“Almost half of those at risk of suicide surveyed by an Alabama researcher said they would consider placing their names on a list that temporarily bars them from purchasing guns,” al.com reports. Before addressing the potential problems with this voluntary, “temporary” Do Not Sell list, know this: the survey’s sample size is so small that only an anti-gun rights crusader would pay the slightest bit of attention to the findings.
Fredrick Vars [above], a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, said about 46 percent of the 200 people involved in the survey said they would be interested in voluntarily participating in the program. Vars presented the patients with two options: A voluntary sign-up and removal from the list with a seven-day waiting period, and an option that requires a judicial hearing for removal. The option without a judicial hearing won the most support.
If I’m reading this right, Professor Vars’ study asks his suicidal survey takers to assume they’re going to lose their gun rights. Their choice: surrender your right to keep and bear arms “voluntarily” or face a judge and lose it involuntarily. Presumably, permanently.
In other words, we’re going to stop you from having access to firearms. We can do this the easy way or the hard way. Half of the 200 survey takers chose the easy way! Wait. Is it the easy way?
If an individual voluntarily submitted his name to the Do Not Sell list, it would appear whenever a licensed gun dealer runs a standard background check, Vars said. The only cost for implementing the program would be in creating a system that allows people to submit their names to the list.
Question: whose Do Not Sell list is this anyway? Are we talking about a state-run program or simply adding — and then subtracting — “voluntary” gun ban info to the FBI’s NICS process?
A federal Do Not Sell list would be enormously expensive, prone to errors and tempt the feds to slide down the slippery slope to a permanent gun ban for its “voluntary” participants.
Let’s face it: Professor Vars’ voluntary gun ban list is a stupid idea on a lot levels. It’s the same old stupid, too.
Research shows that suicide is often an impulsive act, and small barriers can successfully reduce the number of deaths.
Vars also said that suicidal people often don’t switch to other methods of suicide if they are prevented from purchasing a gun. People who can’t get access to guns who still attempt suicide would probably resort to less-lethal means, Vars said.
“Guns are so much more lethal than alternative methods,” Vars said. “If you attempt with a gun, there is an 80 to 90 percent chance you’ll die. Switching people from a very deadly method to a less deadly method will save a lot of lives.”
Don’t you just love it when a news org parrots a propagandist’s anti-pistol prognostications without linking to the “research” upon which his or her house of canards rests? Neither do I. Especially when the agit-propmeister in question conflates purchasing a gun with “access to a gun.” In Alabama, no less.
Suffice it to say, Japan. The “gun-free” Island nation is number 17 on wikipedia.org’s list of suicide rates by country. While we’re at it, the country with “the world’s strictest restrictions on civilian gun ownership” (South Korea) is number two on the international suicide rate per capita list. America sits at position 50.
It would be heartless of me not to say it: one suicide is one suicide too many. And it’s true: thousands of Americans are exiting stage right via a firearm each year. But those who believe that gun control can stem the tide of firearms-related suicide are like the drunk looking for his keys under a streetlamp simply because the light’s better.
Who is funding this research?
Bloomberg? Obama? The knife industry? /;-)
That was my first thought. What foundation put up the money to study that crap.
http://www.samsonrope.com/ ? They claim to be “The strongest name in rope”… [insert horrible off color jokes here]
I worked a suicide once where an old fella in an electric wheel chair went into a local store and had a clerk help him buy some rope. She thought that him looping it around his neck was just a way to measure how many feet he needed for some random purpose.
Nope. He cruised around to the back of the store, braided a hangmans noose, tied it off to a gas pipe, then hit the go lever on his wheel chair.
It worked.
It’s a false flag, pile-o-bs. Oh, sorry, duh, it’s from gun-grabbers.
No toe-under-the-turtle, camel’s nose under the tent for you!!!
What right do I have to interfere with another person’s choices, including the choice to end his or her own life?
If I’m pulling back from suicide, mentally speaking, to voluntarily put my name on a do-not-sell list, then I should also know myself well enough to, oh, I don’t know, seek counseling, maybe?
Can we just have those who are contemplating legislating or judicially activating this placed on the no-infringe the Constitution list?
Can we just?
It might prevent a civil war.
I need the address for “the no-infringe the Constitution list.” I have 2 senators, a governor, and at least a half-dozen congressmen to sign up for that list.
Al.com is a bastion of unbiased, slant free ‘journalism’. The 200 in the sample were probably all Bryce patients. Easier to get the research done if the respondents were all in the same location.
The Bryce comment hit a nail on the head.
That idea has so many holes in it – huge potential for fraud written all over it.
What would keep anyone from putting someone else’s name on the list.
What could go wrong?
Getting off the list.
Classic false dichotomy. All he had to do to make it a more credible survey was add an option c. none of the above.
You sure don’t need a gat to off yourself-bottle of pills,tall building or stand in front of a moving train. THIS is silly…
I don’t much care about his proposed list because the guy is clearly and idiot.
“Vars also said that suicidal people often don’t switch to other methods of suicide if they are prevented from purchasing a gun. People who can’t get access to guns who still attempt suicide would probably resort to less-lethal means, Vars said.”
First, he says that people don’t switch methods but then says that removing a firearm would result in people switching to less lethal methods? Um… what? Is this some sort of stream of consciousness writing assignment? Contradicting yourself in the next sentence… SHM.
Secondly, “Vars also said that suicidal people often don’t switch to other methods of suicide…”
How could you know that? It’s not like you can ask because these people are dead! There’s literally no way you could know this unless people regularly leave notes saying “Couldn’t get a gun, swapping to rope, goodbye cruel world!”. (Although I have to admit, a suicide note that said “Too close for missiles Goose, I’m switching to guns” would be a pretty epic suicide note. And yes, I know I’m going to Hell for joking about suicide.)
