I respectfully request

[Jim Naseum]

[BigStewMan]

 

i've only seen one president live. George H. W. Bush. There was an event and i was in the military and we were told that we had to go.

Were you impressed?

 

in the sense that i was in the same crowd as the president; but, wouldn’t have went to the event if we weren’t ordered to go.  Just one of those times that you say to yourself “that’s the guy…"

[Travis In Austin]

i've only seen one president live. George H. W. Bush. There was an event and i was in the military and we were told that we had to go.

Were you impressed?

in the sense that i was in the same crowd as the president; but, wouldn’t have went to the event if we weren’t ordered to go. Just one of those times that you say to yourself “that’s the guy…"

It is cool, very cool, regardless of who it is.

[Jeff Matthews]

 

 

Wonder why he didn't visit Chicago to express condolances over the 14 shootings in 15 hours on a random Tuesday, most of which were within 3 miles apart, that included a grandmother, 11 month old boy, and pregnant woman.

It's my Belief that it's all Politics. I just don't see him getting the press for going to Chicago that he is getting with our local Tragedy!

I look forward to the day when 10 or so oeople can be killed, by what whatever means, we have a president who responds by saying "no comment" or "its a local problem."

 

 

You and me, both!

[Mallette]

Haven't been here in a couple of days and so behind.  There was a reason behind my questioning "where was it written" concerning the right to self defense.  Some here know that for many years my own position has been that there are either "certain inalienable rights" or there are none except those granted by government...making them not "rights" at all but simply privileges. 

 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are to me the greatest words never enshrined in law.  Sovereignty of the individual over their person.  To the extent that any government deviates from that principle it is not free.. 

 

Dave

[minermark]

Thread still going

[Islander]

dwilawyer wrote:

"There's a lot of pot-calling going on in this situation.Well that is the biggest bunch of horse manure I have ever heard. Bakers bake, plumbers plumb, and politicians politicize. Every current candidate is speaking about that incident. Why? He was already scheduled to be in Seattle, what would they say if he did a Bush "flyiver."

Historically speaking, and to put this thing into context, Ronny was an expert at it. He politicized his own shooting and signed a law banning machine guns and some assault weapons. He politicized the horrible injuries to his press secretary and supported the Brady law and a ten day waiting period after he was out office."

 

This sounds so strange to me.  One of the duties of a President is to try to make the country a safer place for everyone, but it seems like any attempt to reduce the number of lives lost to gun violence is seen as being in poor taste and "politicizing a tragedy".

 

When the President is shot by an assassin and tries to ban machineguns from private ownership, he's doing something terrible.  Say what?  Your President was shot!  Was he supposed to pray it wouldn't happen again and feel satisfied that nothing more could be done?

 

Is that the only permitted response to every gun tragedy, to pray for the victims and their loved ones?  When over 30,000 American lives are lost to gun violence every year, should it just be ignored?  Has a day of gun deaths become just another day, a fact of nature that cannot be stopped?

 

When you're losing 30,000 lives a year, I guess it's inevitable that a few Presidents get taken out, too.  There have been several lost that way.  The trade-off is that you get to have as many guns as you can afford.  Is it really worth it?

 

It's not like this in other countries.  Canada has a population of around 35 million people, and the culture is similar to that of America in many ways, so a 10:1 ratio applies to quite a few measurements, like cars purchased, and so on.  This would suggest that there would be 3,000 gun-related deaths in a typical year, but the number is more like 500.  The per capita numbers in most other developed countries are even lower.  Isn't that strange? 

 

No, it's not strange at all.  The one factor of handguns being almost impossible to purchase or carry legally in Canada makes a very big difference.  Would it be worth the lives of thousands of Americans to give up that right?

 

That's up to you to decide.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Islander

[Travis In Austin]

dwilawyer wrote:

"There's a lot of pot-calling going on in this situation.Well that is the biggest bunch of horse manure I have ever heard. Bakers bake, plumbers plumb, and politicians politicize. Every current candidate is speaking about that incident. Why? He was already scheduled to be in Seattle, what would they say if he did a Bush "flyiver."

Historically speaking, and to put this thing into context, Ronny was an expert at it. He politicized his own shooting and signed a law banning machine guns and some assault weapons. He politicized the horrible injuries to his press secretary and supported the Brady law and a ten day waiting period after he was out office."

This sounds so strange to me. One of the duties of a President is to try to make the country a safer place for everyone, but it seems like any attempt to reduce the number of lives lost to gun violence is seen as being in poor taste and "politicizing a tragedy".

When the President is shot by an assassin and tries to ban machineguns from private ownership, he's doing something terrible. Say what? Your President was shot! Was he supposed to pray it wouldn't happen again and feel satisfied that nothing more could be done?

