TexasCHLforum.com

I just finished reading "The Hidden Brain" and at the end of this very interesting book, the author (why I never understood) decided to go anti-gun with a diatribe insisting guns kill more people than save per the suicide rate by gun.

He insisted the odds of being killed by a criminal assailant are so much less as to be almost non-existent compared to those who in large numbers, kill themselves with a gun, thus we should not own guns and prevent this epidemic of suicides.

He went further to state statistics that more innocent folks die by gun by family members killing each other, children killed while playing with guns and on and on...

Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

Abraham wrote:I just finished reading "The Hidden Brain" and at the end of this very interesting book, the author (why I never understood) decided to go anti-gun with a diatribe insisting guns kill more people than save per the suicide rate by gun.

He insisted the odds of being killed by a criminal assailant are so much less as to be almost non-existent compared to those who in large numbers, kill themselves with a gun, thus we should not own guns and prevent this epidemic of suicides.

He went further to state statistics that more innocent folks die by gun by family members killing each other, children killed while playing with guns and on and on...

Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

I have not read the book, but based on your post:

There is a basic mistake in his conclusion. Banning guns will not stop suicides. While a gun may make it easier for someone to end their life, not having one will not deter those who are committed to the act. And in the end, regardless of the reason, and however terrible, suicide victims have made a choice for themselves. The only way to stop them is with support from other humans. Victims of crime had no such choice.

Edited: I typed before I thought.

I haven't read the book. I do think that the reality of accidental discharges, friendly fire during hunting trips, suicidal use of guns in the home (often by teens or spouses who aren't the gun owners), and other causes of damage or death are real threats that should be taken seriously by gun owners. They don't affect one's second amendment right to own guns, but they should affect the culture, use, and storage of them.

If you have a teenager in the house who is going through a break-up with his girlfriend at the same time of finals and some bullying (very little of which you'll likely know or even if you know you won't realize how it is affecting him because boys in our culture don't identify or discuss their deep emotions) then it is stupid to think that the boy won't use the gun irresponsibly just because he never has before. Boys are much more likely to commit suicide by gun than girls who are more likely to use pills. An "it could never happen to me" attitude of invincibility could be a life and death mistake. A depressed and suicidal teen (or any person) is not in his right mind and should not be around a firearm, but it is quite possible that you never find out how depressed he was, particularly in males, until it is too late.

Likewise, if you and your hunting buddies always have a few beers while you're in the deer blind and nothing bad has ever happened before, that doesn't mean that this time won't be your lucky day. Or maybe you have a strict rule forbidding kids from ever getting in your closet and you have gone over gun safety with your daughter a gazillion times so you think the combination is sufficient, but will find out today that she did get in your closet while you were showering one day--she was looking for a shirt she just had to have now--and showed her friend your gun in an effort to be accepted on the cool factor, but ended up severely disabled from a ND. Or maybe this time when you're cleaning your gun you are distracted by the cat or the TV or the kids or a fly and you don't check the chamber closely enough. Most people it happens to knew better and had been safely handling guns for years until that day.

I think that this is a reminder to not dismiss these concerns, but address them. Do you ever have your kids, grandkids, neighbors' kids, unstable relatives, people drinking alcohol or under the influence of prescription drugs, people going through a funk, careless people, showoffs, reloaders, or gun cleaners in your house, car, or otherwise around your guns? Do you ever have distractions while a firearm or ammunition is around or in use? Then you should be doing all that you reasonably can to mitigate the risks associated with them. I don't think that's a very controversial thing to say and it is a point that those with guns can agree on with those who have concerns.

There is also a basic mistake in his wild suppositions, emotional fearmongering, and fabricated "evidence" that have no basis in fact. Seems to me as if his brain is the one that's hidden.

Hoi Polloi wrote:If you have a teenager in the house who is going through a break-up with his girlfriend at the same time of finals and some bullying (very little of which you'll likely know or even if you know you won't realize how it is affecting him because boys in our culture don't identify or discuss their deep emotions) then it is stupid to think that the boy won't use the gun irresponsibly just because he never has before. Boys are much more likely to commit suicide by gun than girls who are more likely to use pills. An "it could never happen to me" attitude of invincibility could be a life and death mistake. A depressed and suicidal teen (or any person) is not in his right mind and should not be around a firearm, but it is quite possible that you never find out how depressed he was, particularly in males, until it is too late.

Some people go through all of that and more without ever using a gun - or anything else for that matter - irresponsibly, despite having ready access to the shotgun in the closet.

bdickens wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:If you have a teenager in the house who is going through a break-up with his girlfriend at the same time of finals and some bullying (very little of which you'll likely know or even if you know you won't realize how it is affecting him because boys in our culture don't identify or discuss their deep emotions) then it is stupid to think that the boy won't use the gun irresponsibly just because he never has before. Boys are much more likely to commit suicide by gun than girls who are more likely to use pills. An "it could never happen to me" attitude of invincibility could be a life and death mistake. A depressed and suicidal teen (or any person) is not in his right mind and should not be around a firearm, but it is quite possible that you never find out how depressed he was, particularly in males, until it is too late.

