President says ‘epidemic of gun violence is tearing our communities apart’ after mass shootings in Philadelphia, Fort Worth, Baltimore and Chicago

  • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Things like suicide are far more related to a lack mental healthcare and the stigma around getting help than weather or not people are allowed to own firearms. Not everyone has those kinds of problems. An assault weapons ban is certainly unrelated to those seeking self-harm and most crime.

    • ch00f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Look at suicide rates in England when they switched from coal gas to natural gas. “Sticking your head in the oven” was an incredibly accessible and effective way to kill yourself.

      When coal gas was taken away, all suicides dropped.

      Over time, as the carbon monoxide in gas decreased, suicides also decreased (Kreitman 1976). Suicides by carbon monoxide decreased dramatically, while suicides by other methods increased a small amount, resulting in a net decrease in overall suicides, particularly among females.

      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves-lives/

      • bazongabazooka@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since gas ovens are still commonplace around the world and not a major suicide device, maybe were just looking at simple correlation specific to a time and place. Just like school shootings in the US are a terrible trend, suicide by oven may have been a terrible trend in England. I don’t disagree that the net effect of removing the popular tool can be significant, I definitely question if a similar result can be relied upon. Removing the gas may have just been a wake up or societal redirect that happily resulted in fewer suicides.

        • ch00f@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          Coal gas, as in “artificial gas” (as opposed to natural gas) is no longer used in residential environments basically anywhere. It’s literally 50% carbon monoxide and much more toxic than natural gas which is what modern ovens use.

          It is impossible to kill yourself with coal gas if you don’t have access to it. People can and do still kill themselves with carbon monoxide by leaving their cars on in a closed space, but that takes more time and effort and people have time to contemplate their decision and change their mind. This is a good thing.

          Also, I’m not sure I understand your point about it being a trend. The data shows that total suicides dropped, not just suicide by oven.

    • morgan423@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not sure which part of “if you don’t have access to a gun, then you literally can not shoot yourself” isn’t connecting in your mind, but it is interesting to me that it’s almost like people subconsciously fight themselves to avoid arriving there.

    • lunar_parking@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What came first, the chicken or the egg? Meaningless semantics; both are at play when it comes to someone that is suicidal. But I can assure you, suicide rates would be positively (downward trend) impacted by any sort of gun ban. I am speaking as person who has been suicidal. If I had had access to guns at certain points in my past, I likely wouldn’t be here today.

      • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        K, not everyone has those kinds of problems and a ban would prevent everyone from owning a gun. That would be a bit like banning booze or cars because some people are drunk drivers.

        Banning guns won’t get anyone any treatment which seems vastly more important than prevent one kind of means some people may or may not seek out on their own.

        • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          why are you framing the conversation as if folks are deciding between better mental healthcare or getting rid of guns, when the conversation is about getting rid of guns or not getting rid of guns

          are you misrepresenting what the conversation is actually about for a specific reason?

          • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you think there’s any real conversation around “getting rid of guns” you are simply engaging in fantasy.

            There will be no “getting rid of guns” in any of our lifetimes in the USA. Our rights to bear arms are practically set in stone with multiple SC precedents confirming the individual right that the Constitution gives us, and recent additional precedents show the sitting court interprets the legality of limiting those rights as an extremely narrow thing.

            Even if all the above were not the case, the simple logistics of the matter are that we have 400 million guns in private hands, mostly unregistered, distributed across the USA. People will simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them.

            • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              its true, never in the history of any nation has illegalising something made that thing less common

              your disagreeing with the practicality of getting rid of guns does not, in fact, change the current conversation from being about how the usa should obviously get rid of guns, regardless of how difficult you lot will continue to make it ‘in any of our lifetime’

              • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s kind of a generic reply that doesn’t address the point that making them illegal is most likely impossible.

                • Lols [they/them]@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  a generic reply that barely addresses any point was pretty appropriate for a generic statement that barely qualifies as having one to address, i felt like

                  it turns out ‘the simple logistics of the matter’ are that guns do not appear in the hands of criminals magically, rather the USA imports and manufactures ridiculous amounts of new killing machines for them entirely legally, making sure that getting your hands on one illegally remains as easy as absolutely possible

                  it turns out schoolkids and teenagers do not in fact get their military weaponry from their extensive mob/maffia/cartel ties, they take daddys entirely legally purchased firearm because having a country where millions of people can legally own guns means having a country where millions of kids can just grab one

                  it turns out people will not ‘simply keep them no matter what you or the government tells them’, because first, some people actually do care about following the law, and second, enforcement of bans on things does actually tend to lower the prevalence of those things

                  we know this because weve seen that happen, repeatedly, including in the USA, most every time anything was illegalised in recent history

                  we also know this because if a gun is confiscated from someone, it is physically impossible for that person to shoot someone else with that gun, because they do not have it

                  the literal only reason ‘criminals can still get guns’ is because theres so fucking many legal ones

                  • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Here’s some info to educate yourself on the logistics I was speaking of - noncompliance with gun bans in New York, where even the county sheriffs refuse to enforce their “assault weapon” bans.

                    https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/07/07/massive-noncompliance-with-safe-act/

                    If those bans go so poorly in NY state, how well do you think they would work in states with more conservative populations?

                    Additionally, there are states with “gun ban bans” coded into law already, making compliance with federal gun bans illegal. Obviously the Supremacy Clause would nullify those laws, but they tell you how the state will be unlikely to comply on a practical level. Shit ain’t gonna happen, no matter how much you fantasize it happening.