Is that the only permitted response to every gun tragedy, to pray for the victims and their loved ones? When over 30,000 American lives are lost to gun violence every year, should it just be ignored? Has a day of gun deaths become just another day, a fact of nature that cannot be stopped?

When you're losing 30,000 lives a year, I guess it's inevitable that a few Presidents get taken out, too. There have been several lost that way. The trade-off is that you get to have as many guns as you can afford. Is it really worth it?

It's not like this in other countries. Canada has a population of around 35 million people, and the culture is similar to that of America in many ways, so a 10:1 ratio applies to quite a few measurements, like cars purchased, and so on. This would suggest that there would be 3,000 gun-related deaths in a typical year, but the number is more like 500. The per capita numbers in most other developed countries are even lower. Isn't that strange?

No, it's not strange at all. The one factor of handguns being almost impossible to purchase or carry legally in Canada makes a very big difference. Would it be worth the lives of thousands of Americans to give up that right?

That's up to you to decide.

But you don't live in a country where everything is criminal and thus you have to worry about criminals having more guns than law abiding country.

You also don't live in a country where if you require things like gun registration, or limit handguns to the home, a tryant will suddenly emerge.

As you have seen so reasonably and effectively argued in this thread, the only reason we have lasted this long is because the government is scared of all of the gun owners. It keeps em in line, closest tyrants stay closeted.

[oldtimer]

I disagree.  They are not scared because despite the term "bear" we are not allowed just any "bearable" arms.  We are not allowed the good stuff which might make a difference. 

[Islander]

Some people seem to be under the notion that gun violence happens in all western countries...

 

I'd read something about America's view of the world, and it didn't sink in until these recent threads.  America produces movies that show its vision of reality.  Most countries do, but they can still see what other countries are like.

 

Not America.  When America looks out into the world, it only sees itself reflected back to it.

 

When I posted that there are countries where only police and criminals have guns, and yet the citizens don't live in fear, the first response was, "Where is that, Disneyland?"  No, it's most of the developed world.  Canada is the closest example.  In England, even the police don't carry guns, except for special squads or circumstances, and yet life goes on.

 

When there was talk a few years ago of all English police being armed, it turned out that 82% of British police do not want to be armed.

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing five countries where policemen do not carry firearms:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/

 

 

There is a total of just under 130,000 police officers in England and Wales combined: 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013

 

According to this article, of all the police officers in England and Wales, only 5875 are authorized to use firearms, and the number is falling.  In 2009, the number was higher by 1031 officers.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-in-england-and-wales-only-fired-their-weapons-twice-during-14864-operations-in-2013-14-10378829.html

 

Between 2012 and today, only two people were killed by armed police in England.  Wouldn't it be great to see numbers like that in your country?

 

Meanwhile, in America:

 

"503 people in the USA have been killed by police using firearms in the first six months of this year - and in the first 24 days of 2015, American police killed more people than police in England and Wales have killed in 24 years."

 

Could it be that the public is actually safer when the police do not carry firearms?

 

When only criminals have guns (other than hunting rifles, shotguns and target shooting weapons), the bad guys are easy to spot and arrest.  They're the ones with the illegal guns, which is most guns over there.

 

 

Did you notice something important about the graph at the top?  Most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides by criminals or terrorists.  It's not hard to kill yourself by various means, but guns make it extra easy, and really easy to do on a whim if there's a gun in the house.  Imagine the lives that would be saved if it was that bit more difficult for your depressed friend or relative to end it all.  Nearly all of us have lost a friend or loved one to suicide.  If they have to go out and buy a rope or other means, it's a bit more time to think and maybe realize that's not their only choice.

 

In Toronto, there's a large road bridge, the Bloor Viaduct, which crosses the Don Valley, a large valley with the Don River at the centre, an expressway (the Don Valley Parkway) on the east side and Bayview Avenue on the west side.  It's 40 metres/122 ft. high, and had a reputation as a "suicide magnet", just like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

 

People would jump off and land in the playground of a school that's below the bridge, or land on the DV Parkway.  This happened once while a friend of mine was commuting to work on the Parkway, and the body landed just in front of him.  It's an understatement to say his day was ruined.

 

However, steps can be taken to prevent people from jumping off bridges.  Toronto spent $5.5 million to install a suicide barrier, and since then there have been no deaths at the bridge.  There had been over 400 deaths between the bridge's construction in 1918 and the barrier's installation in 2003.  A similar barrier has been discussed for the Golden Gate, but the funds have not yet been approved.  Meanwhile, the deaths go on.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/10/the_fatal_attraction_of_suicide_magnets.html

 

My point is that bridges can be modified to reduce or eliminate suicide attempts.  Nothing comparable can be done with guns.  If someone chooses to end his life and reaches for a gun, he's likely to succeed.

