Second Parkland shooting survivor kills himself.

[w01fg4ng]

Gun regulation is sorely needed, I agree.

People who cry about their 2nd amendment rights when basic regulations are brought up often fall into the pit trap of looking childish. It's similar to a teenager, maybe 15, in Colorado who cries about how he can't legally buy pot because of the "regulations." They look very short sighted.

 

[JessFR]

Gun regulation is sorely needed, I agree.

People who cry about their 2nd amendment rights when basic regulations are brought up often fall into the pit trap of looking childish. It's similar to a teenager, maybe 15, in Colorado who cries about how he can't legally buy pot because of the "regulations." They look very short sighted.

I largely agree with you, but it's worth keeping in mind that there are two sides to this. And I don't think either is being particularly sensible.

I'm not trying to defend the gun lobby, but I am attacking the antigun lobby, which I feel often gets a free pass in much of society, liberal society anyway.

They are significantly to blame too. In consistently approaching the problem in ways that just aren't realistic. And in contributing to the radicalization of both sides, which has lead to this stalemate. Where neither side is able to make any significant progress.

One significant problem of the antigun side, is that in not really knowing anything about guns, they often create legislation and policy that either doesn't work, or doesn't make sense.

My point ultimately is just that people suck, and both sides of this have done a lot to create this situation where we can't affect any real change to gun laws at all.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Didn't bump stocks just become illegal? I'm pretty sure change is happening with or without you.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I can see where not having access to a gun could prevent someone from going through with it because knowing you can pull a trigger and have it be over instantly seems like it would make it a lot easier to be brave enough to do it than if you have to hang yourself which is going to be really painful and full of panic, or jump off a high place which is also terrifying. HOWEVER, obviously guns are not the reason for suicides at all and what we need to be doing is addressing why so many people feel hopeless and suicidal (ie, why severe depression/anxiety/etc are such huge problems today).

I'm pretty sure it's because we evolved to be part of strong, intimate communities of a small number of people who are codependent for survival, and we also evolved to feel a sense of magic and mystery and connection with something greater (this can be seen in pretty much any past culture, most strongly in indigenous cultures which is, of course, how our species existed for the vast majority of our history as modern humans and likely even before that in our species' ancestors). In the world today, many people feel isolated despite living among many others. Your fellow man becomes a potential enemy rather than a friend and ally. I believe this contributes hugely to depression and anxiety. And when you combine this with a very nihilistic culture disconnected from any concept of spirituality, it causes people to have nothing to fall back on, nothing to make them feel like any of this means anything, which further compounds the problem. And then when you add a gradual but seemingly inexorable lowering of quality of life (mainly financial security and opportunity) and increasing sense of hopelessness about the future, it makes it even worse. And I think we have so many mass murder-suicides because the media/etc is purposely fostering a sense of anger to play on the feelings of nihilism and helplessness. Sort of like "Fuck the world, fuck other people, fuck my life, I want to die and if I'm gonna go I'm gonna take out as many of these fuckers as I can with me".

Nicely said... I've said it before and I guess I'll say it again, it's not a gun problem, it's a societal problem (in the U.S.).

 

[JessFR]

Didn't bump stocks just become illegal? I'm pretty sure change is happening with or without you.

Which is why I made the comment that the laws are often poorly thought out. How do you know banning bump stocks will actually help anything, that it might result in less people dying in the next mass shooting?

One might be inclined to just assume that bump stocks means more bullets fired, more bullets fired means more people die. But that's just an assumption, one that is quite questionable. The military has done studies on the subject, since obviously they want greater accuracy from their soldiers. They've found that automatic fire significantly decreases accuracy. More bullets fired, fewer people hit. The marines even took away full automatic capability from their rifles because they felt it would improve accuracy. There's not really any evidence that I have seen that these kinds of policies do anything productive.

So if they don't do anything productive in the statistical sense, what's the point? Just to make people feel better? To be able to tell people "see we did something" and have that something not be anything the gun lobby wouldn't tolerate?

I've spent years arguing with people that our gun laws should be based on evidence, with the goal of reducing the number of deaths by objective measurements. But in my experience, that's not what the antigun groups want, they want something that makes them feel better. If a policy would work but doesn't follow the innate assumptions, it gets rejected. If a policy is based on no evidence, or sometimes even evidence to the contrary, but it sends the right message, it's accepted.

