Unless you are just using your handgun for sport, this sort of defeats the purpose of having one for defense. And as long as you are just using it for sport, why not just have a 2-key lock, and you give the second key to your trusted buddy.
At any rate, I applaud any efforts to curb handgun deaths. I personally think handgun purchases should come with a free suicide prevention pamphlet or similar. I've long argued that if people really cared specifically about gun deaths, handguns should be the first and primary target, not "ghost guns" and bump stocks and other rarely-used (but scary sounding) accessories.
Handguns aren't particularly useful in war either compared to rifles, are easily concealable, and are just all around bad news. I think most of America's "gun epidemic" could be solved just by cracking down exclusively on handguns (for both civilians and police) and not bothering with rifles. It's counter-intuitive because a lot of mass shooters use rifles, but if you look at the numbers, the total number of people that die from mass shootings (and rifles in general) is very small, especially when compared to handgun deaths.
I generally agree with this viewpoint. In most countries with moderate gun control measures, the categories of weapon that are most restricted are handguns and fully auto weapons (SMGs, select fire ARs etc). The reason for this is that there’s virtually no reason why a person would need one other than killing people. I am not an expert, but I’m certain that handguns are just massively over represented in gun violence compared to say, shotguns or rifles. I also think this goes for law enforcement. I especially expect that handguns are over represented in suicides. Does anyone have any statistics that would confirm or deny my gut feeling here?
You're right, most murders in the U.S. are committed with handguns. About 63% in the U.S., but probably more since there's an "unreported" category[0].
That said, gun laws in the U.S. preserve the right to bear arms specifically for the purpose of killing people: the right to bear arms is one of the checks and balances on government power. There are people who make the argument that the ownership of non-military weapons is not protected by the second amendment.
Before curbing the "gun epidemic" I'd look up how many lives are saved vs how many are unrightfully taken. A proxy for the first number is the number of burglaries - about 1.5 millions per year. A proxy for the second is about 10 thousands - all gun related deaths excluding suicides and internal gang disputes.
Again though, defensive gun uses is not a proxy for lives saved. In general adding guns to a situation where murder is not the intent will increase the number of lives lost.
In a situation where a criminal breaks into someone's house and brandishes a knife, the intent doesn't matter and the criminal shouldn't have agency to decide the outcome. I think this is what rubs me the wrong way about your comment: who gets to decide the outcome - the robber or the one being robbed.
It’s a better proxy than burgs. Also, the definition implies that the firearm was used defensively, that is, it’s presence helped avoid a deadly confrontation
While I think having a gun does open up a set of possibilities for impulse-driven suicides that are both fast and relatively certain as compared to other methods, there's always rope.
It's telling that so many anti-suicide efforts are about making it harder/riskier to perform the act instead of making people's lives easier. The first is one more obstacle put in their difficult paths and certainly lets people feel like they have "done something" but you still have a miserable, suicidal vet at the end of the day.
Yes, this is a hard one and I've thought a lot about it. I think our reasons for wanting to prevent suicides come down to evolution: it's bad for us if people around us are killing themselves. We will do anything and everything to ensure that unhappy people keep on livin'.
I think the more humane approach is to damp suicides to some extent, but to have a respectful mechanism that allows people who have thought it through to check out when they please.
The fact that we have laws preventing assisted suicide is beyond me.
My wife has a condition where she will be wishing to commit suicide someday. Our country (France) law makes it near impossible. Then we have Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands nearby where this will be possible.
Net effect? People like us who have the knowledge and money means will get suicide. Others will not, making their family or community life even more difficult.
This was exactly the case with abortion in France until the 70's (and Mrs Veil who was one of the not do many politicians in the last 100 years who was great). I guess we will be always late with history.
So, sidestepping the shit show that any 2A debate here is:
from a prior art perspective, the BDSM community has pretty much already discussed & detailed any form of ice lock on the planet. Not sure how any of this is novel, aside from keeping you from playing with yourself vs. your gun.
Well, the novel part is that in the BDSM case, you really don't want that key destroyed if you tamper with it and failsafes are generally there to ensure succesful release, so this is the opposite research direction really.
I feel like psychological pre-interventions are more important here, as a gun is a tool to an end.
It is good that there's protection possibly along that line. I just wish that there was expanded access to psychedelically-based therapy + integration therapy for veterans/survivors of simple/repeated PTSD.