 

When I was 7 years old, my father put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger, during a drinking binge, in front of the family.  It was not his gun, so he didn't realize it was loaded with blanks.  He got a burn on his temple, but that was it.  He never tried that again, and lived another 53 years.  He was also sober for the last 31 years of his life.

 

My mother was grazed by a .22 bullet when I was 5 or 6.  We were at a neighbour's cottage, and there was a loaded single-shot .22 rifle on a shelf in the corner of the living room.  One of the man's kids picked it up and luckily pointed it at the floor.  The gun discharged, the bullet hit the floor and ricocheted upwards, grazing my mother's shoulder.  My father, who was an infantryman in the Canadian Army at the time, couldn't believe what the neighbour did next.  He reloaded the gun and put it back on the shelf.  We never went back to that cottage, needless to say.

 

One last family story:  my brother used to live about an hour north of Los Angeles, and figured that if he was living in the US, he should have a gun, so he got one.  My mother visited him sometime later, and noticed that the dishwasher no longer matched the fridge and stove.  She was curious, and asked why.  My brother was embarrassed to admit that he'd had the gun in the kitchen and it went off somehow, killing the dishwasher, which had to be replaced.  Not a great loss, but he had two small children at the time, who were about the same height as the dishwasher, so you can imagine how easily a tragedy could have occurred.

 

These incidents are not made up.  They all happened.  I could have lost one or both of my parents, and my family never even owned a gun.  Due to my father's drinking, there was no way my mother my mother would allow it.  She'd have taken my brother and me and left.  Before anyone suggests it, this was in no way a challenge to his masculinity.  My father understood and accepted that we'd never have a gun, mostly because there was no reason to have a firearm in the house anyway.  He was not a hunter, and got to shoot rifles and Bren guns (similar to a B.A.R.) at work.  When his hearing began to be affected and he got tired of digging trenches, he left the infantry and joined the band.  I'm glad.

 

With the number of members on this forum, I'd be surprised if nobody else had had any close calls or scary incidents with firearms, or is it too embarrassing to admit?

[Zim.]

x

[Jim Naseum]

Well written post, Islander Man. I enjoyed reading it. It's interesting that the US and Canada have similar birth dates, and yet differ so radically in culture. Canada had a parent that the US didn't. They had an existing heritage of law and culture which was impressed on it. We had no such parent, and instead started fresh to create a new culture. We did, and it is unlike any other.

Cultures rarely if ever declare themselves wrong. Even North Koreans believe whole heartedly that they are Number One! And the same would be said for Swedes or Frenchmen or Germans. Home is always right, and people fight to the death for it. Even if it seems absurd to outsiders. That's the power of all state propaganda. Think. When you go to school they don't tell you how great it is in Norway, right? You learn from day one how great it is in the US!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Bella]

When I was 7 years old, my father put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger, during a drinking binge, in front of the family.

 

That is a horrible picture for a father to paint in front of his child. Certainly one that will stay etched in your mind forever. I'm sorry for that. But since your brought up drinking, did you know that 2.5 million people die from alcohol-related deaths each year world wide? Far more than guns in the U.S. or even world wide; almost 7,000 every day. And millions more suffer from the effects? 

 

A terrible drug to be sure! Yet, it is legal here in America for anyone over a certain age. No license required to purchase, no locks on any bottles and readily available at every corner market, and not constitutionally protected. I'm willing to make a case that guns, while dangerous, serve multiple purposes and is a useful tool. Alcohol however, classified as a drug, serves only one purpose: to alter the state of our minds. And in the process can kill - a definite downside.

 

So, why aren't we up in arms over alcohol? Perhaps because this isn't the narrative in our media or government? i.e., we are being told what to focus on?

 

What would be the nation's response to the MSM running this headline incessantly everyday?: "Today in America alone, 750 people died from alcoholism, and another 7,000 people in the world passed away from this dreaded drug." And then the president was visiting AA facilities?

 

Are we so easily manipulated?

Edited October 11, 2015 by Bella

[joessportster]

 

When I was 7 years old, my father put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger, during a drinking binge, in front of the family.

 

That is a horrible picture for a father to paint in front of his child. Certainly one that will stay etched in your mind forever. I'm sorry for that. But since your brought up drinking, did you know that 2.5 million people die from alcohol-related deaths each year world wide? Far more than guns in the U.S. or even world wide; almost 7,000 every day. And millions more suffer from the effects? 

