crowd issues, but that's not a constraint on your 1st amendment right, just a constraint about the circumstances. I currently live in California. While I'm only allowed ot purchase 1 handgun in 30 days, I can buy as many long guns as my pocketbook can afford at once. In neither case do I actually need to have a permit or license to buy them. I just have to go through the background checks and I'm good to go.

My angle is the rate of suicides among Veterans and those around them. The mental health system for this demographic is appalling, right along with the mental health system for every American. Some of these men and women have gone through things that most ordinary humans can't even conjure in their worst nightmares. At times, it may not even be the violence that they see or are participating in (willingly or unwillingly)---it may be the pressures and environment of prolonged deployment and other factors.

Yes, that's so true! Our mental health system is absolutely horrible and the VA, like everywhere else, doesn't have the budget to be

able to really help. Most of the people in the US that do have mental health issues aren't a danger to themselves, to others, or are gravely disabled. However if you're committed to a mental health facility even for the purpose of having a mental health evaluation performed, you lose your 2nd Amendment rights for 5 years even if you're found to NOT need further care or treatment. There were regulations that were proposed that would remove your 2nd Amendment rights if the Social Security Administration thought you weren't able to handle your money well. There were similar regulations proposed for the VA as well. None of this involves the judicial system.

When we talk about the right to bear arms, Kyrsha---I get your point. I appreciate the right to defend myself if needed. What I think most of these other posters are saying is that the atmosphere in this country is so steeped in fear---most of it manufactured by the press and propagandists. In my years on this planet, all of my travels---in places all by myself, in cities and in the country and all along the way---I have placed myself in situations (unknowingly) that most would shake their head and ask me if I were insane.

I have experienced a break in....once. My dog came around that corner with teeth bared, snarling...all 95 lbs of him....LONG BEFORE I could grab my weapon and get to the room where this stupid had kicked in my door. He was long, long gone.

Where this feeling of being threatened, at all times, constantly---I don't see where this is reality. I was a RN traveler---didn't see the need to have my weapon on my hip at Starbucks. Ever. Or in Home Depot. Ever.

The cases of mass shootings---each one...mental health was the issue. So....wouldn't it be prudent to put into place not only very firm controls on who can purchase a gun? Did you see here what I did? I said----who can PURCHASE a gun? I didn't say....who can OWN a gun. Anybody can OWN one. I can go down the street and buy a pistol right now for $125 from a guy I know. That's not the point here.

Actually that is the point here. Anybody can buy/purchase/acquire guns. The issue is who is allowed to possess them, regardless of how they were acquired. The next issue is realizing that if we put "very firm controls" on people, we change our legal viewpoint from where if something isn't expressly forbidden, it's allowed to something far worse: everything is forbidden unless it's expressly allowed. That's NOT how things in the US operates, especially with regard to fundamental rights. Yes, the 2nd IS a fundamental right.

Responsible gun owners aren't threatened by this stuff. We don't go around spouting stuff like "You'll take my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands". In fact, most responsible gun owners don't even let anyone (other than those at the range) KNOW they have guns.

The ones who collect orificenals, play dress up, let everyone know their rights and their intent to USE THEM IF NEEDED (and when was the last time you needed to use your weapon in the states?)---those are the ones who need an evaluation.

Actually the ones that have an orificenal and all that typically aren't the ones we have to worry about. They can afford their collection and they usually don't want theirs taken away, so they tend to avoid doing stuff that would result in this happening. In the US, we see this with machine gun owners. Those things are so expensive that with ONE exception nearly 40 years ago, no legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime, certainly not since 1968, and probably still true after 1934, when they were Federally regulated.

I am most concerned about the mental health situation in this country---not the legal wrangling. Anybody can own a gun, and it's just that easy. Our country doesn't protect or nurture those we have indoctrinated and inculcated and exposed to extreme violence and the necessity to use violence.

Horrifically true.

We spend $681.1 BILLION DOLLARS on our military budget.

