Gun Control/Law and Suicide

Warfish · 07-01-2008, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE][B][U]More than half firearm deaths are suicides[/U][/B]

CNN.com

ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

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.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. iReport.com: Watch William Bernstein share his views on gun ownership

Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence.

The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s.

But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control.

Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted.

Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis. [/QUOTE]

So the question(s) then, is this:

--Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more?

--Is suicide a legitimate argument and/or reasoning for laws that limit or restrict gun ownership to ALL citizens?

--Is Gun Ownership a Right?

--And finally, do you believe this article is baised towards a pro-gun stance, anti-gun stance, or contains no bias on this issue at all.

doggin94it · 07-01-2008, 11:28 AM

[quote=Warfish;2609598]So the question(s) then, is this:

--Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more?[/quote]

Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.

nuu faaola · 07-01-2008, 11:29 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE]

+1,000,000.

Zombo · 07-01-2008, 11:29 AM

hmmm....well, let me just first say that i am against most gun control. i don't find suicide to be an excuse for gun control, mostly because i think people who want to kill themselves should just go ahead and do it. good bye. why should we protect people from it? if someone wants to, they'll find a way. owning a gun is a right. it's in the constitution. now, criminals should not be able to buy guns, and i really don't see a need for machine guns, but rifles, handguns, etc are ok with me.

vicious89x · 07-01-2008, 11:30 AM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Not only could the be a harm to themselves but at the same time that's how you get high school and colleges shot up.

intelligentjetsfan · 07-01-2008, 11:30 AM

This topic is personal for me because I suffered a severe loss when someone I knew committed suicide by using a hand gun. I can tell you that the person who owned the gun did not have any psychological conditions. The problem was that the person who committed suicide did. And even in 2008, mental illness is not diagnosed fast enough for many reasons. Many times it is not even diagnosed at all.

This issue is complicated and I can understand all sides. My opinion is that the provisions in the constitution for gun ownership was written in a different era when a citizen had to protect themselves, sometimes from their own government. If we are going to ever evolve into the society that many optimists see, then we will do that by having less guns in circulation not more. People who use guns for sport have more of a legitimate argument for ownership then people who claim to need it for protection. Perhaps the answer could be that a hunter can rent a gun for the day or weekend. They should be subjected to the same backround tests as usual. But the difference would be that, like renting skis, he or she would return it.

Other then for sport, I believe far more harm then good comes from owning a gun in a home. You are supposed to have the gun hidden and the bullets out of the gun. So lets pretend its the middle of the night and you hear someone breaking into your house. Are you going to have the time to go to where the gun is, get it, load it-all in the time it takes before the assailant finds you? I do not think its practical unless you keep the gun loaded and that opens up a whole separate set of issues.

Zombo · 07-01-2008, 11:38 AM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609650]This topic is personal for me because I suffered a severe loss when someone I knew committed suicide by using a hand gun. I can tell you that the person who owned the gun did not have any psychological conditions. The problem was that the person who committed suicide did. And even in 2008, mental illness is not diagnosed fast enough for many reasons. Many times it is not even diagnosed at all.

This issue is complicated and I can understand all sides. My opinion is that the provisions in the constitution for gun ownership was written in a different era when a citizen had to protect themselves, sometimes from their own government. If we are going to ever evolve into the society that many optimists see, then we will do that by having less guns in circulation not more. People who use guns for sport have more of a legitimate argument for ownership then people who claim to need it for protection. Perhaps the answer could be that a hunter can rent a gun for the day or weekend. They should be subjected to the same backround tests as usual. But the difference would be that, like renting skis, he or she would return it.

Other then for sport, I believe far more harm then good comes from owning a gun in a home. You are supposed to have the gun hidden and the bullets out of the gun. So lets pretend its the middle of the night and you hear someone breaking into your house. Are you going to have the time to go to where the gun is, get it, load it-all in the time it takes before the assailant finds you? I do not think its practical unless you keep the gun loaded and that opens up a whole separate set of issues.[/QUOTE]

i don't think what you say can even be addressed until the problems with illegally obtained guns can be prevented or at least substantially lowered. in your scenario, criminals have the advantage because they can shoot you and you have little protection.

intelligentjetsfan · 07-01-2008, 12:02 PM

[QUOTE=Zombo;2609674]i don't think what you say can even be addressed until the problems with illegally obtained guns can be prevented or at least substantially lowered. in your scenario, criminals have the advantage because they can shoot you and you have little protection.[/QUOTE]

the answer is our law enforcement. Lets spend the proper money on hiring more police officers. Lets spend the money to give them the proper training and equipment. Then the criminals will not have the advantage.

Zombo · 07-01-2008, 12:20 PM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609721]the answer is our law enforcement. Lets spend the proper money on hiring more police officers. Lets spend the money to give them the proper training and equipment. Then the criminals will not have the advantage.[/QUOTE]

let's come back to reality. law enforcement is funded locally.
how much more in taxes do you want to hit people with? new
hires, education, and additional equipment will cost tons of
money. small towns and counties can't handle it. do you
seriously want to go federal? that's all we need is more fed
taxes for more fed funding for more fed programs to control
even more things than they do now. the people will not take all
that taxation lying down, so how do you propose funding all
this law enforcement?

intelligentjetsfan · 07-01-2008, 12:23 PM

[QUOTE=Zombo;2609748]let's come back to reality. law enforcement is funded locally.
how much more in taxes do you want to hit people with? new
hires, education, and additional equipment will cost tons of
money. small towns and counties can't handle it. do you
seriously want to go federal? that's all we need is more fed
taxes for more fed funding for more fed programs to control
even more things than they do now. the people will not take all
that taxation lying down, so how do you propose funding all
this law enforcement?[/QUOTE]

Lets come back to reality. How much of our tax money is wasted or lost due to corruption? If half of our tax money went to where it should go we would have no problem funding a strong police force at many of the local levels.

Zombo · 07-01-2008, 12:27 PM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609753]Lets come back to reality. How much of our tax money is wasted or lost due to corruption? If half of our tax money went to where it should go we would have no problem funding a strong police force at many of the local levels.[/QUOTE]

so we're talking about a revolution in washington over the course of 24 hours? does that seem realistic?

Big L · 07-01-2008, 12:31 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2609598]So the question(s) then, is this:

--Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more?

--Is suicide a legitimate argument and/or reasoning for laws that limit or restrict gun ownership to ALL citizens?

[B]--Is Gun Ownership a Right?[/B]

--And finally, do you believe this article is baised towards a pro-gun stance, anti-gun stance, or contains no bias on this issue at all.[/QUOTE]

The right to bear arms. What's so unclear about that?!

[IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1852/righttobeararmsny7.jpg[/IMG]

Warfish · 07-01-2008, 12:32 PM

As one who suffered directly from a Suicide (My Father), I can tell you that when someone wishes to end their life, they will. He did not own a gun. He is still dead. Hence I do not accept suicide as a legitimate rationale for gun restrictions for [U]all[/U] citizens.

I do, however, agree with Doggin. Those who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder can and should be excluded, perhaps with some method for waiting should they ever be "cured" of said disorder. And I am more than willing to explore other restrictions (such as being convicted of any violent crime would lead to a lifetime ban, for example).

I also support both waiting periods (a month seems fair to me, and reasonable) and extensive background checks. I believe both of these are reasonable and responsible ways to manage gun ownership. I could even be convinced that a mandatory gun-safety class with local/state police officers be required, as long as the Govt. does not make such a class unreasonably expensive. And the banning of certain weapon-classes (machine guns, for example) also is acceptable, as long as anti-gun advocates do not use it to push us all down the slippery-slope of a total ban.

However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society.

But be assured, whatever argument you put forth and whatever restrictions you put in place for law-abiding citizens, the criminal element will no more respect them than they do the variety of other laws they break. Gun control does not control criminals. Harsh punishment for gun crimes is the best and more logical course for that issue, as I see it. Punish those who break the law. Do not punish those who obay it.

Come Back to NY · 07-01-2008, 12:39 PM

[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE]

not disagreeing with you but....

1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one???

2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???

Zombo · 07-01-2008, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2609769]As one who suffered directly from a Suicide (My Father), I can tell you that when someone wishes to end their life, they will. He did not own a gun. He is still dead. Hence I do not accept suicide as a legitimate rationale for gun restrictions for [U]all[/U] citizens.

I do, however, agree with Doggin. Those who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder can and should be excluded, perhaps with some method for waiting should they ever be "cured" of said disorder. And I am more than willing to explore other restrictions (such as being convicted of any violent crime would lead to a lifetime ban, for example).

I also support both waiting periods (a month seems fair to me, and reasonable) and extensive background checks. I believe both of these are reasonable and responsible ways to manage gun ownership. I could even be convinced that a mandatory gun-safety class with local/state police officers be required, as long as the Govt. does not make such a class unreasonably expensive. And the banning of certain weapon-classes (machine guns, for example) also is acceptable, as long as anti-gun advocates do not use it to push us all down the slippery-slope of a total ban.

However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society.

But be assured, whatever argument you put forth and whatever restrictions you put in place for law-abiding citizens, the criminal element will no more respect them than they do the variety of other laws they break. Gun control does not control criminals. Harsh punishment for gun crimes is the best and more logical course for that issue, as I see it. Punish those who break the law. Do not punish those who obay it.[/QUOTE]

for the most part i agree with you. obviously, anyone who is nuts should not be able to own a gun, but as far as people who are depressed or something like that, i would have no problem.

Big L · 07-01-2008, 12:43 PM

Sorry about your father.

[QUOTE=Warfish;2609769]However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, it is a Constitutional right, as I also believe it is protection FROM the government. Or at least it was. I don't think, however, that private citizens with guns will ever be able to stop todays government. :( :steamin:

crasherino · 07-01-2008, 02:30 PM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2609783]not disagreeing with you but....

1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one???

2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???[/QUOTE]

Also, what type of "mental health issue" would bar gun ownership? Mild depression? Bi polar disorder, etc.?

If you know that seeking help for a potential disorder may jeopardize your right to own firearms, there may be a chilling effect on those who would otherwise seek help.

I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm just wondering how it would play out in reality.

nuu faaola · 07-01-2008, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE=crasherino;2609937]Also, what type of "mental health issue" would bar gun ownership? Mild depression? Bi polar disorder, etc.?

If you know that seeking help for a potential disorder may jeopardize your right to own firearms, there may be a chilling effect on those who would otherwise seek help.

I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm just wondering how it would play out in reality.[/QUOTE]

It's a good question.

Perhaps a gun applicant should have to submit to some sort of mental-health screening to purchase?

Not something the folks who opposed waiting periods would go for, of course, but the arguments against waiting periods were, frankly, pretty weak.

jets5ever · 07-01-2008, 03:08 PM

It's all well and good to talk about people with "mental health issues" not being allowed to own guns. No sane person disagrees with that as a desired end, the issue is how to achieve such an end via the law without infringing upon the rights of others via the constitution. Owning a gun is most clearly a constitutional right. If we disallow people their constitutional rights based upon some potentially vague notion of mental "health" or "issues" we have to clearly define what those are and deal with all sorts of privacy issues, as well as where the logical next steps are: why would we allow those same people to drive cars, purchase dangerous cutlery, raise children, etc? In fact, why let them live on their own at all? If they are not competent enough to exercise what is clearly a constitutional right (owning a gun), why are they allowed to be treated as adults in other areas and excercise other rights? The same, "a danger to themselves and others" arguments against gun ownership apply to those other issues I mentioned, and a host of others. This is a MUCH different and frankly broader issue than mere gun ownership. How are we to treat those with mental illnesses, legally-speaking?

HDCentStOhio · 07-01-2008, 03:36 PM

[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2609783]not disagreeing with you but....

1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one???

2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???[/QUOTE]

Good questions. Will this put an onus on a doctor to be the "bad guy" and report these diagnoses to the government? Do you think that patient would continue to go to that doctor? And what if someone is not reported, buys a gun and kills himself- will that open up the doctor to liability? Practically speaking, this puts a doctor in a tight spot- damned if we do, damned if we don't. Don't like any laws that put a physician in such a position. With many of these cases it is not cut and dry- a judgement call is necessary.

07-01-2008, 11:12 AM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Gun Control/Law and Suicide [QUOTE][B][U]More than half firearm deaths are suicides[/U][/B] CNN.com ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves. Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent. Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater. Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors. In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners. One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks. The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means. 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. The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban. "If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote. Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns. Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack. Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. iReport.com: Watch William Bernstein share his views on gun ownership Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence. The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s. But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control. Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted. Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis. [/QUOTE] So the question(s) then, is this: --Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more? --Is suicide a legitimate argument and/or reasoning for laws that limit or restrict gun ownership to ALL citizens? --Is Gun Ownership a Right? --And finally, do you believe this article is baised towards a pro-gun stance, anti-gun stance, or contains no bias on this issue at all.

07-01-2008, 12:32 PM	#13
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	As one who suffered directly from a Suicide (My Father), I can tell you that when someone wishes to end their life, they will. He did not own a gun. He is still dead. Hence I do not accept suicide as a legitimate rationale for gun restrictions for [U]all[/U] citizens. I do, however, agree with Doggin. Those who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder can and should be excluded, perhaps with some method for waiting should they ever be "cured" of said disorder. And I am more than willing to explore other restrictions (such as being convicted of any violent crime would lead to a lifetime ban, for example). I also support both waiting periods (a month seems fair to me, and reasonable) and extensive background checks. I believe both of these are reasonable and responsible ways to manage gun ownership. I could even be convinced that a mandatory gun-safety class with local/state police officers be required, as long as the Govt. does not make such a class unreasonably expensive. And the banning of certain weapon-classes (machine guns, for example) also is acceptable, as long as anti-gun advocates do not use it to push us all down the slippery-slope of a total ban. However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society. But be assured, whatever argument you put forth and whatever restrictions you put in place for law-abiding citizens, the criminal element will no more respect them than they do the variety of other laws they break. Gun control does not control criminals. Harsh punishment for gun crimes is the best and more logical course for that issue, as I see it. Punish those who break the law. Do not punish those who obay it. Last edited by Warfish; 07-01-2008 at 12:37 PM.

07-01-2008, 11:28 AM	#2
doggin94it Hall Of Fame Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,429	[quote=Warfish;2609598]So the question(s) then, is this: --Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more?[/quote] Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.

07-01-2008, 11:29 AM	#3
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE] +1,000,000.

07-01-2008, 11:29 AM	#4
Zombo Braylon Edwards is a sight for sore eyes after watching this mess of an offense. All League Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Elizabeth, NJ Posts: 3,393	hmmm....well, let me just first say that i am against most gun control. i don't find suicide to be an excuse for gun control, mostly because i think people who want to kill themselves should just go ahead and do it. good bye. why should we protect people from it? if someone wants to, they'll find a way. owning a gun is a right. it's in the constitution. now, criminals should not be able to buy guns, and i really don't see a need for machine guns, but rifles, handguns, etc are ok with me.

07-01-2008, 11:30 AM	#5
vicious89x Hall Of Fame Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,218	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Not only could the be a harm to themselves but at the same time that's how you get high school and colleges shot up.

07-01-2008, 11:30 AM	#6
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	This topic is personal for me because I suffered a severe loss when someone I knew committed suicide by using a hand gun. I can tell you that the person who owned the gun did not have any psychological conditions. The problem was that the person who committed suicide did. And even in 2008, mental illness is not diagnosed fast enough for many reasons. Many times it is not even diagnosed at all. This issue is complicated and I can understand all sides. My opinion is that the provisions in the constitution for gun ownership was written in a different era when a citizen had to protect themselves, sometimes from their own government. If we are going to ever evolve into the society that many optimists see, then we will do that by having less guns in circulation not more. People who use guns for sport have more of a legitimate argument for ownership then people who claim to need it for protection. Perhaps the answer could be that a hunter can rent a gun for the day or weekend. They should be subjected to the same backround tests as usual. But the difference would be that, like renting skis, he or she would return it. Other then for sport, I believe far more harm then good comes from owning a gun in a home. You are supposed to have the gun hidden and the bullets out of the gun. So lets pretend its the middle of the night and you hear someone breaking into your house. Are you going to have the time to go to where the gun is, get it, load it-all in the time it takes before the assailant finds you? I do not think its practical unless you keep the gun loaded and that opens up a whole separate set of issues.

07-01-2008, 11:38 AM	#7
Zombo Braylon Edwards is a sight for sore eyes after watching this mess of an offense. All League Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Elizabeth, NJ Posts: 3,393	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609650]This topic is personal for me because I suffered a severe loss when someone I knew committed suicide by using a hand gun. I can tell you that the person who owned the gun did not have any psychological conditions. The problem was that the person who committed suicide did. And even in 2008, mental illness is not diagnosed fast enough for many reasons. Many times it is not even diagnosed at all. This issue is complicated and I can understand all sides. My opinion is that the provisions in the constitution for gun ownership was written in a different era when a citizen had to protect themselves, sometimes from their own government. If we are going to ever evolve into the society that many optimists see, then we will do that by having less guns in circulation not more. People who use guns for sport have more of a legitimate argument for ownership then people who claim to need it for protection. Perhaps the answer could be that a hunter can rent a gun for the day or weekend. They should be subjected to the same backround tests as usual. But the difference would be that, like renting skis, he or she would return it. Other then for sport, I believe far more harm then good comes from owning a gun in a home. You are supposed to have the gun hidden and the bullets out of the gun. So lets pretend its the middle of the night and you hear someone breaking into your house. Are you going to have the time to go to where the gun is, get it, load it-all in the time it takes before the assailant finds you? I do not think its practical unless you keep the gun loaded and that opens up a whole separate set of issues.[/QUOTE] i don't think what you say can even be addressed until the problems with illegally obtained guns can be prevented or at least substantially lowered. in your scenario, criminals have the advantage because they can shoot you and you have little protection.

07-01-2008, 12:02 PM	#8
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	[QUOTE=Zombo;2609674]i don't think what you say can even be addressed until the problems with illegally obtained guns can be prevented or at least substantially lowered. in your scenario, criminals have the advantage because they can shoot you and you have little protection.[/QUOTE] the answer is our law enforcement. Lets spend the proper money on hiring more police officers. Lets spend the money to give them the proper training and equipment. Then the criminals will not have the advantage.

07-01-2008, 12:20 PM	#9
Zombo Braylon Edwards is a sight for sore eyes after watching this mess of an offense. All League Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Elizabeth, NJ Posts: 3,393	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609721]the answer is our law enforcement. Lets spend the proper money on hiring more police officers. Lets spend the money to give them the proper training and equipment. Then the criminals will not have the advantage.[/QUOTE] let's come back to reality. law enforcement is funded locally. how much more in taxes do you want to hit people with? new hires, education, and additional equipment will cost tons of money. small towns and counties can't handle it. do you seriously want to go federal? that's all we need is more fed taxes for more fed funding for more fed programs to control even more things than they do now. the people will not take all that taxation lying down, so how do you propose funding all this law enforcement?

07-01-2008, 12:23 PM	#10
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	[QUOTE=Zombo;2609748]let's come back to reality. law enforcement is funded locally. how much more in taxes do you want to hit people with? new hires, education, and additional equipment will cost tons of money. small towns and counties can't handle it. do you seriously want to go federal? that's all we need is more fed taxes for more fed funding for more fed programs to control even more things than they do now. the people will not take all that taxation lying down, so how do you propose funding all this law enforcement?[/QUOTE] Lets come back to reality. How much of our tax money is wasted or lost due to corruption? If half of our tax money went to where it should go we would have no problem funding a strong police force at many of the local levels.

07-01-2008, 12:27 PM	#11
Zombo Braylon Edwards is a sight for sore eyes after watching this mess of an offense. All League Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Elizabeth, NJ Posts: 3,393	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2609753]Lets come back to reality. How much of our tax money is wasted or lost due to corruption? If half of our tax money went to where it should go we would have no problem funding a strong police force at many of the local levels.[/QUOTE] so we're talking about a revolution in washington over the course of 24 hours? does that seem realistic?

07-01-2008, 12:31 PM	#12
Big L Plus six thousand posts Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: It's all relative Posts: 1,064	[QUOTE=Warfish;2609598]So the question(s) then, is this: --Are gun ownership restrictions on those undergoing mental treatment for at-risk-of-suicide conditions reasonable enough, or should the Law go further and restrict more? --Is suicide a legitimate argument and/or reasoning for laws that limit or restrict gun ownership to ALL citizens? [B]--Is Gun Ownership a Right?[/B] --And finally, do you believe this article is baised towards a pro-gun stance, anti-gun stance, or contains no bias on this issue at all.[/QUOTE] The right to bear arms. What's so unclear about that?! [IMG]http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1852/righttobeararmsny7.jpg[/IMG]

07-01-2008, 12:39 PM	#14
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[QUOTE=doggin94it;2609640]Frankly, nobody with mental health issues should own a gun.[/QUOTE] not disagreeing with you but.... 1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one??? 2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???

