You want gun control? Great. All you need is both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to repeal the Second Amendment.
Get cracking.
Dreams have been described as dress rehearsals for real life, opportunities to gratify wishes, and a form of nocturnal therapy. A new theory aims to make sense of it all.
Verified by Psychology Today
The public health rationale for gun control is clear
States with higher percentages of households owning guns tend to have higher gun fatality rates.1 Gun regulations that aim at restricting and reducing gun ownership reduce firearm suicide rates. Anestis, Anestis and Butterworth studied2 suicide rate changes in 2013 and 2014 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, comparing the rates in states with and without specific laws (mandatory waiting periods, universal background checks, open carry restrictions and gun lock requirements). They found significant difference in suicide rate changes in states with mandatory waiting periods and universal background checks relative to states without these laws. No changes were observed in states with open carry restrictions and gun lock requirements. They conclude that laws aimed at reducing gun ownership were the most effective at preventing firearm suicides. Of note, people denied guns do not typically then find other means of harming themselves. Suicide rates go down when gun ownership and storage is more regulated. Kposowa et al similarly found3 that higher gun ownership increased suicide risk, but loaded and unlocked guns in the home were an even more powerful risk factor. Guns are a suicide magnet, and gun regulations and safe storage make a big difference.
Fleegler et al came to similar conclusions about firearm laws and overall fatalities, both suicides and homicides.4 They looked at all 50 states over four years, dividing the states into quartiles based on their gun regulations. The quartile with the most regulations had the lowest gun homicide and suicide rates, and the states with the least regulations had the highest gun homicide and suicide rates. However, the authors could not conclude the link was a direct cause and effect. There could be other factors working in these states, for example different levels of gun ownership or different attitutes towards guns, which both make it more difficult to pass gun laws and more likely that guns will be used. Still, working towards stronger gun laws would be helpful, and could clarify these other factors.
Kalesan et al looked5 at 25 firearm laws across the United States, and analyzed their correlation with firearm mortalities. They found that the three laws most significantly associated with reduced mortality were universal background checks for guns, background checks for ammunition and requiring firearm identification by microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting. While their analysis of the magnitude of the effect is complicated and to some, controversial, they estimate that these laws could reduce firearm fatalities by 90%. They also found that so-called “stand your ground” laws were associated with increased mortality rates.
Gun ownership increases risk of fatalities, and families with risk factors for suicide and homicide are modestly more likely to own guns.6 Parents with depression, who binge drink or use illicit drugs are more likely to have or acquire guns. This puts them and their children at risk. The mental health system might play a role in treating the risk factors, or screening for firearms in these homes, but this makes the regulations described by the above authors, like waiting periods and background checks, all the more salient.
In addition to gun control legislation and reducing the number of firearms on the street, there may be other ways to cut gun violence. Public health experts have looked at how gun violence spreads as social contagion, through a network of individuals embedded in the same relationships, activities and environment, thus sharing risk factors. A preventive approach might be akin to contact tracing used in disease outbreaks.7 We could also encourage the media not to cover shootings in sensationalistic ways that inspire copycats.8
The American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, representing a total of 450,000 physicians, have all called for governmental action on the epidemic of gun violence.9Rationally, gun control makes sense. But instead, those who support gun ownership usually throw the first stones at those with mental health problems.
This is an excerpt from my just-published ebook on gun psychology, culture and identity, soon to be out in paperback.
References
1. Kristof N. How to reduce shootings. New York Times, updated February 20, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html accessed 2/19/18
2. Anestis MD, Anestis JC, Butterworth SE. Handgun legislation and changes in statewide overall suicide rates. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:579-581
3. Kposowa A, Hamilton D, Want K. Impact of firearm availability and gun regulation on state suicide rates. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2016 Dec;46(6):678-696
4. Fleegler EW, Lee LK, Monuteaux MC, Hemenway D, Mannix R. Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):732-740
5. Kalesan B, Mobily ME, Keiser O, Fagan JA, Galea S. Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study. Lancet 2016;387:1847-55
6. Ladapo JA, Elliott MN, Kanouse DE, et al. Firearm ownership and acquisition among parents with risk factors for self-harm or other violence. Acad Pediatrics 2016;16:742-749
7. Green B, Horel T, Papachristos AV. Modeling contagion through social networks to explain and predict gunshot violence in Chicago, 2006 to 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(3)326-333
8. Meindl JN, Ivy JW. Mass shootings: the role of the media in promoting generalized imitation. Am J Pub Health. 2017;107:368-370 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303611
9. America’s frontline physicians call on government to act on the public health epidemic of gun violence. February 16, 2018 https://www.psychiatry.org/newsroom/news-releases/america-s-frontline-physicians-call-on-government-to-act-on-the-public-health-epidemic-of-gun-violence accessed 2/28/18
You want gun control? Great. All you need is both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to repeal the Second Amendment.
Get cracking.
Anonymous wrote:You want gun control? Great. All you need is both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures to repeal the Second Amendment.
Get cracking.
Get with the times. The Second Amendment, while a lot of us continue to believe in its high principles, was, in effect, totally, that is, all but on the bare paper of the Constitution, repealed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and by even stricter gun control laws in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.
Imagine that. The same psychiatrists, many of whom own guns themselves, adjudicate their patients as mental defectives and commit them to institutions, depriving them of the right to bear arms for life with no recourse, and push for even harsher gun control laws.
The entire practice of "mental health" sometimes called "behavioral health" is nothing but a pretext for gun control, gun confiscation, drug dealing, and prostitution, from which the shrinks never allow their patients to escape.
If I'm understanding this correctly. Removing the presence of a gun will make the obviously sick individual unsick. That person would no longer consider ending their life. Maybe they will seek other avenues of escape? Maybe they will get in a car and drive head on into another car and take out one or more lives. Maybe they will attempt to jump off a high building or bridge placing emergency responders at risk. Maybe it will be suicide by cop and hopefully the video will be clear if not family lawyers will bust their gut to put the officer behind bars. Maybe it will be a inapt attempt with pills resulting in medical bills out the wazoo that of course the tax payers will have to foot the bill for. Maybe it's some dangerous drug that responders will not be aware of and become exposed to injuring them. Maybe a lifelong stay in a mental facility at the tax payers expense is in order. I was raised in a poor rural county where it was rare to have more than on deputy out working. If you were lucky five minutes response time. Unlucky fourty five minutes. Assuming you had time to call in the first place. There were no other house's close to us. That night the banging at the door aroused dad who grabbed his pistol. He was almost to the door when it busted in on him. Don't think the visitors had good intentions. Dad raised his gun and fired. I will never forget the bloody handprint left on the wall as the intruder retreated. The man was never caught. Mother two sons one daughter how many lives were saved that night? Ten years later my dad was caught unaware in his shed by a young man high on drugs and tired of walking. A gunshot in the back and two in the front ended my dad's life. I thank God mother was not home. People who live in gated communities need to move move out into the real word where deputies who are yet unable to ride a hover craft are able to cut that fourty minute response time to two minutes. I'm not going to let someone with a baseball bat beat the brains out of my children. I'm going to do just as my dad did and try to send him straight to hell. For those of you who wish to deny me that right..... Maybe one day you will find yourself looking at the doorway to your house at a man with a bat and you without an equalizer in hand. Wonder which child he will go to first? Maybe he will let you live to remember forever.
I'm sorry for your losses. However, in my book I detail that according to the best research currently available, less than 1% of guns are used in self defense or to scare off would be attackers. Still, 70% of gun owners say they own weapons for protection. There's clearly a divergence between reality and emotion. Should we treat our emotion with guns? It's a question we should ask. I think we should support civil society to help us feel safe - not support the breakdown of civil society by easy access to guns to all comers, without background checks or waiting periods.
And guns are a suicide magnet. When gun ownership falls, suicide rates fall - people don't simply shift to other means.
Please read the book if you'd like to learn more.
Liberals seem to have a Constitution comprehension problem when it comes to firearms.
No matter, armed security guards--like Israel has at all schools--stopped school shootings.
The Wall is a proactive solution to prevent repeat felon illegal invaders like the POS who shot and killed Kate Steinle from ever returning.
Ever wonder why libs want to seize Americans' firearms but let illegals run wild? Guns don't cast illegal ballots
You have it all wrong. They're not "liberals" or "libs." They're "moderates."
Moderate politicians support a total gun ban for civilians.
Those who support the Second Amendment (or the Constitution in general) are considered far-right extremists.
wrote:You have it all wrong. They're not "liberals" or "libs." They're "moderates."
"Moderates" like communist Bernie sanders? This is a joke, right?
wrote:Moderate politicians support a total gun ban for civilians.
You don't really trust government to protect you, do you? You really want only police and a Trump Administration to be the only ones armed? HA.
wrote:Those who support the Second Amendment (or the Constitution in general) are considered far-right extremists.
Only by sheep. The Founders didn't trust government power. Every day they're proven correct by hapless hoplophobes.
Anonymous wrote:"Moderates" like communist Bernie sanders? This is a joke, right?
Gee whiz! Who the F you think are calling themselves "moderates" these days? Is it the Moderate Right Democrats or the Far Right Republicans?
You really think any of them support the Constitution or know what any of those archaic words mean? Welcome to the moderate reasoned debate on the necessity of gun confiscation and giving up your civil rights for the sake of psychological sanity and everyone's mental health and safety.
Interesting how the above commenters seem to think guns (and therefore they) are being discriminated against - and yet it is quite clear how hard it is to pass any kind of meaningful gun control legislation (waiting periods, universal background checks, or heaven forbid - a restriction on certain kinds of military style weapons). Why is there such a disconnect between emotions and reality?
It's more proof of the 'gun identity' at work. I hope my book is of service in understanding this issue.
"They conclude that laws aimed at reducing gun ownership were the most effective at preventing firearm suicides."
At best they could show a correlation, but there's no evidence of causality. There are far too many factors to control for to make any such claim, at least if they're honest.
"they estimate that these laws could reduce firearm fatalities by 90%"
Even pro-gun control researchers were skeptical of the 90% reduction claim from that Lancet "study".
"Rationally, gun control makes sense."
In your opinion.
The deniers are out in force.....
Sure, the 90% estimate is likely way high - but what change would get your attention? And the other research does point to evidence of reductions in suicides and homicides. There's also the real life evidence of other countries. Sure, even there, it's only one factor; improved trauma care could also reduce fatalities. But surely it's not a negative factor.
The gun identity causes logic to dispose of itself, Logicus. "I'll take two guns and don't call me in the morning."
Read the book. There's more than just one study or example.
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:The deniers are out in force.....
Yeah, that's not an argument.
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:Sure, the 90% estimate is likely way high
Yet you tout it, even though you don't think it's right. That hardly seems honest.
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:but what change would get your attention?
Evidence of causality, for one.
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:There's also the real life evidence of other countries.
Such as?
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:The gun identity causes logic to dispose of itself, Logicus. "I'll take two guns and don't call me in the morning."
You're making a lot of assumptions there without foundation. It can make you look foolish, I hope you don't practice that way. And definitely stay away from remote diagnoses based on a few sentences.
Ravi Chandra M.D., D.F.A.P.A. wrote:Read the book. There's more than just one study or example.
Nope. I might if it were free, but I'm not paying for it. I see nothing in the article to indicate that there's anything new in the book. And I've read a lot of studies (on both sides) but I haven't found one that is really sound.
Dear LP - First, thank you for taking the time to read and reply. I appreciate that you say that you've read a lot of papers and seem to consider yourself an expert. I respect that, as it is possible to have different opinions, even based on the exact same data - because there is room for interpretation. What I get at in the book, and what I think is somewhat new to this discussion, is that the gun debate has largely been controlled by those with a "gun identity" - which leads to illogical, defensive arguments which are unable or unwilling to reason. I'm not accusing you of being this way, but as you read further in my comment, I think you'll understand.
You call yourself "Logicus Prime" - which I would note is hiding behind a somewhat grandiose screen name. But I am standing by my name, words and reputation. I think I should get some credit for being an accomplished professional who has meticulously researched this issue - but I don't often get that, especially on controversial issues such as racism, sexism and now gun control. Instead I get hate mail, hateful comments, some even accusing me of trying to promote 'sharia law' based on nothing more than a tweet about my book. Does this make any sense? Not really.
Moreover, LP, I'll note that you misquote me, either intentionally or carelessly. What I wrote was:
"Kalesan et al looked5 at 25 firearm laws across the United States, and analyzed their correlation with firearm mortalities. They found that the three laws most significantly associated with reduced mortality were universal background checks for guns, background checks for ammunition and requiring firearm identification by microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting. While their analysis of the magnitude of the effect is complicated and to some, controversial, they estimate that these laws could reduce firearm fatalities by 90%. They also found that so-called “stand your ground” laws were associated with increased mortality rates."
You completely missed my interpretation, where I note that "While their analysis of the magnitude of the effect is complicated and to some, controversial" and simply align me with their conclusions.
That doesn't seem too logical to me.
Again, my comments at the gun identity were directed more to all of the commenters, not specifically to you.
The fact that you haven't found a single sound article on gun studies makes you a bit of an outlier. I wonder why - perhaps it is because you are in fact biased in favor of gun ownership.
In any case, I'm closing comments as I usually do when I start to get too many distracting and off-point messages, like the majority of these comments have been. I wish you well in your further exploration of these very important issues, and hope you don't close your mind to perspectives other than your own.
The vicious politics of HATE dictate who is "allowed" by the rules of modern etiquette to own guns and who is not allowed to talk about them at the dinner table for fear of being served with a warrant.
The shrinks are hungry and greedy for more and more power to decide who is allowed to own guns and who, supposedly, is not. They are always lobbying Congress along with foreign drug manufacturer execs for even more draconian "civil commitment" laws, to strip their victims even further of their civil rights.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.