A high schooler in /r/thatHappened is furious that he won't be able to buy a gun "in this shitty state of Maryland" because he's diagnosed with clinical depression. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
66 ups - 0 downs = 66 votes
152 comments submitted at 22:15:22 on Aug 5, 2014 by hmcbabe
Really that's good for him. With clinical depression having a firearm is close to a guarantee of suicide.
I'm not so sure about that--clinical depression can be managed and it does not guarantee suicidal ideation or intent. Having a diagnosis of clinical depression shouldn't, IMO, determine who is allowed to have a gun any more than it should determine who is allowed to buy Tylenol or razor blades.
There might also be a chance of people not coming forward to get treated for depression because they'd fear losing their gun(s).
Exactly, I saw that a lot when I worked psych admissions. We actually had gun forms for people who were admitted to the psych unit, and there were people who walked out and refused to seek treatment because of the gun form.
I don't know. I am pretty positive that if I owned I a gun I would be dead and I can't be the only clinically depressed person like that. When you research most effective ways to kill yourself gun comes out number one. Tylenol and razor blades didn't have that guarantee which scared me from following through.
Well, kinda. If you look on Google, one of the things mentioned is shooting yourself in the wrong part of the brain which could leave you just brain dead or with debilitating issues while still alive. And also the caliber is brought up, as a .22 won't be that effective unless you aim specifically towards the base of the brain. Popular culture has ingrained the romanticization of pulling the trigger at the temple, which could just leave you in one of the aforementioned states. And judging properly where the base of your brain is, is a difficult thing to do for most people, so you're more likely to just paralyze yourself above all else.
It's difficult to find reliable information on how to kill yourself on the internet, regardless of method, as almost any way you can think of will likely have ways in which it can go wrong and lead you to a worse state of living than you were already in. Wrong pills and dosage can leave you alive and vomiting or with organ failure (or in my case, taking pills that prevent the other pills from absorbing fast enough and causing sever damage fast enough). Razor blades could leave you with an infection if you don't cut in the right place and don't prevent clotting. Hanging can leave you paralyzed and suffocating slowly or just paralyzed and lying on a floor from not securing the apparatus properly or having a strong enough rope for your weight. People have even survived normally fatal falls with little to no damage due to inebriation or being loose enough.
There are so many ways killing yourself can go wrong and make your situation worse that it leaves you stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of never ending misery whether you do or don't.
This guy's posting history shows that he was this close to killing himself. Some people just shouldn't have guns.
And now, instead, robbers can shoot me.
What kind of area do you live in that you have to worry about robbers that much?
My house doesn't often catch on fire, but I'm glad there's a fire department available.
Though for reference, I live in Harford County.
If we're speaking in terms of preventing bad outcomes, then giving a gun to a depressed person who has come close to suicide is very dumb. I would say that it's more likely that person ends up killing themselves with that gun than stopping someone who was threatening their life. From a platform of utilitarianism, it is better to deny that person a gun than to give them one.
Good thing they won't because the chances of you being the victim of a home invasion are so close to 0 as to be negligible.
Let's get rid of fire departments too, then. The chance of my house bursting into flames is so close to 0 as to be negligible.
Actually your analogy would be the equivalent to getting rid of police departments. You dont own a fire engine in your home specifically for your own house.
If you were insisting on your right to own and operate your own fire department for the sole purpose of standing watch over your home just in case it bursts into flames, I'd still call you paranoid.
Your behaviour both in the linked thread and in this thread present a very strong case for you not being allowed to own firearms. The constitutionality of reasonable regulation on the acquisition and use of firearms is extremely well-established, so it's not a constitutional issue either. You just have no business owning a firearm. Deal with it.
But do you think I should also not be allowed to own a fire distinguisher?
I don't care what anyone says about it. The truth is not a popularity contest. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. I am part of the people. If you take guns away from me, my right is being infringed. It is as simple as that.
>You just have no business owning a firearm. Deal with it.
I seriously fucking hate you. You scum are the reason this world is such a shitty place.
> fire distinguisher?
mm
mmmm
HmmmmhhmmmmmaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
How does it feel, knowing you're the reason for all the troubles in this world?
Congrats, you found a typo. That means you've won the argument without refuting a single point.
All while claiming me to be a liar.
What argument? What points have you made that I need to refute? All I saw was a temper tantrum. You, personally, don't get to have guns and that is perfectly okay. Nobody's rights have been violated, and shouting "BUT CONSTITUTION!" changes nothing because the limits of the second amendment have been well-established. You lose. It's over. End of story.
Have fire extinguishers been the cause of like a bajillion deaths? No.
Irrelevant because you can fight back. Literally fighting fire with fire does not work.
Fight back what? Unclear (serious not trying to rile you up)
It says >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Not that every joker has the right to own a deadly weapon. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. So, join the police or army if you want a gun... Everyone ignores that first part.
Even if that first part did limit gun ownership to the militia, even federal law recognizes that the militia is comprised of ALL able-bodied male citizens 18 to 45. 10 USC 311. Read it.
Furthermore, as used in Article I Section 8 and the Second Amendment (and as modified by the equal opportunity clause of the 14th amendment), "militia" and "we the people" are effectively synonymous.
If you want to deprive a "joker" of the right to own a deadly weapon, the constitution requires due process.
Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was discussing intention of the constitution, not the actual laws created since then. I agree that private ownership of guns is legal. I just don't think that the constitution stops states from implementing private gun ownership restrictions. I'm well aware that my point of view is not the current legal status. I think that a constitutional amendment would be the best way to take care of the issue.
>Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. So, join the police or army if you want a gun
That argument was put to rest in the DC V Heller supreme court decision.
>(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
>(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DistrictofColumbiav.Heller
Barely put to rest. The supreme court has overruled itself a number of times, to react to changing times. Plus, the ruling was 5-4, not a clear decision by any means.
Besides that, if the amendment really does say that then it should be amended again and replaced. Maybe it worked in society in the 1700s, but today there is no legitimate reason for people to own a toy that can kill people. They are extremely unlikely to ever use it for self-defense, and those that do often end up facing manslaughter charges because they weren't well-trained or responsible enough to own it in the first place.
I have no doubt that people will fight tooth and nail to keep their toys. I just hope the day comes when society gets its head out of its ass and takes them all away despite all the crying that will happen.
Well regulated Militia in the language of the time = well-functioning, i.e. not necessarily run by the government. Militias can be formed by private citizens.
I like how you know what the constitution actually means, but everyone else here doesnt.
That's simply wrong. Militia was used at the time to refer to a fighting force who were not professional soldiers. They were still highly trained and part of the military order. The closest comparison to today would be the national guard. The militia system used in the revolution was under the control of the continental congress.
There would be no point in a military force which reported to nobody and was outside of the regular command structure.
In addition, here is a quote from the articles of confederation: >but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
If well-regulated meant well-functioning wouldn't the use of disciplined be redundant in the case above? It is clear from this usage that disciplined and well-regulated did not mean the same thing, as you had suggested above.
With 3.7 million burglaries per year, of which 28% had someone home at the time of the burglary, and 7% ended up with an occupant of the home becoming the victim of some form of violence, I think you are underestimating the odds of a home invasion. That is 259,000 home invasions a year where the occupant of the home becomes the victim of a violence. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
There are 115 million households in the US. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
That means over a 10 year period you have about a 1 in 44 chance of being the victim of a violent crime during a home invasion, and about a 1 in 10 chance to be present during a home invasion.
It is substantially more likely that you will be the victim of a violent home invasion than that you will be injured or killed by a firearm, including suicide. About 100,000 people are injured or killed by guns each year.
Edit: people downvoting me must hate facts.
Because ropes and NyQuil are very difficult to acquire.
Yeah, so I'm just going to tell you that fulminant liver failure from acetaminophen overdose is probably one of the most awful and lingering ways of killing yourself. Just in case you were ever thinking of going the nyquil route. Obviously the most important thing is not killing yourself in the first place, but good god that is probably the worst way of doing it I could imagine.
On the plus side, if it succeeds, I would be dead, and I wouldn't have to worry about that anymore. Your argument is irrelevant.
There was a guy named Ken Baldwin who tried to kill himself by jumping off the golden gate bridge. He said that as he was falling towards the water his thoughts were
>I instantly realized that everything in my life that I’d thought was unfixable was totally fixable—except for having just jumped.
I wouldn't want to come to that realization the instant after condemning myself to a slow and torturous few hours. On the plus side it would be possible to get treatment at a hospital during those excruciating hours.
Another person telling me that my problems are "totally fixable" means absolutely nothing to me. He doesn't know me. He doesn't know what I am going through. For many/all of us, there is no way we can imagine our situation possibly improving. And, after I got out of my forced treatment at the hospital, I would probably just try again.
And I should still be allowed to get a gun.
> For many/all of us, there is no way we can imagine our situation possibly improving.
Yeah, that's called depression. That's what it does. You know, therapists don't really do the work for you -- they're teachers, not mechanics. What they're good for is pointing out where you're being irrational and helping you learn techniques to recognize when your brain is trying to eat you and to fight back against that. Therapy doesn't do a damn bit of good if you don't want it to.