$17 billion of that is apportioned for HHS. Now before you get all huffy---remember...that is for everything from NIH research on AIDS to Suicide Prevention to Opiate Addiction studies....very little goes towards direct, patient intervention.

At the VA, every single human there is tasked with the mental and physical safety of the patients, colleagues (many are vets) and families who enter those walls. It's our DUTY to care for them. This is not the attitude of the American Public at large.

While everyone is bickering over verbiage---OWN vs. PURCHASE---and what the actual need is to have 16 gun safes and 1m rounds in your garage and buried in your backyard---Veteran's and those with mental illnesses are suffering and dying because guns are available and the mental health system has failed them miserably.

The mental health system has seriously failed them and because the mental health system has failed them, doesn't mean the rest of us should be punished. If the system worked the way it is supposed to, our Vets could seek the help they need, get their own personal hell under control, and not have to worry about their rights being taken away. Yes, there are legislators that have proposed that ALL of our Vets are damaged and therefore shouldn't be allowed to possess guns.

Let that sink in.

I don't care why the 2nd Amendment was enacted. I can Google just like everyone else. That doesn't help anyone. The system is what we have and the question is---what are we, as Americans, willing to do in order to help these individuals that have mental illnesses, be it depression or something more profound---find alternatives to using those weapons they own against themselves or others.

Here's another thing, just as a P.S. Just because I was permitted to own a gun 10 years ago, passed all the background checks and everything---

does NOT mean that I didn't let my permit lapse and I altruistically gave up my weapons.

Let that sink in.

Ten years ago, I may have been clean as a whistle all ways to Sunday---and I legally owned an orificenal. Now....I may have developed schizophrenia. Or BiPolar disorder. Or have become suicidal because my house was foreclosed on when I lost my job and my wife divorced me. Do you think I really just went to the sheriff's dept and handed over my weapons?

New owners are what all of this is about, this permitting. It means nothing. It's a red herring. It diverts and distracts from the underlying problems that are going on here---we spend next to NOTHING on mental health for our citizens, yet we have the largest military budget on the planet, EVER---and all of that adds to the "impression" that we all need to "defend ourselves" from.....each other?

You're not a terrorist, Kyrshamarks. Nobody ever said you were. You do, however, strike me as someone who, perhaps because of past experiences in the military---feels that you are profoundly unsafe and that may need to be a conversation worth having.

So, yeah, we as a society should spend a LOT more on mental health. Just because you've now developed schizophrenia, or are Bipolar, or have a Borderline Personality doesn't mean you're automatically dangerous to yourself or anyone else. Just because you're currently suicidal because of a high amount of stress you're experiencing doesn't mean you're going to always be a danger to yourself or others. Done right, a good mental health system will allow you, even encourage you to seek help and get it... without fear of losing your rights. Any of your rights. Heck, even the Judicial system should be involved because only the Judicial system should be empowered to remove any rights for sufficient legal cause.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

The 2nd amendment was never intended to make it a right to carry any weapon whatsoever for any purpose whatsoever. Personal possession was never the main focus. With that in mind, an unlimited individual right to bear any kind and/or number of weapons can not, and should not, be interpreted from the context of the 2nd amendment.

America's gun culture is seriously so far out of whack that people, including my father in law, need to take a serious step back. There is a balance somewhere. Why does anyone need a device that allows bullets to be fired at 400 rounds/minute? Guns can protect. Guns also destroy.

Actually that is exactly what the 2nd amendment meant. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, if you want to be taken serious by individuals that truly believe in the 2nd amendment, you need to do your research on firearms before you spew out false "main stream media talking points".

Can you show me a firearm that is legal to own in any state that can fire 400 rounds/minute?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I'm angry and frustrated, too. I don't have guns, so I don't shoot anyone. Easy as pie.

I'm angry and frustrated, too. I DO own guns, lots of guns actually, and I DO NOT shoot anyone (although, if my family or myself is put into a situation where I would need to protect us, I would!) Easy as pie....it is called being a law abiding citizen with the right to bear arms.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment