Hey, so how come our liberal citizens scream bloody murder about why we should have the right to end our lives voluntarily when ill, but when ill people commit suicide by gun, it's an 'avoidable tragedy' and gets included in gun-violence statistics? Is it because of the cleanup? Unless you've prepositioned a cork and a rubber sheet, there's no such thing as death with dignity anyhow. It is what it is.
Change One Word.....
6 minutes ago
6 comments:
Your question focuses on the means of death and not the why. The difference is most likely because we are dealing with the physical illness, which will eventually result in death, and mental illness which is most likely treatable.
Other forms of suicide are also labeled "avoidable." Suicide by cop, suicide by train (more than one engineer has found that the deceased carried a note offering absolution), overdoses, etc.
That doesn't hold water as an argument- it's completely valid, but the statistics from suicide by gun are double-entered as violent accidents and crimes. In the eyes of the partisan anti-crowd blowing your brains out is gun violence, as is saving your life by taking another with a gun. Jumping off a bridge, on the other hand, has never been used as a reason to make tall bridges illegal.
While tall bridges are not illegal, they do put netting around them in an effort to reduce suicides. Contrary to NRA propoganda, gun ownership is not illegal either. You can still walk in to Walmart, Bass Shops, Gander Mt., Cabella's, Dick's, or even a local gun shop and, unless you are a prohibited person, i.e., previously convicted felon, purchase a firearm. There may be some restrictions in some areas, i.e., the requirements of a pistol permit in NY State, but we deal with that in all walks of life. For example, not everyone is permitted to drive a vehicle.
As for your statistics, given your background you should not be surprised if I ask who's statistics. Many different groups collect numbers. This can be the first problem Slate.com, for example, started collecting numbers of all the deaths involving firearms since Newton. For their purposes, no distinction is made as to the reason for the homicide, i.e., accidental, suicide, murder. However, the source of the numbers, which they acknowledge, can be problematic. Other groups, depending on who is collecting the data, have their own agendas.
They other question I have, given your post, what is the concern over the statistics rather than the basic premise as to how individual groups would support one means of suicide versus another?
CW-56 News reports that, on Saturday, a police K-9 unit in Lawrence, Mass., was tasked with finding a gun that had been used in a shooting. A three-year-old German shepherd named Ivan went to work, and, sure enough, found a Ruger semi-automatic buried under a mound of snow. To everyone’s surprise, Ivan followed up by retrieving the gun from the snowbank and firing it. In the seconds after the gun discharged,
Anonymous- I read the same thing. No one actually believes that the dog fired the gun. It's far more probable that we're seeing a cop who doesn't want to get in trouble because he couldn't keep his booger hook off the bang switch when he picked up the gun.
The stats I was thinking of are the numbers kept by the Brady foundation. They define 'child gun violence' as anyone under 25 either shot or shooting someone, and those numbers are regularly cited as honest statistics. A 5 year old playing with daddy's gun is grouped with a 25 year old bank robber who shoots a cop- and there's the issue with statistics; people cite them to convey an idea of truth, when in reality they are only useful in proving points, not in eliciting truths.
The Brady Foundation is an interesting source. Not that I'm critical of their political agenda, their goals will influence how they will present their numbers. Brady may have been a good Reaganite, but many on the right are would now question his views.
The dog info was posted for fun. I'm not trying to debate you to piss you off. It's more interesting to have a discussion (even in this type of a forum) with someone who's views are different than with those who just agree with your position.
Post a Comment