In comparison to regular psychiatric treatments for PTSD, the MDMA Phase II results from MAPS's trial make MDMA look like a magic bullet. I sincerely, vehemently hope that it all works out.
> the MDMA Phase II results from MAPS's trial make MDMA look like a magic bullet.
Some gentle caution: we thought the same about Prozac, and about cognitive behaviour therapy. Mental health interventions often work better in trials than they do in real life.
Are suicidal people likely to embrace this concept? The only vet I know who's dealt with strong suicidal ideation refuses to keep guns in her house at all. This sort of elaborate technological pageantry seems pointless.
I really can't see any of the gun owners I know embracing this sort of goofy concept, and I have to wonder if any of the inventors actually own guns themselves.
If I ever find myself dealing with depression, I'll leave my bolts in the care of a friend until I get my health sorted out. No need for technical gimmicks.
>If I ever find myself dealing with depression, I'll ....
I genuinely without sarcasm are glad you haven’t had to deal with this type of debilitating depression. The idea that you’ll do anything much less anything healthy and proactive is absurd to me, due to my lived experience of both depression and losing someone close to me to suicide.
So many suicide attempt survivors tell how they instantly regretted their attempt as it happened. So many bloody fingers from ropes with claw marks as they try to pull themselves up.
Or worse. Miss. Quadriplegic. I know one of them too.
Anything that can break into the impulsive loop is worth considering. You’d be surprised how little inconvenience it takes to put it off.
I wish my friend Michael had had an ice lock. He was a beautiful, talented, crazy, tortured motherfucker and I miss him every day.
Since this is about veterans, are there any orthogonal articles reporting on what the government is doing to prevent these suicides? Like avoiding sending people into wars (which, citing some examples here, create PTSD, a lot of sorrow on the field, relationship problems back home due to long deployments without enough contact, difficulty in getting back to a normal job and merging into civil society after returning, etc.).
But what about when you need the gun quickly because of the burglar/home invader?
(This was sarcasm. I don’t take anyone seriously who with a straight face says it’s a good idea to have a gun at home for “protection”. No, there won’t be a home invader. And no you aren’t going to be better of with a gun if there is. But there isn’t.)
But seriously, SoL. It's like the Norwegian police keeping their guns locked in their patrol cars. If you don't have your tools on you when you need them, as critical situations occur very quickly, they're useless and you might as well not even have them.
If a veteran, or anyone, is suicidal or experiencing deep depression, they shouldn't have firearms around until they get better in the first place. When people get better, then give them back. Another problem in the US is there isn't any comprehensive healthcare or mental healthcare, so veterans and anyone else just falls through the cracks and isn't recognized to have their firearms taken away temporarily unless they make specific threats of harm or self-harm.
Baseball bats, batons, chef knives, box cutters, and OC spray are good enough for 99% of home defense needs. Let's say a tiny, tiny fraction of home invaders have firearms and are willing to engage in a firefight; most thieves just want valuables and don't want a fight and it's unlikely to have a home invasion unless people know someone stockpiles cash or valuables at home. The primary advantages of firearms are range and safety that comes with it if used properly and skillfully to stop a specific, imminent deadly threat. If someone is well-practiced with a firearm AND they encounter a rare situation where some drugged-out crazy or gang is trying to kill them, then and only then would having a firearm help the situation. Not having one seems likely to be fatal in those sort of edge-case circumstances where preparation could've saved them. The balance is only letting responsible, trained and continuously training, trustworthy, and mentally-stable individuals keep firearms.. everyone else who doesn't practice regularly keeping them for a "what if" or has issues definitely shouldn't have them.
I looked into the trope that "you're more likely to accidentally kill or be killed by your own gun than to use it to protect yourself" a while ago, and found it was wrong.
I think maybe the creator of that trope was including suicides, which is misleading and I'd argue just plain wrong. According to [0], there are about 50,000 self-defense uses of a firearm per year. [1] suggests there are about 4-500 accidental firearms deaths per year in the U.S. (and I'd bet many of those are "accidental" in that the decedant's family wanted it classified as an accident for insurance and / or religious reasons).
Any way you slice it, the rate of actual accidental deaths is really, really low. Not something to worry about at all if you're okay with things like...driving to work (about 30x riskier in aggregate per year assuming half of U.S. households have a gun [edit: and assuming everyone has the same risk of death by car accident, of course]).