 

A terrible drug to be sure! Yet, it is legal here in America for anyone over a certain age. No license required to purchase, no locks on any bottles and readily available at every corner market, and not constitutionally protected. I'm willing to make a case that guns, while dangerous, serve multiple purposes and is a useful tool. Alcohol however, classified as a drug, serves only one purpose: to alter the state of our minds. And in the process can kill - a definite downside.

 

So, why aren't we up in arms over alcohol? Perhaps because this isn't the narrative in our media or government? i.e., we are being told what to focus on?

 

What would be the nation's response to the MSM running this headline incessantly everyday?: "Today in America alone, 750 people died from alcoholism, and another 7,000 people in the world passed away from this dreaded drug." And then the president was visiting AA facilities?

 

Are we so easily manipulated?

 

Some people apparently are 

 

I disagree.  They are not scared because despite the term "bear" we are not allowed just any "bearable" arms.  We are not allowed the good stuff which might make a difference. 

I believe the effectiveness of any weapon is bore by the user, in other words the right person with a Ruger mini14 will do as much damage as an m60.................both will kill effectively.............We have years of proof that almost any weapon can be devastating, plane used to kill 3000+ a van parked outside a building in oklahoma filled with homemade bomb takes out federal building etc...etc...

 

I doubt anyone ordered to move into a situation where they know weapons may be used, are thinking boy I am sure glad they dont have military weapons. more likely they are trying to stay safe from any gunfire

[Jim Naseum]

In England, even the police don't carry guns, except for special squads or circumstances, and yet life goes on.

 

The history of Europe is a history of feudal monarchies. Naturally, monarchs don't want the masses to have weapons. Law and culture developed along those lines. The USA is one of the modern states, created from almost a blank canvas just a few hundred years old. Many of the ideas used in the American establishment were from enlightenment philosophers who were considered anti-establishment in Europe. They were all about liberalising the culture. That's not a welcome message to monarchs.

 

The USA system has many unusual features. One of them is gun violence, but another feature is wealth creation. The USA created wealth faster than its peers for about 200 years. In other words, there are good and bad consequences of the system that was chosen. The fact that wealth creation was happening fast meant that there was a great pressure to leave things alone. Change comes very slowly here for that reason. The owners are constantly saying to themselves, "why mess with a good thing?" The gun violence wasn't affecting them, so there was not much motivation for change. It kept the masses feuding with each other, which takes their eyes off what the owners are doing. That's a good feature for them. When you look at the American system compared to the European norm you see a different tension dynamic. In Europe, the masses are at war (metaphorically) with their rulers. In the USA, the masses are at war between themselves.

[Taz]

 

Not America.  When America looks out into the world, it only sees itself reflected back to it.

When I posted that there are countries where only police and criminals have guns, and yet the citizens don't live in fear, the first response was, "Where is that, Disneyland?"  No, it's most of the developed world.  Canada is the closest example.  In England, even the police don't carry guns, except for special squads or circumstances, and yet life goes on.

 

When there was talk a few years ago of all English police being armed, it turned out that 82% of British police do not want to be armed.

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing five countries where policemen do not carry firearms:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/

 

 

There is a total of just under 130,000 police officers in England and Wales combined: 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013

 

According to this article, of all the police officers in England and Wales, only 5875 are authorized to use firearms, and the number is falling.  In 2009, the number was higher by 1031 officers.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-in-england-and-wales-only-fired-their-weapons-twice-during-14864-operations-in-2013-14-10378829.html

 

Between 2012 and today, only two people were killed by armed police in England.  Wouldn't it be great to see numbers like that in your country?

 

Meanwhile, in America:

 

"503 people in the USA have been killed by police using firearms in the first six months of this year - and in the first 24 days of 2015, American police killed more people than police in England and Wales have killed in 24 years."

 

Could it be that the public is actually safer when the police do not carry firearms?

 

When only criminals have guns (other than hunting rifles, shotguns and target shooting weapons), the bad guys are easy to spot and arrest.  They're the ones with the illegal guns, which is most guns over there.

 

 

Did you notice something important about the graph at the top?  Most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides by criminals or terrorists.  It's not hard to kill yourself by various means, but guns make it extra easy, and really easy to do on a whim if there's a gun in the house.  Imagine the lives that would be saved if it was that bit more difficult for your depressed friend or relative to end it all.  Nearly all of us have lost a friend or loved one to suicide.  If they have to go out and buy a rope or other means, it's a bit more time to think and maybe realize that's not their only choice.