And up to a point that's probably what the gun lobby wants. Consessions that don't actually change anything real. Any idiot can still buy a semiautomatic rifle and gun down 40 people.

It's a joke.

 

[swilow]

Which is why I made the comment that the laws are often poorly thought out. How do you know banning bump stocks will actually help anything, that it might result in less people dying in the next mass shooting?

One might be inclined to just assume that bump stocks means more bullets fired, more bullets fired means more people die. But that's just an assumption, one that is quite questionable. The military has done studies on the subject, since obviously they want greater accuracy from their soldiers. They've found that automatic fire significantly decreases accuracy. More bullets fired, fewer people hit. The marines even took away full automatic capability from their rifles because they felt it would improve accuracy. There's not really any evidence that I have seen that these kinds of policies do anything productive.

A military context isn't all that relevant here. A massacre generally constitutes a lot of people being shot rapidly. A lot of targets in one area don't require a lot of aiming or accuracy, just the ability to spray as many bullets as possible.

The Christchurch shooter even stated that he didn't have time to aim. Accuracy is not as important in a massacre.

 

[w01fg4ng]

Any idiot can still buy a semiautomatic rifle and gun down 40 people.

And if all 40 survived, how many do you suppose would get the proper medical treatment?

 

[JessFR]

A military context isn't all that relevant here. A massacre generally constitutes a lot of people being shot rapidly. A lot of targets in one area don't require a lot of aiming or accuracy, just the ability to spray as many bullets as possible.

The Christchurch shooter even stated that he didn't have time to aim. Accuracy is not as important in a massacre.

I'll admit it's not a certainty that you can directly compare stats in a military deployment context to mass shootings. But my point wasn't so much about how certain it is, my point is how assumptions can be wrong, that we should base policy on evidence rather than assumption.

It's still an assumption that more people are likely to die with a weapon outfitted with a bump stock, I don't know that anyone has even tried to study the subject. The point is its an assumption, one that may not be true. Even if it doesn't hurt accuracy, it could still turn out that more bullets are used to kill each person, burning though ammunition faster, resulting in fewer people actually killed.

And that's ultimately what I'm getting at here, that people just make up policy based on nothing. And this is far from the worst of its kind. At least bump stocks make a functional difference. And therefore at least the possibility exists that it might do some good (I hope). We've tried lots of gun control laws that regulate aspects of a firearms design that are entirely cosmetic. That have no affect on how deadly they are or how suitable they are for mass shootings. How is that worthwhile policy?

So getting back to my original point. The pro gun lobby might come out with rediculouly poor policies like arming teachers. But the anti gun lobby isn't any better.

 

[nuttynutskin]

FWIW the NRA actually supported a ban on bump stocks. lol

They're apparently pretty damn easy to make out of common items tho.

 

[nuttynutskin]

It's still an assumption that more people are likely to die with a weapon outfitted with a bump stock, I don't know that anyone has even tried to study the subject. The point is its an assumption, one that may not be true. Even if it doesn't hurt accuracy, it could still turn out that more bullets are used to kill each person, burning though ammunition faster, resulting in fewer people actually killed.

A bump stock basically turns a semi-auto rifle into a fully auto. I don't think there's any real question that a higher rate of fire can do more damage than a lower one. Especially in a situation where there's a lot of people in close quarters. It's one of the reason machine guns are severely restricted. I say this as a second amendment supporter.

 

[JessFR]

A bump stock basically turns a semi-auto rifle into a fully auto. I don't think there's any real question that a higher rate of fire can do more damage than a lower one. Especially in a situation where there's a lot of people in close quarters. It's one of the reason machine guns are severely restricted. I say this as a second amendment supporter.

No offense intended here, but "I don't think there's any question" is meaningless. I'm questioning it now. Consider it questioned.

I can just as easily say that there's no question automatic fire is less accurate, with a tendency to overshoot the target. Or that there's no question that automatic fire would result in more bullets per person. Either of which could conceivably result in less destruction overall.

Now that's no less questionable than your assumption, it's just another assumption. Which is why we should actually challange those assumptions and find out.

People HAVE died because of bad policies that were deemed obvious and common sense, that later turned out to actually cause more harm than doing nothing.

Where people can die, we should try and do a little better than "yeah that sounds right to me". This is something we absolutely could model and test and get solid answers on. When those solid answers say that fire with a bump stock is indeed likely to result in more deaths in spree killings, then I'll be totally on board. Until then it's just another assumption.