Forced treatment at the hospital isn't cure anything, its only function is to put you somewhere safe until you can calm down a bit so the real work can start when you leave.
Right now, your ownership of a butterknife is questionable.
No, his argument is quite relevant because before you die you would go through an excruciating period of organ failure. You would definitely worry about it then.
That is such a laughable answer.
"Hey guys I'm going to cut my duck off with a sawzall."
"No, it will be horribly painful, and then you won't have a dick."
"Yeah? Well I'll be dead at some point in the future, and I won't care about it then."
Jesus Christ, if you've actually been suicidal you would know rather intimately that "will it hurt" is a pretty heavy consideration.
If cutting my dick off were a convenient way to bring about an end to my existence, no matter how painful it is, it will be worth it in the end.
I don't appreciate you doubting me.
I'm not sure you understand how inconvenient overdosing on acetaminophen is.
It's cheap and gets the job done. It's convenient enough.
And I could always hang myself. The point is, there are a million and one ways to do it besides with a gun.
And yet, access to a firearm is one of the stronger correlates with suicides. It is as close as you can get to killing yourself with the press of a button. Other methods are harder, require more planning, and consequently deter people. Outside of perhaps assisted suicide in the context of terminal illness, there is no good reason to make it easy for people to kill themselves.
I mean, you would be worrying about it as you writhed in agony and started spontaneously bleeding out over the course of several days. Other people would be worrying about it as massive amounts of healthcare resources were wasted to try and fix your selfish action.
Shit, if you are down for that you might as well just buy a plane ticket to Liberia.
So now it's selfish to want to take control of my own body. I literally can't even fucking kill myself without being accused of being selfish. Jesus Christ, I hate this world. Maybe I ought to, and then when I'm gone, you all can go to your Communist Party (led by the great Chairman Martin O'Malley) rallies without me disturbing you. Hell, I guess it's impossible for them to just...let me be. Or I could do it alone, and that wouldn't be an issue.
And, again, if I was in a bad enough place to attempt it, it would be worth it in the end.
Yes, suicide is an enormously selfish action. Especially the particular method that you mentioned. I know its hard, but you should consider all of the people that such a decision might effect before you decide to cash out.
Are you considering killing your self currently?
I don't care. My life is my own. If I'm dead, the effects upon me are the only ones that matter to me.
I do every single day.
Do you have a counselor or psychiatrist that you are seeing?
No.
Irrelevant. A significant portion of suicides can be prevented merely by slowing someone down; remember that when in particularly bad depressive episodes, people with depression have extremely limited energy, and thus are less likely to do anything complicated or difficult in terms of commiting suicide. Also, a gun is way more likely to WORK than Nyquil.
No, don't worry, I've planned it out before. If I ever do attempt it, I am almost 100% certain I could succeed without a gun.
Possibly. It would still probably take you significantly longer than if you did have the gun, thus making it much more likely you'd stop part way.
So let us ignore the Constitution and open the way towards a fascist government...so that I have a slightly smaller chance of killing myself. If you have the right to kill anyone, is it not yourself?
Trying to make people who are in an irrational state of mind not kill themselves is apparently fascism now.
I'd think you leftist "people" would be in favor of allowing people to do what they want with their own bodies...
And yes, gun control is very much a fascist belief.
Also, it would be great if I could post more than one comment every 10 years.
So, people who disagree with you aren't people now and nearly practically every country outside of a warzone on earth is fascist?
I am just saying nearly every political problem in existence is the fault of the left wing.
Just stop.
But we're not talking about that are we? I'm all for the right of a private citizen to own firearms but there must be limits on who. Not letting those who have diagnosed mental problems get access to guns is safer for them and society as a whole.
There are diagnosable mental problems that wouldn't result in any problems with owning firearms, and there are definitely different degrees of the severity of those illnesses. It would make a bit more sense to have gun ownership for those people cleared with medical professionals instead of banned entirely.
Someone in therapy to treat mild social anxiety, for example, isn't exactly a threat to society.
This is a bigoted generalisation. Most mental health conditions do not indicate violent or self-harming tendencies. Not everyone with a diagnosed mental health problem needs to be protected from themselves and your condescension is insulting.
I fail to see how it is safer for me when there is an infinite number of other methods out there to my disposal. And, again, how am I to defend myself? Just pray that nothing happens?
But if you want it to all be over and you don't care about the manner in which you expire (since you are ok-fine with acetaminophen overdose which is a horrific way to die) then why do you need to protect yourself?
Your thinking is all over the place on this which shows a duty to purpose that is the exact reason why these types of regulations are being considered widely.
You'd benefit from therapy. From cognitive restructuring. You should consider that with the zeal you have for getting a gun.