quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe...
So, by your estimation, nearly every single law enforcement officer and member of any military world wide is a "loser". Way to troll!
I translated that statement to mean something close to, "I don't think people need semiautomatic weapons, and people who disagree with me are poopoo-heads."
On the one hand, it was trolling. On the other hand, it obviously didn't include cops and soldiers. He was trolling-not sure why counter-straw-manning was needed to rebut *that*.
---------
So I'm wondering how people will justify continued support for a refusal even to attempt to *research* gun violence, its causes and effects and methods by which it might be decreased, in scientific and medical ways. My suspicion is that it will be 'it's the NRA, not us, the reasonable gun owners'.
In other words, more of the same. But I suppose it is important-statistics and studies done in other nations can be rejected out of hand as inapplicable to the US situation. But that isn't as helpful if we're doing more research here, so let's clamp down on that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this was posted in the other thread or this one, but this blog post is worth reading. The author makes many of the points I've tried to make here, but does so without being as bad at communicating as I am.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All and all a great post Boris, but I must object to a couple of things you have put out that are just incorrect.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: It looks really mean and deadly, but it's still a .22 caliber rifle that is barely capable of killing small rodents.
.22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
quote:The clothing layers were composed of the following: One usual heavy cotton t-shirt, one heavy cotton shirt and a canvas raincoat. ... Unwrapping the target showed that the rounds at 300 yards (assuming that the round that went through was probably the 250 yards round) went through the turkey and got stuck under the skin. Still penetrating 7 inches of bones and meat.
Part of what makes the .22 so deadly is that it has entrance velocity, and not exit velocity, so instead of just punching a hole in people, it bounces around off of bones, doing devastating damage to internal structures. I have heard it said that statistically it is the most lethal round of all, but I couldn't find any real studies to back that up. Regardless, .22's are very deadly.
quote:They also usually cost more than the weapon they hold bullets for. (A 100 round drum for an AR-15 costs 700 bucks, and that's *cheap*).
Here is a 90 round drum for $120. And Here is an extended 100 round mag for $170.
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
quote: Most butchers use .22 shells to put down animals (cows, pigs, sheep).
Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Pickyness aside, .22 is useful for putting down animals for the reasons SW mentioned...It goes in easy but doesn't go out easy. A .22 to any softer portion of the skull (below the jaw, between the sinuses, etc) will bounce around inside the skull and basically scramble the brain of the animal. It's an instant death and does no damage to the meat, and has no possibility of over-penetration.
More often, though, cattle are slaughtered with Captive Bolt Pistols rather than traditional pistols.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
There were approximately as many grenade deaths as there were rifle-mounted bayonet deaths.
The numbers for pistol grip deaths, barrel shroud deaths, and flash suppressor deaths are similar.
I won't commit to saying the same for telescoping stocks, though. I have no trouble believing someone somewhere might have bludgeoned someone to death with a stock. So there might be one of those (a.k.a. an infinite percentage increase over the aforementioned deaths).
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: .22 Long Rifle is utterly and completely deadly to humans, and should not be underestimated at all.
Yeah. Like I said in another thread, I grew up in the south. If there's one thing southerner's do really well, it's exaggeration. Any round can be deadly to a human, yes, but it depends on a lot of factors. Specifically where you're hit, at what range the bullet was fired from, ammo construction, and all sorts of factors. Pistols that fire .22LR are useful for target shooting and varmint hunting, but not a lot more.
Of course you got the point I was making, that just about any rifle that fires .22LR is going to do pretty much the same amount of damage to what gets shot, regardless of whether it has a pistol grip, flash suppressor, or bayonet mount. If it has a grenade launcher attached, that changes things a bit, but only if you actually use the grenade launcher (seriously, where do you get rounds for a grenade launcher, and why did they think it was necessary to add that to the 1994 AWB? Was there a surge in grenade related deaths during the early 90s I didn't know about? I admit, I was 14 when they passed that, so I might just not remember).
There were approximately as many grenade deaths as there were rifle-mounted bayonet deaths.
The numbers for pistol grip deaths, barrel shroud deaths, and flash suppressor deaths are similar.
I won't commit to saying the same for telescoping stocks, though. I have no trouble believing someone somewhere might have bludgeoned someone to death with a stock. So there might be one of those (a.k.a. an infinite percentage increase over the aforementioned deaths).
Hey now, if you can bop someone to death with a telescoping stock you can do it with a pistol grip. Just...takes more effort. That said, even if you limit yourself to ten round magazines, you can just do this.Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Well, if you are going to be that picky...
quote:Originally posted by Boris: A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds.
A cartridge is a single round, not a magazine.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to point out that a non-telegraphing stock is both heavier and more solid and more likely to cause a death.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I don't know if this was posted in the other thread or this one, but this blog post is worth reading. The author makes many of the points I've tried to make here, but does so without being as bad at communicating as I am.
posted
Oh, and I had forgotten, Boris mentioned .50 cal weapons and included the Desert Eagle. The Desert Eagle is not a .50 bmg (Browning machine gun) weapon, it is .50 ae (action express).
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Because I feel like being picky, .22 caliber bullets are referred to as "rounds," not shells. Shells are used in Shoguns, and they are measured by gauge, or the diameter of the shotgun's barrel. Shotguns don't fire traditional bullets, so you have to go by the barrel size with them.
Well, if you are going to be that picky...
quote:Originally posted by Boris: A practiced marksman can change a rifle cartridge in about a second, so when you are talking about 10 rounds vs 30 rounds, an extended magazine saves maybe 3 seconds when firing 30 rounds.
A cartridge is a single round, not a magazine.
Yeah yeah. Grammar nazi gets as he gives...
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and I had forgotten, Boris mentioned .50 cal weapons and included the Desert Eagle. The Desert Eagle is not a .50 bmg (Browning machine gun) weapon, it is .50 ae (action express).
Still both .50 caliber. The S&W .500 Special uses a different cartridge that isn't BMG as well. All of them will stop a truck. Or at least a Volkswagen.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing .50ae and .500sw to .50bmg is like comparing a mini-bike with a semi-truck. Well, they are both motor vehicles.
I mean, did you look at the picture?
The handgun rounds might stop a Volkswagen...if they had depleted uranium rounds...but I still wouldn't put large money on it.
The .50bmg was used as an anti aircraft gun in WWII. It's fracking huge! The two pistol rounds are only slightly larger then other pistol rounds, like the .45acp or the .454casul.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies for offending anyone with my last post, but if you think using the word "losers" is trolling don't go to other sites. I obviously underestimated people's sensitivities by using emotive simplistic language. To pontificate my point I meant to say that well organized capable people don't need to have a loaded semi automatic weapon at easy hand to ensure domestic safety. If you are living in that environment either get out or change it, and if you aren't very capable, a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. On more recent trends I've used various heavy rounds and agree that 0.5 pistol ammunition is not in the same league as 50 cal. The biggest personal weapon I've used is a 20mm, followed by a 50 cal, but I've also used big pistol rounds. Except for long distance sniping with 50 cal these are not optimal human killing rounds, due to the recoil and recovery time. I believe that in a civilized society regular police shouldn't have to carry semi auto but on the rare occasion wait for the swat team. Military need switchable semi and full auto but should be trained to use semi auto unless repelling a mass attack. Semi allows precise targeting, but the only accurate full auto weapon was the Bren. Placed in the middle of a hostile mob my weapon of choice would be a 12 gauge Street Sweeper with circular mag loaded with SGs, but I'd hope to plan ahead & not be there anyway.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually keep a .357 revolver in a quick access safe by my bedside...but not for any reason discussed...just because I don't want to have to have the hassle of cycling my ammo every month.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. [/QB]
*Every* firearm is a dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with. Every firearm shoots bullets. The action used to cycle bullets has no impact on whether or not a gun can kill someone. It doesn't even have a realistic impact on how *fast* a gun can shoot bullets. What it does is keep the shooter from having to manipulate the weapon constantly, and with practice you can fire a non-semi-automatic weapon with as much speed as a semi-automatic one. Go look at the videos I posted earlier. The world record for revolver speed is 12 shots in less than 3 seconds, which includes a single 6 round reload. The one time I've gone shooting with handguns, it took me about 5 seconds to empty a 15 round clip with a 9mm Glock. And I don't think I hit anything.
quote: I actually keep a .357 revolver in a quick access safe by my bedside...but not for any reason discussed...just because I don't want to have to have the hassle of cycling my ammo every month.
I don't own a gun at all because I don't want to have the hassle of cleaning and maintaining it. Responsibility keeps me lazy and laziness keeps me responsible Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Daryl: Only losers need semi or full automatic firearms to feel safe, and should understand that competent assailants will quickly turn such against them.
quote:...and if you aren't very capable, a readily available semi auto is just one more dangerous item that an intruder can hurt you with.