Seriously though, is this guy calling up California Psychics for his research?
Good chance he is calling up Cali psychics.
Really though, he probably just has an idea, writes a question down, has his student run across the street to Bryce (the local inpatient psychiatric hospital) to ask the patients the question, and run the responses back across the street.
The words “study” and “research” should not be used in this description. Social Sciences research is challenging at best, and a good survey is very challenging. The “data” foundation of this is not research, other than in the sense of a middle school student “researching” on the internet to write a paper.
Based on his UA bio page, he has no qualifications whatsoever as a “researcher”. The co-author is a student in law school. I don’t know much about law journals, but I suspect the peer review of research methods used is not particularly strong; and I’m not suggesting it should be. I suspect this is not the point of law journals.
As someone who has done sound behavioral research, calling this “research” is a classic example of 1) what is wrong with social science research, 2) a broad willingness of the public to accept what they read, 3) uneducated or biased journalism, and 3) an appeal to (and acceptance of) authority.
I’ve typed this before on here. The US doesn’t have a high suicide rate compared to other countries with or without gun restrictions. Japan leads the way with a ridiculously high suicide rate and guns are banned. Just like gun violence it’s not the gun it’s other factors.
Out of five people I know that attempted suicide four were “successful” if that’s what you call it. Only one out of the five used a gun. One tried three times before the person “got it right.” If there is a will there is a way. Get rid of the will!
These people just want to treat the symptom not the disease. The people are still miserable, depressed and suicidal. They just won’t have a gun. Which is still a good thing. It’s hard to argue that a suicidal person should be able to optain a gun, Tylenol, car, rope or a razed blade for that matter.
I’ve said this before: the disingenuous way that grabbers deal with suicide and guns is pretty much proof positive that they don’t give a shit about the life. They only care about the method used to take it.
Personally their obvious level of disinterest in the life while simultaneously claiming they want to save it by getting rid of guns just makes me sick.
I don’t think you could pick a more disgusting way to wave the bloody shirt.
I think people that believe in a gun ban should put their name on a secret list and they will never be able to purchase a gun or use armed security just police. Make these people follow through with what they say.
The suicide rate in gunless South Korea is about 2 1/2 times the US murder rate and suicide rate COMBINED.
Step off buddy, we’re clearly not into it. Making your stupidity ‘optional’ (with a very clearly implied ‘for now’) changes nothing. I swear these fools are just like rapists “I’ll start out forcing you, but you’ll learn to like it”
Maybe the good professor can take his gem of an idea over to Ben & Jerry’s and DQ, that way the tubbies could put themselves on a “Do not sell list” ?
This is great. I’ve been telling people not to buy Kimbers for years and now they have their own press release about it.
If people want to give up their rights without affecting mine, I’m okay with that.
But I’ve had two friends who offed themselves. One jumped off a high building, and the other hung himself with a wire. Perhaps there should be a “no elevator” list and a “no wire” list, just to be safe.
My life sucks, I can’t take it anymore, they’ll miss me when I’m gone. Oh, wait, I don’t have a gun. Drats. Oh well, I guess I’ll just go back to work and put this idea behind me.
Said no suicidal person. Ever.
“If I’m reading this right,”
you did not. as it says, a judicial hearing is required in the second option to GET OFF THE LIST. so a hearing is required to get your gun rights BACK. either way they VOLUNTARILY give up their gun rights. you are the one championing for choice, and this is their choice. even if you don’t like it, that’s still THEIR right and freedom.
So, someone who feels at risk of suicide can sign on to a list for support, people checking in, counseling, and some tangible help with whatever would make their life better: a job, addiction control, pain management, less isolation, or similar.
Every time they interact with the administrative state, they’d be flagged n get some assistance: D M V, tax office, doctor, cops, social.workers, etc.
That seems kinda creepy, but the impulse to help solve their problems is admirable.
Wait, what? None of that? Just ban them from buying a gun for a while?
Nevermind.
Another way the F**king Government can F88k the Veterans, as being trained killers and all, most have PTSD and or TBI or other trauma’s that would automatically them from ever owing guns, I’ll bet violence with guns by veterans is a hell of a lot less than those in Chicago!
As for Judicial Hearing, ask a Vet the possibility of that happening! besides the Justice department is bought and sold by the Democrats, Our laughing stock of America sell outs, The Federal baby Incinerators are just that, pawns of the Democrats! ATF illegally sell guns then confiscates yours, the BLM steals your land and kills protesters under color of law an now you got an anus head advocating something who has no standing {nothing to lose}
It is amazing the same groups that are against gun suicide support government aided suicide.
In other words, it is wrong that someone can kill himself with his own gun, but if the government provides the poison, it is A-OK.
Why is it my business if you want to off yourself? I’m not a busybody who wants to impose my world order on anyone.
Suicide might be a rational response to an impossible, painful situation. Who am I to interfere?
In my life time I have known 3 people directly who committed suicide. The world did not come to an end.
There is apparently no limit to the number of straws these poor folks will grasp at.
Tom
I need to know, did you even read the study? “If I’m reading this right, Professor Vars’ study asks his suicidal survey takers to assume they’re going to lose their gun rights. Their choice: surrender your right to keep and bear arms “voluntarily” or face a judge and lose it involuntarily. Presumably, permanently.” This is not at all what the survey in the study asked. So, to answer your question, NO you are not reading this right. I read the study myself and participants were asked if they would put their names on a voluntary no sell list, and if so, which option would they choose. You are not only misreading but misrepresenting. The motto in my house is “Honesty above all else. ” I recommend it to you.
Comments are closed.