Closed books, closed minds

[unixronin]

From rosencrantz23:

Unfortunately, to the kind of people who ban books, shutting out unapproved ideas sounds like a really good ... well, idea.

Comments

dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Apologies in advance, but I'm going to have to be a little harsh here in places.

My close friend Eden committed suicide with the handgun she'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. My sister-in-law was shot and wounded by her ex-husband, with the handgun he'd legally acquired (but never used) for self-defense. bbwoof was shot and wounded by his first wife, using his own gun, legally acquired for his job as an armed security officer.

I'm sorry to hear about those. But (I hope this doesn't sound insensitive) my grandfather on my father's side cut his throat with a straight razor, and he's no less dead for not using a gun.

There's this about suicides: As a rule, most of the people who commit suicide with a gun are the really determined ones who, in the absence of a gun, are going to find some other highly lethal means. People who are desperate for help or attention, and don't really want to actually die, tend to do things like slit their wrists shallowly or the wrong way (or both), or take drug overdoses, or swallow rat poison or drink pesticide. Sometimes they get it wrong and die anyway. Out of those, the lucky ones are the overdoses, because they usually go peacefully with no pain. The ones who choose rat poison or pesticide frequently die in unspeakable agony.

Now, this is a philosophical position that you may not share: I personally feel that if someone is so deeply miserable and hates their life so much that they just want it to end quickly and cleanly, NOW, who are we to deny them? It's their life, and we should consider it theirs to end at a time and in a manner of their choosing if they so choose.


One thing the gun-control lobby likes to quote is what's become known as the Kellerman factoid, which states that "A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a family member than to prevent a crime." Dr. Arthur Kellerman based this on a study of a thousand homes in and around Atlanta, Georgia.

There's three major problems with it, though.

First, Kellerman got his math wrong. When confronted with the corrected math that showed only a 2.3:1 factor supported by his data, Kellerman conceded that the 2.3 factor was correct ... but both he and the gun control lobby continued to cite the known and admitted incorrect 43:1 number.

Second, even while touting the 43:1 number, Kellerman admitted in a radio interview that if his own wife were to be attacked, he'd want her to have a gun to protect herself.

And third, Kellerman got his data not from a thousand normal households, but from a thousand households specifically selected for having the highest levels of domestic violence in the area, because the study he drew his numbers from was about domestic violence. But the datum was so attractive, given his anti-guns-for-other-people viewpoint, that he took it and promoted it out of context anyway.


Nevertheless, the fact remains, sometimes guns — like any other implement — will be used to hurt or kill those close to us. On the average, the odds are agsinst it. I'm sorry your friends and family seem to have gotten the short end of the odds.



As for your Uncle David, I'm sorry to have to say this, but he knew — or should have known — up front what he was getting into when he chose to become a police officer. If he thinks it's too dangerous now, and thinks that means everyone's Constitutional rights should be restricted in order to make it safer, then just maybe he might be in the wrong line of work.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

Eden was not deeply miserable, and she didn't hate her life.

She had a sudden and severe psychotic break. She left a long, sad, rambling note explaining that she had suddenly realized that aliens were trying to take over her body in order to control the earth. She decided that the only way to save mankind, her family and everyone she loved, was to destroy herself so that the aliens could not enslave us all. She acted with great courage and sorrow, because she hated to die.

I feel so proud of her incredible self-sacrifice, and so intensely sad and angry that it was completely unnecessary. If she had used a less-lethal means of trying to commit suicide than shooting herself in the temple, she might have been hospitalized and treated and be alive today.

Many times depressed people have passing moments of intensely suicidal feelings. If they have access to a firearm, they are likely to "successfully" kill themselves. If they only have access to less-lethal means of suicide, they are more likely to survive the attempt and to get treatment for their depression.

I agree that if someone in basically sound mind should have the right to commit suicide, perhaps because they are terminally ill, or in the very early stages of irreversible dementia, or in severe and untreatable pain, or out of deep guilt for a crime committed, or for whatever "sane" reason they may have. But most psychiatric illnesses are treatable; most moments of suicidal ideation do pass; and most people who survive a suicide attempt are ultimately grateful that they did survive.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Ouch.

It's particularly rough when things go that way, and you KNOW the person wasn't thinking rationally at the time....

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of the "Kellerman factoid". I've never seen it cited before.

I do know that most homicides by whatever means are committed by people the victim knows. Relatives and partners (including former partners) are much, much more dangerous than random criminal punks. Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous ones for police, as well. On the average, you are more likely to be assaulted, injured, even killed by a partner or former partner than to be a victim of a street crime.

Firearms are more lethal than knives, fists, baseball bats, hot irons, frozen chickens, or any of the other things family members may attack each other with. Not that these other things can't be lethal, just that firearms are more likely to be.

Firearms are not terribly useful for self-defense in a domestic violence situation. Either both partners are insanely angry and not likely to use the gun wisely or to back off when a gun is brandished... or one partner is sane and miserable, and not likely to want to shoot the insanely angry partner because, y'know, being sane and miserable, s/he doesn't really want to kill this person s/he once loved....

Yeah, David knew what he was getting into. He's retired now. Forty years of dealing with the worst of the public he has sworn to protect has made him cynical. He has a acquired a fairly low opinion of the intelligence, competence, and maturity of the general public, I'm afraid.

Re: dammit, I have to split this again ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I do know that most homicides by whatever means are committed by people the victim knows. Relatives and partners (including former partners) are much, much more dangerous than random criminal punks. Domestic violence calls are the most dangerous ones for police, as well. On the average, you are more likely to be assaulted, injured, even killed by a partner or former partner than to be a victim of a street crime.

Yup, true. And it's a pretty sad commentary, in a lot of ways.