The first time you stated this (not the loser part) was put in utterly ridiculous terms. The second was at least plausible, although still not likely. I wonder, why do you have so much faith in criminal's skills and so little in gun owners?
I mean...let's play this out, I'm home, with a gun, and you break into my house. How is it more likely that you are going to get my gun from me and use it on me then me just shooting you?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf: I'd guess it's because of the old statistic about guns in your home being more likely to be used against you than an intruder. People twist it into meaning all sorts of things.
Even though the stat was derived from looking over the course of owning a gun, not by any means by looking at the context of a specific home invasion scenario.
The statistic is also derived from stuff like suicide rates, so it's pretty horrifically misleading all around. Yeah, there are more suicides than there are home invasions that end with the invader being shot. Okay. That wouldn't be a particularly damning statistic, though, so it gets gussied up a little.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wouldn't? If someone is killed with a gun, it *is* likely that it was by suicide. That's not gussied up, that's the straight truth.
You're right though that it doesn't dig into nuance such as suicide by gun vs home invasion repelled by gun. If only there were some way scientists could, say, do a study of some sort to begin shining some light onto that subject...
Not to (well, actually yes, to) beat a dead horse, but there is a reason the NRA gets referenced repeatedly. One of the main reasons people feel secure arguing solely with anecdote is because science has been deliberately hamstrung on the matter, and there's really only one side doing that in this country right now.
A skeptical person might begin to wonder if that was because the big shakers among the NRA are worried about the kinds of answers they might find. It's either that, or fears that we're just a few months away from Hitler are actually *genuine* and non-crazy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's *possible* that if they couldn't get a firearm, all of those 90% successful firearm attempts-over half of all gun deaths-would successfully utilize one of the other methods, but I don't know how anyone could assert that with anything other than 'it just makes sense'. Which it doesn't anyway, to anyone who understands a bit about the dynamics of suicide.
In any event, I wasn't blaming guns for suicide. You're welcome to point to where I did, if you can. All I did was (correctly) highlight that any given gun death is simply likely to be a suicide. Which it is. I even acknowledged the murkiness of the truth, given a poor understanding of suicide attempts with guns compared to home invasions or assaults thwarted by guns.
Isn't it a shame we don't know more about those things? Maybe we could fund some research across the country to try and study the problem.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm all for suicide prevention help lines, etc, but really my libertarian principals are not so ruffled by someone choosing to take their own life. It is theirs to take. Of course if we -can- help them, we should. You say you aren't blaming guns for suicide, okay, then what is your point?
As to the research, it should be done, and the NRA are assbags for many reasons, and stopping that research is one of the major ones.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm all for suicide prevention help lines, etc, but really my libertarian principals are not so ruffled by someone choosing to take their own life. It is theirs to take. Of course if we -can- help them, we should. You say you aren't blaming guns for suicide, okay, then what is your point?
If it is a libertarian principle to be unruffled when someone, almost always as a result of mental illness or short-term trauma, kills themselves because they didn't get help, then that is a reason to consider it a fearful and shameful ideology. Suicide is hardly ever some calmly chosen, coolly rational decision to be respected as a person's private business, anymore than we should let someone drive when they're delirious with the flu. Thus 'principle' is not the word to use if unruffled by it.
As for my point, my point was to talk about how guns are actually used. It is a fact that most gun deaths are due to suicide. There's nothing gussied up about saying so. It's also a fact that the issue isn't that cut and dried, that there's more to consider than that. But as for facts, it is finally also a fact that one of the biggest reasons we can't be more precise is because of the nation's chief 2nd Amendment advocates. Who won't listen to *us*.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Australia increased gun regulations, suicides using gun decreased with no increase in other methods. So, while guns might not cause suicide, if the gun was not available, a lot of people wouldn't kill themselves.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a scary world you live in, Stone Wolf, where you're forced to conceal carry over open carry because someone is going to sneak up behind you and shoot you first.
I hope I never have to live there.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: When Australia increased gun regulations, suicides using gun decreased with no increase in other methods. So, while guns might not cause suicide, if the gun was not available, a lot of people wouldn't kill themselves.
A right to bear arms, a right to free speech. What a shame that there's no right to one's own death.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um...are you writing from Alpha Centauri? Otherwise, we have but the one world, and for the record, I don't carry...unless paid to do so as a professional.