    • Narrrz@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      England saw a decrease in suicide rates in the '60s & '70s last century when the levels of carbon monoxide in the natural gas supply were reduced. As a result of this change, people stopped being able to easily commit suicide by sticking their head in the unlit oven and turning it on.

      It’s not like these people were institutionalized and physically prevented from harming themselves. Making means of suicide too really available seems to allow people to kill themselves who otherwise would not attempt it.

      Reducing access to guns- besides the obvious decrease in homicides - will likely cause a noteworthy reduction in suicide, too.

    • sombrero@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      a gun makes it incredibly easy to end someone, including yourself. It takes the killing out of killing and I can promise you that makes a massive difference to the number of both killings and suicides.

      • Katos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        So we ban pain killers too? Cleaning chemicals? Rat poison?

        The gun didn’t make you kill yourself. Not getting help killed you. Stop chasing the guns, they aren’t the the problem. The problem is that so many people see them as a solution and they need help.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      One can do both.

      A new assault weapon ban, while ultimately not a cure, would at least stem the tide until real effective change can be enacted.

      We’ll never fix our problems all at once, in grand sweeping actions. It comes in steps, which takes time. We just need to not destroy ourselves in the mean time.

      Of course, that also means actually enacting that slow change, and not just paying lip service as a distraction from issues that are happening now.

      • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        My main point about an AWB in relation to suicides was more that people aren’t using those kinds of weapons for suicide. The kind weapons these laws are trying to describe aren’t even commonly used in crimes. The main reason they’re talking about assault weapons now days is because targeting handguns first kinda stalled. That and the marketing works better for them.

        There are things they could do that would be effective but it would be other left wing policies that would address root causes. The issue with that is those things seem to be even more of a lip service thing and it’s kinda hard to bumper sticker that shit.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So you agree it’s mostly political theater, on both sides? All the proponents of “gun rights” are just as pointless and theatrical as the gun bans they oppose? That coming out, guns blazing (as it were) against these measures is just another way to stir up an uninformed and apathetic base to action against the “liberal elite”?

          Most of these measures are relatively toothless anyways, they affect tiny portions of the population, most of which just won’t be able to purchase new weapons of that style, at least until the gun manufacturers find loopholes, as they always do.

          • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            There is political theater going on but with gun control laws they’re not going to even stick due to lawsuits. Effectiveness is questionable as well.

            The laws do not affect a tiny portion of people though. Lots of weapons that fall under the idea of an assault weapons ban are extremely popular and common. Then such laws would affect future buyers including people who do not have the opportunity to buy something now or didn’t think to. Definitely a problem for someone a decade from now who was too young or wasn’t into firearms yet. Like that the whole point of the ban right? Stopping people from being able to own something.

            The “loopholes” aren’t. They’re just making something that is in compliance. The problem is they don’t know how to define what they want to ban and the ban isn’t actually effective for the results they claim.

      • Drewdp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        48.8k people died from gun deaths last year. 54% were suicides, 43% murders, 3% other Of those murders, 3% were with a rifle. (Source was pew research)

        630 rifle deaths out of 48.8k

        All an assault weapon ban will do is make felons out of otherwise law abiding gun enthusiasts, and chip away at a right guaranteed in our constitution.

        Nearly 50k deaths is tragic. We do need to do something about it. But banning guns does not fix the mental health issues, the income disparity, or the lack of education and social services in predominantly black or Hispanic neighborhoods, which contribute to these violent behaviors in our society.

        And if you’re only concerned about the deaths, consider how drug overdoses outnumber gun deaths by more than 2:1. Maybe we should make drugs illegal instead. Wait…

      • jimbolauski@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        There have been less than 15 mass shootings since 2012 in the US where the shooter used an “assault rifle”. An “assult weapons” ban wouldn’t stem the tide at all. This proposed law would be like banning semi trucks because a few drunk driving incidents involved a drunk semi driver.

        • Zorque@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It stemmed the tide back in the nineties, before it was repealed in the last decade.

          But that’s honestly beside the point. Because everyone seems to just be against any kind of legal action against firearms, but most opponents of these measures can only point at vague options regarding “mental health” as an alternative… then balk at supporting any measures resembling it.

          It’s a dogwhistle that is frankly a tired ploy for populist politicians to throw at their base to distract them from real issues.

          We must fight against the “evil” gun bans because if we don’t fight against that, people might recognize how shit we are at our jobs and actually do something about it!

          As I stated in my comment, I know it’s not a cure. It’s not even a very good stopgap. But at least it’s fucking something. Which is more than can be said than by all the people whinging about “constitutional rights”.

    • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do pro gun Republicans always use mental health as an alternative reason for excessive firearm suicide rates, and then are nowhere to be heard from when someone proposes universal mental health access.

      • borkcorkedforks@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m a pro-gun leftist but, yeah, a lack of mental healthcare is an obvious issue when talking about mental health problems. There is absolutely no rational way for you to claim intentional suicide isn’t a mental health issue.

        If the issue was just guns existing you’d quickly be able to pass any gun laws you wanted due to the lack of gun owners. Plenty of people do not have mental health problems that would require them to be disarmed. No one is getting any treatment just because a gun ban got passed.

        What I don’t get is why Democrats don’t call their bluff and try to create public healthcare options with the stated goal of preventing violence and issues related to mental health.