 

In Toronto, there's a large road bridge, the Bloor Viaduct, which crosses the Don Valley, a large valley with the Don River at the centre, an expressway (the Don Valley Parkway) on the east side and Bayview Avenue on the west side.  It's 40 metres/122 ft. high, and had a reputation as a "suicide magnet", just like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

 

People would jump off and land in the playground of a school that's below the bridge, or land on the DV Parkway.  This happened once while a friend of mine was commuting to work on the Parkway, and the body landed just in front of him.  It's an understatement to say his day was ruined.

 

However, steps can be taken to prevent people from jumping off bridges.  Toronto spent $5.5 million to install a suicide barrier, and since then there have been no deaths at the bridge.  There had been over 400 deaths between the bridge's construction in 1918 and the barrier's installation in 2003.  A similar barrier has been discussed for the Golden Gate, but the funds have not yet been approved.  Meanwhile, the deaths go on.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/10/the_fatal_attraction_of_suicide_magnets.html

 

My point is that bridges can be modified to reduce or eliminate suicide attempts.  Nothing comparable can be done with guns.  If someone chooses to end his life and reaches for a gun, he's likely to succeed.

 

When I was 7 years old, my father put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger, during a drinking binge, in front of the family.  It was not his gun, so he didn't realize it was loaded with blanks.  He got a burn on his temple, but that was it.  He never tried that again, and lived another 53 years.  He was also sober for the last 31 years of his life.

 

My mother was grazed by a .22 bullet when I was 5 or 6.  We were at a neighbour's cottage, and there was a loaded single-shot .22 rifle on a shelf in the corner of the living room.  One of the man's kids picked it up and luckily pointed it at the floor.  The gun discharged, the bullet hit the floor and ricocheted upwards, grazing my mother's shoulder.  My father, who was an infantryman in the Canadian Army at the time, couldn't believe what the neighbour did next.  He reloaded the gun and put it back on the shelf.  We never went back to that cottage, needless to say.

 

One last family story:  my brother used to live about an hour north of Los Angeles, and figured that if he was living in the US, he should have a gun, so he got one.  My mother visited him sometime later, and noticed that the dishwasher no longer matched the fridge and stove.  She was curious, and asked why.  My brother was embarrassed to admit that he'd had the gun in the kitchen and it went off somehow, killing the dishwasher, which had to be replaced.  Not a great loss, but he had two small children at the time, who were about the same height as the dishwasher, so you can imagine how easily a tragedy could have occurred.

 

These incidents are not made up.  They all happened.  I could have lost one or both of my parents, and my family never even owned a gun.  Due to my father's drinking, there was no way my mother my mother would allow it.  She'd have taken my brother and me and left.  Before anyone suggests it, this was in no way a challenge to his masculinity.  My father understood and accepted that we'd never have a gun, mostly because there was no reason to have a firearm in the house anyway.  He was not a hunter, and got to shoot rifles and Bren guns (similar to a B.A.R.) at work.  When his hearing began to be affected and he got tired of digging trenches, he left the infantry and joined the band.  I'm glad.

 

With the number of members on this forum, I'd be surprised if nobody else had had any close calls or scary incidents with firearms, or is it too embarrassing to admit?

 

In this world where some people can live just about anywhere they might.  I have never considered moving to either Canada or Britain.  Just not a big fan of either country.  At the same time I choose not to live in some of the states or communities in USA. 

 

Those that are happy where they are at should stay there. 

 

Suicide by gun slightly takes the lead over non firearm related suicide.  Dead is Dead no matter how it is done.

Having worked on Locked Psych unit and PTSD unit for our Veterans I have known patients that committed suicide while both in and out of the hospital.  I do not recall any patients that committed suicide with firearms.  Hangings, Yes.  Drug over dose, Yes.  Mixing drugs with alcohol, Yes.  And of course using just alcohol.

 

If you take away the bridges and someone want's to off them self, THEY WILL find another way.

 

The sad thing about the Roseburg V.A. Hospital is apparent the lack of concern  of concern for what happens off hospital grounds.  And taking staff to task that try to find a way to help these Veterans.

 

I am sorry about the trauma that it must have caused you when your dad pulled the trigger.  Did he maybe think that the gun was unloaded?  Either way it seems he learned.

 

As for the kid that picked up and shot the 22.  I believe in teaching kids early how to use firearms.  Seems this Canadian did not have sense enough to educate his kids.  I also taught my kids that touching the firearms, even their own would result in discipline.  However we would shoot when the kids wanted to, if I could arrange it.  Never had any problems.

 

As for your Brother.  That gun did not shoot itself.  Either your brother, or someone else fired the weapon.  That is were the blame should be placed.

 

If you are happy living in Canada, it is good.  I hope you live a long and Happy life.

 

I choose to live in Douglas County Oregon.    Some of us believe differently then you do. 