Assumptions are dangerous, assumptions get people killed.

FWIW the NRA actually supported a ban on bump stocks. lol

Well if the NRA supports it it must be a good idea.

I did say earlier that the gun lobby probably likes these policies. As I said they're a substitute for anything real.

I don't think the NRA would much approve of the kind of gun control I have in mind.

But then again neither does the antigun lobby.

 

[w01fg4ng]

I'm seeing bulletproof backpacks for as cheap as 20 bucks.

Man, kids these days have it so good.

 

[mal3volent]

I'm seeing bulletproof backpacks for as cheap as 20 bucks.

Man, kids these days have it so good.

these kids today, with their memes and their avocados
*scoff*

 

[Xorkoth]

I generally agree with you on things, Jess, but I just can't see where allowing fully automatic weapons or bump stocks is anything approaching a good idea. I mean I am all for personal freedom but we need limits. We already have them. For example, you can't drive cars with greater than 8 cylinders (pretty sure anyway). Reason being, they're unneeded, you could go way too fast, and I think main one is, you could outrun police. We have laws to obey stop lights. It infringes on my personal freedom to not have to stop if I don't want to, but I think we can both agree it's a good idea, even if almost everyone would still drive responsibly to avoid hurting others and would only run stop lights when they could do it safely. I just can't have sympathy for people who are basically saying "but I WANT fully automatic weapons!" Well too fucking bad, you can have non-fully automatic weapons already. You don't NEED a fully automatic weapon and if we make them readily available, then all the mass shooters are going to use them. You have a large amount of people together, you're gonna do far more damage the faster you can shoot. You're just aiming in a general direction.

Also for the record I think there's no reason anyone needs semi-autos either, they also increase the amount of damage possible in massacre situations. Slower shooting into groups of people means less damage and more opportunity for someone to react proactively. You once made the argument that there would be mass knifings if we took away guns. Well you're right, but a mass knifer would have so much less opportunity to do damage... it's difficult to imagine a mass knifer walking into a mosque and killing 50 people. I mean you can actually one-on-one defend yourself against a person with a knife. A similar argument can be made for non-auto guns (semi or fully). It's hard to imagine a guy with a handgun killing 50 people before being stopped. I could get behind the idea that licensed gun ranges could have semi and fully automatic weapons for firing at those locations, to still allow shooting enthusiasts the fun of their hobby.

100% freedom to do anything you want is a nice concept but when you have millions upon millions of people trying to live together in a society, it's just not feasible, because some people will abuse it to the detriment of others. So we have to make some sacrifices. Few people (and none in this forum) are saying to take away all guns. Just that we need limits and we need to vet people that want to buy guns. Eliminate the gun show loopholes. These limits are sensible and would not remove 2nd amendment rights. When the 2nd amendment was written, the only guns there were were front-loading muskets that were inaccurate and took forever to shoot. We need to adjust to the times. What's next if we allow fully auto weapons or facsimiles thereof? Grenade launchers?

 

[JessFR]

Is it so wrong to think we should base our laws on evidence?

I believe in freedom as the default, which means I'm never going to support infringing any freedom based exclusively on the premise that "nobody needs x". Even if it's entirely true.

We don't legalize only what people need, we follow the principle that everything which is not forbidden is allowed. Freedom is the default.

There should be no burden to justify why something should be allowed, not for anything. The burden should be to justify why it must be disallowed.

All I'm saying ultimately is that those arguments for what should not be allowed should be based on as much evidence as possible.

I truly can't understand how so many can still find ways to disagree with what I'm saying. What possible reasonable argument is there to not use evidence to get the best policies and laws possible? Isn't the goal to save lives? And if it is, shouldnt we invest in some actual research into policies rather than just making assumptions?

You once made the argument that there would be mass knifings if we took away guns. Well you're right, but a mass knifer would have so much less opportunity to do damage... it's difficult to imagine a mass knifer walking into a mosque and killing 50 people. I mean you can actually one-on-one defend yourself against a person with a knife.

Since we don't have the original post to refer to (unless you happen to remember when and where I posted it), I'm going to have to speculate from my recollection what I likely said. And I strongly suspect that the context of what I'm likely to have said would have been in relation to Australian gun laws. Which was not a prediction of what might happen with future American law. It was an evaluation of what has already happened with current Australian law.

