Part of the lesson of this story is the danger of having a gun in the home at all. He could have been sober and depressed and did the same just as easily thanks to having access to a gun. There's a lot of statistical evidence for how dangerous situations like depression or domestic violence can become once a gun is nearby.
Your first statement is not supported by the second. Yes, in a DV situation or a situation where someone has severe mental illness, it's probably not a good idea to have easy access to a firearm.
But if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense, nor is it used to endanger a family member. The vast majority just . . . sit there. They're machines which must be used respectfully and responsibly, not magic evil talismans.
> go figure the plot you have to live after an event of this type
I am not saying these aren't issues, but that the risk is often overstated.
Also, I think there are plenty of other things that are greater risks than the likelihood of gun violence toward oneself or others that impact lifetime well-being for individuals on a socioeconomic scale, especially in schools.
So what? More likely than not that’s the type of gun the person we’re discussing used.
> and kind of what would be expected?
Again, what’s your point? Because it’s expected we shouldn’t discuss it or do anything about it? Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.
> "We need to stop this bad thing that rarely happens! Only when it happens even less than hardly ever will we all be safe!"
It happens in the US significantly more than in other countries. The US is literally at the top of the list, to the surprise of no one. So yes, making it happen fewer times, perhaps by learning from other nations which have demonstrated it’s possible, is a worthwhile goal.
The article states specifically that people who commit suicide with a gun are more likely to do so if they own a handgun. IMO, that follows from the mechanics of the scenario.
It is easier to point a handgun at yourself and pull the trigger than it is to do so with a long gun. So, IMO, it is common sense that it is more likely that someone committing suicide by firearm chooses to do so with a handgun over a long gun, and they are more likely to do that if they own a handgun already.
However, it isn't like a random person who owns a gun is significantly more likely to complete a suicide attempt just because they own a gun. Yet, a person who is already at risk of suicide might have an increased risk if they own guns.
That being said, as a random individual, the risk of completed suicide over a lifetime is incredibly low, and that risk is even lower for suicide by any firearm.
> Let’s bring back lead paint while we’re at it; I mean, it’s expected that it causes brain damage.
I don't see this as being analogous to what I am saying. Maybe I am missing something.
> if you actually look at the numbers, the average firearm is not used in self-defense
Those aren't really the numbers you'd want to look at, right? If you have a community with 1000 firearms and 499 of them end up being used in a shooting you could still assert that "most firearms are never used".
I think what you'd care about in assessing risk is: what is the likelihood of violent injury and/or death in household with firearms vs households without? Controlled for other relevant factors?
> They're machines which must be used [...] not magic evil talismans
I feel like there's a straw man in there. No one is worried about guns sitting around literally unused, and I don't think anyone cares too much about the used/unused ratio. Obviously the thing people are worried about is how they are used when they are used.
Like the other child comments I don’t agree with the presupposition that guns are an entity that somehow incites people to commit violent (Which is what you are implying).
For example most people have access to cars, statistically much more dangerous than guns, and no one seems to imply that having a car around incites people to violence. People who are mentally ill and dangerous could as easily use any array of common tools or methods to commit acts which are dangerous to themselves and others. That doesn’t make it the tool’s fault.
And you know this based on what? To me it seems the opposite is true. If you have the means, it's more likely you'll do something. If it's too complicated, you might just give up, or not even have a thought that you could do something like that. Opportunity makes a thief.
Anecdotal evidence: I was close to suicide a couple of times in my life, and believe I would have done it if I had had a weapon just lying around or within easy access. Thankfully I did not. (Non-US, access to guns highly restricted.)