 

 

Again,    I respectfully request that we do not name the POS's that commit these horrible crimes.

 

  The news coverage has certainly added to the infamy of the criminal.  They seem to not be mentioning his name as often.  But the continuous repeating of this in the news is angering not only some of us in Roseburg/Douglas county Or.    But those from neighboring areas also.  Even though news organizations sensationalize things so their ratings will go up.  It's not right.  And in some cases amounts to no less then torture.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Taz

[Islander]

To avoid filling up the whole page with quoted text, I'll just say this is in response to Taz's post at 1:55 pm.

You're right about my brother. Guns don't fire themselves. He never told me about it, but clearly he did something careless. It's just good luck that the dishwasher was the only casualty.

You're also right about the neighbour with the cottage. He showed no common sense at all. He had no excuse for keeping a deadly weapon in deadly (loaded) condition. Good luck was all that kept that incident from becoming a tragedy.

As for my father, it's possible that he thought the gun was unloaded, but I can't be sure. It is certain that when you combine guns and alcohol that the situation becomes much more dangerous than when everyone is in their right mind. I could tell you about seeing holes in the walls of a hunting lodge caused by a drunken hunter trying to kill a fly with a shotgun, but you'd think I was making that up. There was an awful lot of drinking in that farming community where I grew up, and car crashes were not rare. If the power went out at night, and there was no blizzard or windstorm, we'd assume someone we knew had hit a power pole with his car. We were often right.

I remember reading about a newspaper article written over a hundred years ago, when the first cars were appearing on the roads. The writer thought that the roads would now be safer, since it might mean the end of drunken riders on their horses. Nope, it didn't turn out that way, as we all know.

Responsible gun owners, who have proper training and, equally important, a proper attitude about gun safety and safety in general, will rarely have accidents. However, when everybody and his brother has access to firearms, the probably small percentage of careless or clueless or immature or hotheaded people starts to add up to a big number, and we all see the sad results.

When nobody is killed or seriously injured, a firearm incident can almost be amusing, as in this one you have likely seen. If you've seen the full length clip that he originally posted, he says "his training kicked in" and he gave himself first aid, putting dressings on his wounds (entrance and exit). By posting the event on YouTube, he shows that he thinks he did a good job of dealing with something that could not have been foreseen and is nobody's fault. He's probably the only person who feels that way. He posted another video a year later to say he has a new respect for guns since he shot himself. It's good to hear that he learned something from that unpleasant experience.

Man Shoots Himself:

As for suicide attempts, yes, a determined person will find a way. Fortunately, not all suicidal people are really determined. Sometimes the attempt is really a call for help, the only way the person thinks his situation will be taken seriously. If they can be prevented from completing their suicide attempt, they may just give up on the idea and begin to pull themselves together. We can't save all of them, but it's certainly worth trying to save some.

In the case of the bridges, some people do go and find another bridge if their first choice has been made safe, but many do not. The article in that link I provided mentions this:

Were it not for the barricade, the number of such suicides in recent years might well have been higher, but it is difficult to say so for sure.

Meanwhile, most academic literature on the subject makes this very case, and forcefully. The great majority of potential suicides who are drawn to a particular suicide magnet wind up not killing themselves at all – if only they can be prevented from jumping at their preferred spot.

"People in a suicide crisis aren't thinking properly," said Paul Links, who holds the Arthur Sommer Rotenberg chair in suicide studies at the University of Toronto. "They don't have a Plan A, a Plan B, a Plan C. They're usually focused on one idea."

Here's what a University of California psychologist found:

In the late 1970s, University of California psychologist Richard Seiden tracked 515 thwarted jumpers at the Golden Gate, dating from the bridge's completion in 1937 until 1971. Only 6 per cent went on to kill themselves on another occasion, he found.

Another U.S. study compares suicide rates at two adjacent bridges in Washington, D.C. One of them, the Duke Ellington Bridge, had been a well-known magnet for suicides, while the other – the William Howard Taft Bridge – was not.

In 1986, authorities constructed a protective barrier on the Ellington bridge, preventing suicides there. Many expected a corresponding increase in jumpers at the Taft bridge but it didn't happen.

"There is a lot of folk wisdom that says people would just kill themselves elsewhere," said Meyer, from the San Francisco suicide emergency line. "The data very uniformly indicate they will not."

Here's the link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/10/the_fatal_attraction_of_suicide_magnets.html

I should apologize for taking your thread so far off its original topic, but this discussion seems to be civil and informative. Thanks for your patience, Taz.

Edited October 11, 2015 by Islander

[garyrc]

I vaguely knew somebody who jumped off the Golden Gate bridge while fleeing the police on foot.  He jumped a little too soon, and landed on Fort Point, breaking multiple bones, but surviving.