And I'm not sure why you find it so funny that BB had asked Rakeesh not to quote me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A person's rights are limited when there is mental incapacitation. We as a society have determined that one is not of sound mind if they wish to kill themselves and therefore that right is denied to them. Catch 22 but consistent with other rights and limitations of those rights.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel very strongly that simply wishing to end your life should not qualify as mental incapacitation. I do, however, feel that if that diagnosis is made by other criteria, then society should not allow someone who is mentally unwell to take their own life.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will hardly ever find someone who lacks the other characteristics you're likely referring to, who committs suicide. It is such a small fraction of people who commit these sorts of suicide-we're not talking, after all, about incurable disease or something-that they don't have much place in this sort of discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That was part of my post that got deleted...where are you getting this idea that "almost always as a result of mental illness or short-term trauma, kills themselves because they didn't get help,"...I mean, that sounds like you are referencing a study, not just your impression of mental health and suicides. If so, what study? And if not, what lead you to such a strong opinion?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be clear, there is a claim in that question you're basically insisting others research and rebut for you: that suicides *aren't* most commonly due to mental illness that could be diagnosed and treated.
This isn't me telling you to do my homework, or assigning homework, or what have you, this is me saying that if you do just a little digging you'll find that suicide really *is* almost always a response to mental illness, unless you reject out of hand the work of mental health professionals in general.
Take suicides by firearm versus other methods of suicide-why is it that if someone tries to kill themselves with pills or cutting or fumes, they have a much lower success rate...and then when are treated don't just immediately go out and try for the most successful suicide method of firearm? Or is it that they aren't *actually* suicidal? You have to do so much navigation to arrive at a different conclusion.
I'll dare you to find a medical doctor or someone who works in the medical field who *doesn't* say that suicide is almost always a sign of mental illness or at most a response to incredible stress such as grief, finances, or breakups. Here's just one of dozens you could reference from the suicide wiki alone.
This isn't meant as a shot, but rather an observation: that you think suicide *isn't* almost always-and note again I'm not talking about end-of-life stuff, and even if I were, but that's another conversation-that you think suicide isn't almost always attributable to mental health problems is a sign that you're pretty ignorant on the topic. I'm using the term carefully, not to insult but only to point out that a bit of basic investigation would clear things up.
Now, if you *didn't* mean to suggest that, if you're not claiming that suicide is mostly a result of mental illness, then I've misunderstood you and my criticism would be that i think you expressed yourself badly, but this is the Internet and that happens.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the latter...I was just wondering at your strong feelings, not expressing any myself. I'm not sure where you got the idea that was putting anything forward myself, I mean I was just asking questions.
In looking over the study you furnished (thanks!) it says that about 90% of studied suicides had been diagnosed previously with some kind of mental health issue.
quote:Twenty-seven studies comprising 3275 suicides were included, of which, 87.3% (SD 10.0%) had been diagnosed with a mental disorder prior to their death.
That does seem fairly conclusive, although I wonder...how much previous to their self inflicted deaths are we talking about...and are we talking about serious disorders, or all...not that I would really be able to recognize the difference without some research.
Regardless, I for one would be hugely in favor of increasing funds for mental health care, as well as funds for research into new methods and drugs to help.
Is there another technique you would suggest (that isn't banning all guns) to help reduce the number of firearm suicides?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: It's a scary world you live in, Stone Wolf, where you're forced to conceal carry over open carry because someone is going to sneak up behind you and shoot you first.
I hope I never have to live there.
Oh, looks like you're back.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, or anyone else sounding off on the suicide issue, I have a sincere question for you:
Do you think that someone who is in incapacitating physical pain with only a slim prognosis of alleviating said pain in the near future should have the right to end their own life?
Or should we force them to remain alive, and in agony, in the hopes that their pain will eventually be treated down to a more manageable level and they will be able to go back to living a semi-normal life?
I have a followup question based on your answer.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that is people in full depression/ stress anxiety/PTSD sometimes live in very painful circumstances, where every moment is miserable. So, if you say, yes let people with painful prognosis with little chance of brighter future (since not every case is treatable even with all the drugs out there), then we have to give that right to those with depression. I am not comfortable with this. Nor would I be comfortable with say someone with arthritis killing themselves. This might be horrible selfish and unscientific to me but in the end, I just can't be ok with suicide. When we are talking end of life, well, in that case death is assured within a short frame of time and so I am a little better with it but I am still not completely ok.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: The problem with that is people in full depression/ stress anxiety/PTSD sometimes live in very painful circumstances, where every moment is miserable. So, if you say, yes let people with painful prognosis with little chance of brighter future (since not every case is treatable even with all the drugs out there), then we have to give that right to those with depression.