07-01-2008, 12:42 PM	#15
Zombo Braylon Edwards is a sight for sore eyes after watching this mess of an offense. All League Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Elizabeth, NJ Posts: 3,393	[QUOTE=Warfish;2609769]As one who suffered directly from a Suicide (My Father), I can tell you that when someone wishes to end their life, they will. He did not own a gun. He is still dead. Hence I do not accept suicide as a legitimate rationale for gun restrictions for [U]all[/U] citizens. I do, however, agree with Doggin. Those who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder can and should be excluded, perhaps with some method for waiting should they ever be "cured" of said disorder. And I am more than willing to explore other restrictions (such as being convicted of any violent crime would lead to a lifetime ban, for example). I also support both waiting periods (a month seems fair to me, and reasonable) and extensive background checks. I believe both of these are reasonable and responsible ways to manage gun ownership. I could even be convinced that a mandatory gun-safety class with local/state police officers be required, as long as the Govt. does not make such a class unreasonably expensive. And the banning of certain weapon-classes (machine guns, for example) also is acceptable, as long as anti-gun advocates do not use it to push us all down the slippery-slope of a total ban. However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society. But be assured, whatever argument you put forth and whatever restrictions you put in place for law-abiding citizens, the criminal element will no more respect them than they do the variety of other laws they break. Gun control does not control criminals. Harsh punishment for gun crimes is the best and more logical course for that issue, as I see it. Punish those who break the law. Do not punish those who obay it.[/QUOTE] for the most part i agree with you. obviously, anyone who is nuts should not be able to own a gun, but as far as people who are depressed or something like that, i would have no problem.

07-01-2008, 12:43 PM	#16
Big L Plus six thousand posts Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: It's all relative Posts: 1,064	Sorry about your father. [QUOTE=Warfish;2609769]However, I do not accept any argument that would further limit lawful citizens ownership. I believe ownership IS a Consitutional right, one as valid today as it has ever been. Beyond personal protection, the abillity of the citizenry to own IS as much a protection FROM our Government as it is anything else. But I also believe that the right is not, in fact, absolute. There are reasonable ways to both respect the right and purpose of teh right, whilst providing reasonable, rational and logical safety to society.[/QUOTE] I agree with you, it is a Constitutional right, as I also believe it is protection FROM the government. Or at least it was. I don't think, however, that private citizens with guns will ever be able to stop todays government. :( :steamin:

07-01-2008, 02:30 PM	#17
crasherino Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NYC Posts: 16,826	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2609783]not disagreeing with you but.... 1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one??? 2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???[/QUOTE] Also, what type of "mental health issue" would bar gun ownership? Mild depression? Bi polar disorder, etc.? If you know that seeking help for a potential disorder may jeopardize your right to own firearms, there may be a chilling effect on those who would otherwise seek help. I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm just wondering how it would play out in reality.

07-01-2008, 02:45 PM	#18
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=crasherino;2609937]Also, what type of "mental health issue" would bar gun ownership? Mild depression? Bi polar disorder, etc.? If you know that seeking help for a potential disorder may jeopardize your right to own firearms, there may be a chilling effect on those who would otherwise seek help. I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm just wondering how it would play out in reality.[/QUOTE] It's a good question. Perhaps a gun applicant should have to submit to some sort of mental-health screening to purchase? Not something the folks who opposed waiting periods would go for, of course, but the arguments against waiting periods were, frankly, pretty weak.

07-01-2008, 03:08 PM	#19
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	It's all well and good to talk about people with "mental health issues" not being allowed to own guns. No sane person disagrees with that as a desired end, the issue is how to achieve such an end via the law without infringing upon the rights of others via the constitution. Owning a gun is most clearly a constitutional right. If we disallow people their constitutional rights based upon some potentially vague notion of mental "health" or "issues" we have to clearly define what those are and deal with all sorts of privacy issues, as well as where the logical next steps are: why would we allow those same people to drive cars, purchase dangerous cutlery, raise children, etc? In fact, why let them live on their own at all? If they are not competent enough to exercise what is clearly a constitutional right (owning a gun), why are they allowed to be treated as adults in other areas and excercise other rights? The same, "a danger to themselves and others" arguments against gun ownership apply to those other issues I mentioned, and a host of others. This is a MUCH different and frankly broader issue than mere gun ownership. How are we to treat those with mental illnesses, legally-speaking?

07-01-2008, 03:36 PM	#20
HDCentStOhio longing for the days of Ronald Reagan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Long Island & Section 337 Posts: 4,859	[QUOTE=Come Back to NY;2609783]not disagreeing with you but.... 1- how many people with mental health issues are diagnosed as such before purchasing a gun or getting their hands on one??? 2- what are the privacy laws as far as a doctor sharing this sort of information???[/QUOTE] Good questions. Will this put an onus on a doctor to be the "bad guy" and report these diagnoses to the government? Do you think that patient would continue to go to that doctor? And what if someone is not reported, buys a gun and kills himself- will that open up the doctor to liability? Practically speaking, this puts a doctor in a tight spot- damned if we do, damned if we don't. Don't like any laws that put a physician in such a position. With many of these cases it is not cut and dry- a judgement call is necessary.