It's come up again recently, and again, they used the same trick they use every time to justify the "great success" of Australian gun laws. They point to the gun crime statistics. Because on that basis, they were successful.

The problem is if you look at the bigger picture of crime in general it becomes very hard to establish that it did anything. Which means it's entirely plausible that all they did was trade gun deaths for knife deaths.

That was likely the context of what I said. Not that it matters. As I've seen again and again. Saving people is the justification. Banning objects that frighten people is the goal. Which is why that's the ONLY kind of gun control anyone bothers to try. That's why we pass laws that ban guns for silly cosmetic reasons.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

It is not instant, necessarily, Shadow.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

When I was much younger I was exceedingly suicidal and had access to a gun and hollowpoint bullets. This was many years ago and I was much more impulsive. I don’t know why I didn’t do it. I literally couldn’t tell you.

I do not have access to a gun now. I'm not sure what my mind would do if I had one around. I'm guessing either feel deeply comforted I have a for sure way out, or constantly addled and disturbed as if I am hearing the calling to die. Or perhaps nothing would change and I'd have my ups and downs just like I always do. Pretty awful mental disease.

Odds are I would still seek out an alternative suicide method and go through with it before I shoot myself. I don't think I have enough will power to do that, I fucking hate pain. I could have seen myself doing it on impulse last year I was very poorly off then, mentally speaking.

I'm probably cursed to walk the earth forever as a suicidal zombie so I'd probably just be reincarnated as some suicidal loser and I probably should just learn to live with it.

I would urge anyone considering a gun suicide to SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER, read the horror stories about when someone's grip wasn't strong enough (which happens frequently when people are very emotional/impulsive), then you're in the hospital for a long time before you finally die. It's inhumane for you and the people who will be first responders.

 

[PriestTheyCalledHim]

When I was much younger I was exceedingly suicidal and had access to a gun and hollowpoint bullets. This was many years ago and I was much more impulsive. I don?t know why I didn?t do it. I literally couldn?t tell you.

I do not have access to a gun now. I'm not sure what my mind would do if I had one around. I'm guessing either feel deeply comforted I have a for sure way out, or constantly addled and disturbed as if I am hearing the calling to die. Or perhaps nothing would change and I'd have my ups and downs just like I always do. Pretty awful mental disease.

Odds are I would still seek out an alternative suicide method and go through with it before I shoot myself. I don't think I have enough will power to do that, I fucking hate pain. I could have seen myself doing it on impulse last year I was very poorly off then, mentally speaking.

I'm probably cursed to walk the earth forever as a suicidal zombie so I'd probably just be reincarnated as some suicidal loser and I probably should just learn to live with it.

I would urge anyone considering a gun suicide to SERIOUSLY RECONSIDER, read the horror stories about when someone's grip wasn't strong enough (which happens frequently when people are very emotional/impulsive), then you're in the hospital for a long time before you finally die. It's inhumane for you and the people who will be first responders.

I am glad you did not kill yourself. If you are suicidal please get help. It's also extremely traumatic for the family and friends of anyone who kills themselves no matter what way they do it. I have lost two friends to suicide and the disturbing part was that they both knew each other, lived across the street from another, and both did it the same way/method, at the same place, and around the same time of year but years apart. Rest in peace.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I am glad you did not kill yourself. If you are suicidal please get help. It's also extremely traumatic for the family and friends of anyone who kills themselves no matter what way they do it.

Thank you priest but I'll respectfully disagree. I'm unhappy I'm still here and I want my civil rights, including the right to die. I don't need help, I need basic human dignity and civil rights.

Other people can accept your decision and be there for you in your last moments, especially if you're open and honest over a long period of time. It doesn't traumatize everyone if they understood what was going on to lead you to this. More gory scenes of shotgun suicides, laying on railroad tracks will obviously be more disturbing than a drug overdose. I imagine asphyxia/inert gas are also somewhat but not maximally disturbing.

I am sorry to hear about your friends' losses.

 

[nuttynutskin]

I truly can't understand how so many can still find ways to disagree with what I'm saying. What possible reasonable argument is there to not use evidence to get the best policies and laws possible?

You keep talking about evidence and such, but how much evidence do you really need to know that a machine gun is going to do more damage, or that a bump stock which again basically turns a semi automatic to a fully automatic is going to do more damage? Not exactly rocket science. I'm honestly not understanding your argument here.