Bingo. That was precisely my followup question. If people in intense physical pain should be allowed to end their suffering, why should people in intense mental/emotional pain be in a different category?
On the hope that maybe it will get better for them? Because we know better than they do how much pain is tolerable? Those still apply to people in physical pain.
I think it may be just because we don't consider mental anguish as "real" as physical pain. But if anything, I think it's worse. The worst periods of my life have all been times of intense mental pain, not physical pain.
It's sad when someone dies. But I think it's far sadder to force someone to live in agony when they would rather be dead. It's ridiculous that we think we can make that decision for them.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I am not comfortable with this. Nor would I be comfortable with say someone with arthritis killing themselves. This might be horrible selfish and unscientific to me but in the end, I just can't be ok with suicide. When we are talking end of life, well, in that case death is assured within a short frame of time and so I am a little better with it but I am still not completely ok.
I understand what you're saying, and I don't think you're being horrible or selfish. I get it. Death is scary and it's sad when people die.
Personally, I can't imagine being in so much pain that I would rather die. I love life too much.
But if I ever was in that much pain, mental or physical... I'd want the right to make my own decision. I wouldn't want to be forced by someone else who couldn't imagine what I was going through.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's sad when someone dies. But I think it's far sadder to force someone to live in agony when they would rather be dead. It's ridiculous that we think we can make that decision for them.
The trouble is, particularly with depression but also with other mental illnesses, is that the suffering being endured is because the instrument (for lack of a better word) isn't tuned properly, and is sending back off key notes, painful ones. So the pain is there, but it can often be substantially mitigated. To see evidence of this one need only look at just how many people *attempt* suicide, fail, but don't later kill themselves.
So in the case of mental illness, do we say to the sufferer, "It's your choice," and let them do as they will when the instrument with which they make that choice is literally broken? Or should we perhaps make an effort to fix it?
It isn't necessarily that death is worse than living in pain, it's that one cannot be taken back. At least with the idea of treating someone who is sick, well, we stand a chance at getting them well and if we do, then the option to commit suicide is still there after we've pointed them through the exit.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I ever was in that much pain, mental or physical... I'd want the right to make my own decision. I wouldn't want to be forced by someone else who couldn't imagine what I was going through.
If you knew a person who came up to you and said absolutely seriously, "I am the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and I have discovered that I can keep the world safe from evil by committing suicide and preventing the return of the antichrist".
Then said they were off to hang themselves in the bathroom of their own house, would you call anyone and tell them to try to stop this person, or not?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's closer to the mean than the ideal of the long-suffering and entirely rational elderly person with terminal cancer, at least. Far sadder than people being forced to live when they would rather die are people who decide they would rather die and kill themselves before anyone else gets a chance to help them change their mind.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Particularly when that mind ain't working. As for the ultimate sadness contest, the clear winner seems to me to be the person who to stop dreadful pain kills themself, without being given the treatment that does often exist that could've stopped the pain *short* of suicide.
Also, I'm really not sure where this faith in the cool rationality of someone in so much pain they're considering death comes from. Shall we lower anesthesia during surgeries and require medical decisions from patients while they're under the knife? Or would we be shocked and point out that besides the inhumanity of such an extreme example, people usually can't think straight when under great pain?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has nothing to do with thinking they are being coolly rational. I don't think most people are particularly rational most of the time. That doesn't give me the right to, e.g. Dictate how vegans should run their life.
The point isn't whether or not they can think straight. The point is whether or not they're in such intense pain that they would rather die than go on. They may well not be thinking straight. I don't know. It's still their life to end if they choose.
I'm not arguing against trying to help such people. Just drawing the line a specific kinds of help.
Tom: do you actually mean "change their mind" in the traditional meaning of "persuasion," or do you mean "forcible restraint and forced treatment?"
Rakeesh: You didnt answer my original question. Does this mean you're against all forms of suicide and would advocate forcing people to stay alive whenever possible?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's use Rakeesh's hypothetical for a moment. Is it still that crazy person's life to end, if he freely chooses to do so? Would it be morally wrong to forcibly restrain him and prevent him from sacrificing himself upon an altar made out of a foozball table and US Magazine clippings about Taylor Swift?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