 

A much beloved (liberal!) S.F. talk show host jumped off the bridge, and nobody knew why.  I those days when people did not drive with their headlights on during the day, thousands of people drove with their headlights on to memorialize him.

 

The above instances were not as haunting, to me at least, as when the father of a friend blew his head off with a shotgun, or the psychiatric nurse who lived next to my mother who shot herself in the living room where her kids would be sure to find her, or the jolly woman from the PTA who shot and killed her two sons, then sat in a chair on the front lawn and blew herself away, or the university faculty member who accidentally shot and killed his daughter, begged his wife to shoot him, and when she refused, turned the gun on himself.

 

The thing is, you have to drive to the bridge, so there is time to have second thoughts.  With poison, you might call 911.  But with a gun, a sudden impulse, drunk or sober, can end it in a moment.  Even so, I support the right of gun ownership, but don't understand why it is so routine.  If somebody is an admirer of the design and precision of certain guns, fine, let him or her buy them after appropriate screening, waiting period, training and licensing.  Perhaps being a gun owner would be as rare as being an audiophile.  But why this country is the world champion per capita, I don't get.

Edited October 12, 2015 by garyrc

[Taz]

In response to Islander.

 

No apologize needed.  I believe if we had not been able to control the emotions that such a topic brings out in us, it would have been locked.  I appreciate the links.  I believe them to be informative.  And they bring up questions that I need to search out for myself.

 

"You're also right about the neighbour with the cottage. He showed no common sense at all. He had no excuse for keeping a deadly weapon in deadly (loaded) condition. Good luck was all that kept that incident from becoming a tragedy."

 

I've taught my kids from an early age that all guns are to be considered loaded.  And Treated as such.  Some people just don't have that sense.     I'm sure that I would not have returned to your neighbors cottage either.

 

All firearms, Even if you have just checked are to be considered loaded.  I do keep loaded guns within reach.  An unloaded gun is usually useless if you do need a loaded one.  Kind of like insurance, you HOPE you never need it.  I have received death threats toward my family as well as myself.  When this comes from a Veteran, or anyone else, I have to take such threats seriously.

 

"It is certain that when you combine guns and alcohol that the situation becomes much more dangerous than when everyone is in their right mind. I could tell you about seeing holes in the walls of a hunting lodge caused by a drunken hunter trying to kill a fly with a shotgun, but you'd think I was making that up. There was an awful lot of drinking in that farming community where I grew up, and car crashes were not rare. If the power went out at night, and there was no blizzard or windstorm, we'd assume someone we knew had hit a power pole with his car. We were often right." 

 

Alcohol and drugs increase the danger of most activities.  I do not suspect that you are making anything up.

 

Part of my job when I was working was answering the Suicide Hot Line.  Got a lot of Drunks calling.  But some of the calls were cry's for help that needed immediate welfare checks by police.

 

 

 

john

[Wolfbane]

 

Some people seem to be under the notion that gun violence happens in all western countries...

 

I'd read something about America's view of the world, and it didn't sink in until these recent threads.  America produces movies that show its vision of reality.  Most countries do, but they can still see what other countries are like.

 

Not America.  When America looks out into the world, it only sees itself reflected back to it.

 

When I posted that there are countries where only police and criminals have guns, and yet the citizens don't live in fear, the first response was, "Where is that, Disneyland?"  No, it's most of the developed world.  Canada is the closest example.  In England, even the police don't carry guns, except for special squads or circumstances, and yet life goes on.

 

When there was talk a few years ago of all English police being armed, it turned out that 82% of British police do not want to be armed.

 

Here's a Washington Post article describing five countries where policemen do not carry firearms:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/

 

 

There is a total of just under 130,000 police officers in England and Wales combined: 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013

 

According to this article, of all the police officers in England and Wales, only 5875 are authorized to use firearms, and the number is falling.  In 2009, the number was higher by 1031 officers.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/armed-police-in-england-and-wales-only-fired-their-weapons-twice-during-14864-operations-in-2013-14-10378829.html

 

Between 2012 and today, only two people were killed by armed police in England.  Wouldn't it be great to see numbers like that in your country?

 

Meanwhile, in America:

 

"503 people in the USA have been killed by police using firearms in the first six months of this year - and in the first 24 days of 2015, American police killed more people than police in England and Wales have killed in 24 years."

 

Could it be that the public is actually safer when the police do not carry firearms?

 

When only criminals have guns (other than hunting rifles, shotguns and target shooting weapons), the bad guys are easy to spot and arrest.  They're the ones with the illegal guns, which is most guns over there.