Some people go through all of that and more without ever using a gun - or anything else for that matter - irresponsibly, despite having ready access to the shotgun in the closet.

Yes, I agree completely. We simply don't know which they'll be until they've come out the other end. It doesn't in any way infringe on one's right to have and use guns, but I think it should weigh on one's personal decisions in how to use and store it.

TexasTony wrote:

Abraham wrote:I just finished reading "The Hidden Brain" and at the end of this very interesting book, the author (why I never understood) decided to go anti-gun with a diatribe insisting guns kill more people than save per the suicide rate by gun.

He insisted the odds of being killed by a criminal assailant are so much less as to be almost non-existent compared to those who in large numbers, kill themselves with a gun, thus we should not own guns and prevent this epidemic of suicides.

He went further to state statistics that more innocent folks die by gun by family members killing each other, children killed while playing with guns and on and on...

Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

I have not read the book, but based on your post:

There is a basic mistake in his conclusion. Banning guns will not stop suicides. While a gun may make it easier for someone to end their life, not having one will not deter those who are committed to the act. And in the end, regardless of the reason, and however terrible, suicide victims have made a choice for themselves. The only way to stop them is with support from other humans. Victims of crime had no such choice.

Edited: I typed before I thought.

The above observation is certainly true. There's no shortage of ways to die, and many are not at all difficult to do. After all, people manage to kill themselves accidentally all the time. Someone who is determined to attain that result will find a way to do it whether firearms are available or not.

In the city where I worked, we had lots of suicides by residents of the surrounding suburbs because we had the highest roofs and parking structures to jump off of. These folks favored the greater certainty of result they got from the increase in height over what was available in their home towns. They weren't "protected" by lack of access to guns.

Other than firearms, which were used in a minority of instances there, other popular methods were overdose of prescription medication and self applied ligature around the neck, which is often somewhat misleadingly called "hanging" in news articles.

In the cases I saw, the presence or absence of firearms did not determine if a suicide did or did not occur. It only influenced the breadth of available choices of method.

Excaliber wrote:In the cases I saw, the presence or absence of firearms did not determine if a suicide did or did not occur. It only influenced the breadth of available choices of method.

Respectfully, the cases of successful suicide you saw were... successful suicides. It does not speak to how many people did not attempt suicide or not succeed in a suicidal attempt that they would have attempted or succeeded in had a firearm been available to them. I completely agree that firearms do not equal suicide. I am arguing that they are one possible and deadly means of committing suicide that should be taken seriously if there are risks in your life that would lead to them being used that way, and I'm pointing out that your statement is not a logical conclusion that supports the analysis you drew.

I would also argue that if you have a teen daughter who is depressed and suicidal that you should consider locking up your medications and not letting her go anywhere alone. I'm just saying that one should take the risks one has in his own life seriously and do what is reasonable to minimize those risks.

I agree with Hoi Polloi that all of these issues are very real, serious, and should be considered carefully and soberly by all gun owners.

The writer's stats don't seem too far off from what I've seen - likely more gun suicides than reported defensive uses of guns (though the unreported defensive uses are a huge unknown quantity).

But I completely disagree that gun-related suicide statistics are any reason to ban or get rid of guns. If there were no guns, what would be next ... no tall buildings? no cars? no medicinal drugs? as earlier post said, plenty of ways to kill yourself if you've already dedicated yourself to that mission.

If there were no guns there would also be many more seriously injured or killed victims of violent crime.

Human compassion and care and professional help is what's needed to reduce suicide rates (and anyone who thinks they can be 100% "prevented" is fooling themselves)

Banning or getting rid of guns only takes away one of many possible options. Doing so would not "prevent" suicide anymore than prohibition prevented drinking of alcoholic beverages.

You are right about recognizing and minimizing risks - no argument! One of the reasons people have guns for self-defense is that they recognize the risk of actual aggression toward them (as they, for instance, get old and feeble like me) - and take reasonable precautions to minimize those risks. As well as the ancillary risks of having loaded guns around.

There is an old cliche about how the suicide rate in Japan (where guns are banned) is twice that in the US. I looked and found http://www.who.int/mental_health/preven ... erates/en/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which has suicide rates per 100,000 people. It shows:

Males Females
Japan 1999 36.5 14.1
USA 1999 17.6 4.1

I guess the old cliche was true for 1999.

Regards,
Andrew

edited in a futile attempt to make the columns line up

Hoi Polloi wrote:it is stupid to think that the boy won't use the gun irresponsibly just because he never has before.