Oh, and when you're thinking about "gun injuries" it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority are things like small burns, injuries to the web between the thumb and pointer finger caused by exposed hammers, things like that. Some places have enacted laws with harsh penalties for doctors saying that any injury resulting from using a gun must be reported as a firearm-related injury or some such, which of course artificially inflates the numbers and makes it difficult to differentiate between "someone was accidentally shot and survived" and "little Timmy burned his hand on Grandpa's .22".
I was curious too. The FBI provides nationwide numbers for 2019: ~268k robberies, of which 16% occurred at a residence, so ~43k. [1]
The National Institute for Mental Health says that ~24k suicides are inflicted with with firearms in 2018. [2]
Hard to figure out how many robberies might have been "resolved" by an armed homeowner, but I note the FBI says that there were only 334 "Justifiable Homicides" by civilians using firearms in 2019. [3]
Thanks for looking up these numbers. I have looked in to it before, and found [0], which implies about 50,000 self-defense uses of a firearm per year. Of course, not every self-defense use involves firing a shot, and not every shot fired ends up with a death.
In a home invasion I would have thought the last thing you would want is a gun. If you're in the US, then the invader likely has a gun, so if you also have a gun then you're giving them a pretty good incentive to shoot you. If you don't then you might get robbed, but home insurance will cover that.
I have the strong suspicion that in the majority of home invasions in the U.S., the intruder does not have a gun. I think that most are unarmed (to be armed and caught is a much, much worse situation), and most do not intend to encounter anyone.
A loved one or similar type individual may be able to have a second/backup key on their person in the event of a home invasion. That way there's a layered approach but also a level of self-advocacy/self-agency in the issue, which I'd argue is the supreme thing fighting against the depression itself.
Taking away the self agency, and you might as well probabilistically condemn them to die in another way. (Though that's just my two cents from my experiences surrounding suicidality and/or other suicidal individuals).
It's emblematic of the approach to guns as a whole. We're not very concerned with why people are trying to kill themselves or others, but we're awful fired up about the tools they choose. It's crazy!
Even if they were no longer sold, there are already more privately owned guns than people in circulation. And population levels are predicted to plummet, which means the number of guns per capita will go up. And there isn’t really a record of who has the guns. I know a man who ran a gun selling side business who gave all his guns away when he got cancer, before he died. Illegal? Sure. But now those guns are impossible to track down. That isn’t the only case I’m aware of.
The only real solution is to amend the constitution to remove the right to bear arms. I have no doubt that would lead to full scale civil war.
Knives are one step away -- I don't think the gun is as important in this case.
I'd argue for sensible gun control, but removing guns period could destabilize victims too. Having a sense of safety and security in the event of a home invasion, etc, is incredibly important. Not having that/taking it away feels like the easy paper solution, but is possibly much more harmful in the end (like forcibly institutionalizing people in local mental health hospitals, I'd note).
Very few people kill themselves with knives, but a ton do with hand guns.
And people in countries without such a gun culture do not have worse self defense outcomes than those with one, so that argument doesn’t seem to hold scientific water. No idea how you get to institutionalization in your argument, either.
People choose the easiest tool available to them. A common method in Europe is a belt to the doorhandle which is more painful and slower than a bullet. Removing tools does not prevent the outcome, just increases the suffering.
As a counter point though, different suicide methods have different fatality probabilities. Handgun to the head has a really high fatality probability, rope to the neck less so. Removing a high fatality suicide method could cause people to turn to a less fatal method.
You sound like an efficient assets manager. People turn to a suicide because their life is miserable, often for objective reasons (e.g. cancer) and you may find it hard to believe, but it's their right to end it.
At any rate, I applaud any efforts to curb handgun deaths. I personally think handgun purchases should come with a free suicide prevention pamphlet or similar. I've long argued that if people really cared specifically about gun deaths, handguns should be the first and primary target, not "ghost guns" and bump stocks and other rarely-used (but scary sounding) accessories.
Handguns aren't particularly useful in war either compared to rifles, are easily concealable, and are just all around bad news. I think most of America's "gun epidemic" could be solved just by cracking down exclusively on handguns (for both civilians and police) and not bothering with rifles. It's counter-intuitive because a lot of mass shooters use rifles, but if you look at the numbers, the total number of people that die from mass shootings (and rifles in general) is very small, especially when compared to handgun deaths.