 

 

Did you notice something important about the graph at the top?  Most gun deaths are suicides, not homicides by criminals or terrorists.  It's not hard to kill yourself by various means, but guns make it extra easy, and really easy to do on a whim if there's a gun in the house.  Imagine the lives that would be saved if it was that bit more difficult for your depressed friend or relative to end it all.  Nearly all of us have lost a friend or loved one to suicide.  If they have to go out and buy a rope or other means, it's a bit more time to think and maybe realize that's not their only choice.

 

In Toronto, there's a large road bridge, the Bloor Viaduct, which crosses the Don Valley, a large valley with the Don River at the centre, an expressway (the Don Valley Parkway) on the east side and Bayview Avenue on the west side.  It's 40 metres/122 ft. high, and had a reputation as a "suicide magnet", just like the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

 

People would jump off and land in the playground of a school that's below the bridge, or land on the DV Parkway.  This happened once while a friend of mine was commuting to work on the Parkway, and the body landed just in front of him.  It's an understatement to say his day was ruined.

 

However, steps can be taken to prevent people from jumping off bridges.  Toronto spent $5.5 million to install a suicide barrier, and since then there have been no deaths at the bridge.  There had been over 400 deaths between the bridge's construction in 1918 and the barrier's installation in 2003.  A similar barrier has been discussed for the Golden Gate, but the funds have not yet been approved.  Meanwhile, the deaths go on.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/10/the_fatal_attraction_of_suicide_magnets.html

 

My point is that bridges can be modified to reduce or eliminate suicide attempts.  Nothing comparable can be done with guns.  If someone chooses to end his life and reaches for a gun, he's likely to succeed.

 

When I was 7 years old, my father put a pistol to his head and pulled the trigger, during a drinking binge, in front of the family.  It was not his gun, so he didn't realize it was loaded with blanks.  He got a burn on his temple, but that was it.  He never tried that again, and lived another 53 years.  He was also sober for the last 31 years of his life.

 

My mother was grazed by a .22 bullet when I was 5 or 6.  We were at a neighbour's cottage, and there was a loaded single-shot .22 rifle on a shelf in the corner of the living room.  One of the man's kids picked it up and luckily pointed it at the floor.  The gun discharged, the bullet hit the floor and ricocheted upwards, grazing my mother's shoulder.  My father, who was an infantryman in the Canadian Army at the time, couldn't believe what the neighbour did next.  He reloaded the gun and put it back on the shelf.  We never went back to that cottage, needless to say.

 

One last family story:  my brother used to live about an hour north of Los Angeles, and figured that if he was living in the US, he should have a gun, so he got one.  My mother visited him sometime later, and noticed that the dishwasher no longer matched the fridge and stove.  She was curious, and asked why.  My brother was embarrassed to admit that he'd had the gun in the kitchen and it went off somehow, killing the dishwasher, which had to be replaced.  Not a great loss, but he had two small children at the time, who were about the same height as the dishwasher, so you can imagine how easily a tragedy could have occurred.

 

These incidents are not made up.  They all happened.  I could have lost one or both of my parents, and my family never even owned a gun.  Due to my father's drinking, there was no way my mother my mother would allow it.  She'd have taken my brother and me and left.  Before anyone suggests it, this was in no way a challenge to his masculinity.  My father understood and accepted that we'd never have a gun, mostly because there was no reason to have a firearm in the house anyway.  He was not a hunter, and got to shoot rifles and Bren guns (similar to a B.A.R.) at work.  When his hearing began to be affected and he got tired of digging trenches, he left the infantry and joined the band.  I'm glad.

 

With the number of members on this forum, I'd be surprised if nobody else had had any close calls or scary incidents with firearms, or is it too embarrassing to admit?

 

Just a couple of things to add to the above. Some British police do carry firearms. Most Bobby's will not go into certain communities whether armed or not. Day or night.

 

The US Constitution is essentially based on the English Magna-Carta Libertatum. Unlike Canada's Charter. it includes enshrined personal property rights and the 'right to bear arms'. Although the USC is more than 200 years old and long pre-dates modern automatic firearms it will take much more than an act of the Congress to change it. That leaves the US Supreme Court, but the Court has consistently over the last 50 years sided with the constitutionality of US Federal and State Gun Laws that favor easy access.

 

People intent on harming themselves (or others if determined) can be incredibly resourceful in accomplishing their goal. If not with a firearm, knife or over a bridge rail then by car, a railway or transit line, pressure cookers, aircraft loaded with JP-90, with pills or fertilizer combined with a rudimentary knowledge of high school chemistry.

 

You guys do know that there is no correct answer to all this and more importantly no one is likely to be persuaded of the logic of another's point of view?