I can't argue with this statement but where I have a problem is that the gun becomes vilified. The problem, in the case of suicide, is a psychologically based matter and you can't blame the method chosen for the terrible result. That being said, gun owners do need to secure their firearms, as well as their car keys and liquor when teenage boys are on the loose. If a teenager steals the keys to his dads car, and goes joy riding with a bottle booze and gets killed, everyone would agree it is a tragic event, but few people would make the argument "if they just had not had that car in the garage, Bobby would still be here today". You can't child proof the world.

Abraham wrote:Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

I haven't read the book, but anybody who has ever worked in a busy ER, like I have, knows the author is full of beans. It just simply isn't true that suicides by gun outnumber firearm murders. And the "you're more likely to be shot dead by someone you know" meme is an old chestnut which as been shot down so many times, it's remarkable it can still find an atmosphere in which to fly. FBI statistics simply don't bear out the claim.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Abraham wrote:Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

I haven't read the book, but anybody who has ever worked in a busy ER, like I have, knows the author is full of beans. It just simply isn't true that suicides by gun outnumber firearm murders. And the "you're more likely to be shot dead by someone you know" meme is an old chestnut which as been shot down so many times, it's remarkable it can still find an atmosphere in which to fly. FBI statistics simply don't bear out the claim.

TAM, I may be mistaken but I understood the original comparison to be suicides + murders (bad outcomes) to defensive uses of guns (good outcomes). Which is a different - albeit still not altogether accurate - comparison (inaccuracies being the number of unreported defensive uses).

If original comparison was suicide to murder directly, then I agree completely with you assessment.

Hoi Polloi wrote:

Excaliber wrote:In the cases I saw, the presence or absence of firearms did not determine if a suicide did or did not occur. It only influenced the breadth of available choices of method.

Respectfully, the cases of successful suicide you saw were... successful suicides. It does not speak to how many people did not attempt suicide or not succeed in a suicidal attempt that they would have attempted or succeeded in had a firearm been available to them. I completely agree that firearms do not equal suicide. I am arguing that they are one possible and deadly means of committing suicide that should be taken seriously if there are risks in your life that would lead to them being used that way, and I'm pointing out that your statement is not a logical conclusion that supports the analysis you drew.

I would also argue that if you have a teen daughter who is depressed and suicidal that you should consider locking up your medications and not letting her go anywhere alone. I'm just saying that one should take the risks one has in his own life seriously and do what is reasonable to minimize those risks.

I saw lots of uncompleted attempts as well. Some were cries for attention, some were poorly conceived genuine efforts, and some were hard to differentiate. In quite a few cases, an unsuccessful attempt was later followed by a successful one with more refined execution planned with lessons learned from the earlier one(s).

I agree that if you as an individual or family have a known situation of elevated risk like a depressed and suicidal child (or adult) you have a responsibility to reduce the opportunity for that person to kill him or her self as best you can. Restricting that person's access to firearms and strong medications and maintaining closer supervision are basic steps to take in this regard.

However, unless you strip the person naked and confine him or her to a six sided rubber room at all times, the means to readily commit suicide are always at hand when there is a will to do so.

Suicides in jails and correctional settings with close supervision, almost nothing to work with and no access to weapons or medication (or tall buildings) are examples of just how hard it is to stop someone who really wants to die by his own hand.

Once that decision is made, the method is usually determined by whatever means are available. If the gun or drugs aren't handy, they'll turn to the tall building, or creative ways of using things like socks and telephone cords which aren't normally thought of as instruments of death.

It's a common fallacy to think that if one particular method isn't available, the troubled person will drop the thought and go back to living normally, or that if he jumps off a 7 story building he might not be as likely to suffer a fatal injury as he would with a self inflicted gunshot wound. The reality is that danger of successful suicide is high as long as a person maintains the desire to end life.

Abraham wrote:I just finished reading "The Hidden Brain" and at the end of this very interesting book, the author (why I never understood) decided to go anti-gun with a diatribe insisting guns kill more people than save per the suicide rate by gun.

He insisted the odds of being killed by a criminal assailant are so much less as to be almost non-existent compared to those who in large numbers, kill themselves with a gun, thus we should not own guns and prevent this epidemic of suicides.

He went further to state statistics that more innocent folks die by gun by family members killing each other, children killed while playing with guns and on and on...

Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-gun arguments?

I just finished reading "The Hidden Brain" and at the end of this very interesting book, the author (why I never understood) decided to go anti-free speech with a diatribe insisting free speech kills more people than save per the suicide rate because of free speech.

He insisted the odds of being killed by a criminal assailant are so much less as to be almost non-existent compared to those who in large numbers, kill themselves because of someones free speech , thus we should not allow free speech and prevent this epidemic of suicides.

He went further to state statistics that more innocent folks die because of free speech by family members killing each other, children killed while speaking their minds and on and on...

Anyone else here read the book and if so, what did you make of his anti-free speech arguments?