4 ms·

An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingert

An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingertips. It will be interesting to see how the public debate handles that fact, as currently they are considered gun deaths (bad) rather than morally necessary access to assisted death (in the near future, good?).

polski-g 4y ago
Every country has bridges people can jump off.
- NeutralForest 4y ago
  There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. Which is mostly a good thing, as it leaves some room for relenting. > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. There's a difference between being able to go as you wish, and being able to go as an impulse you can't take back.
    - NeutralForest 4y ago
      Agreed and if people are able to reach out when they want to end it, it'll help us provide a structure to point people at either mental health resources or genuine end of life care; depending on the situation.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. Your right to "go how you wish" ends when it impacts others. For example, if you jump off a building there's a good chance you could kill a person you land on. Then there's emotional trama. If you feed yourself to the lions at the zoo, you've harmed the onlookers and likely given people/children PTSD.
    - NeutralForest 4y ago
      Not remotely the point I was making.
ajross 4y ago
You really don't think there's a moral distinction to be made between supervised and regulated use of drugs to end terminal suffering and just grabbing a gun and blowing out the back of your skull? No one anywhere thinks that end of life care should be a spur of the moment decision by the sufferer. Basically, yeah, gun suicides are bad, and they'll remain bad even given the existence of an "assisted dying" program.
- inkblotuniverse 4y ago
  I would rather shoot myself or jump off a bridge than have some bored nurse kill me in the cleanest, most cost-efficient way possible.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    The bored nurse death doesn't result in emotional trauma for some random kid that finds your rotting corpse.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  I think that individuals have a right to end their own life. Often doing so is a selfish act that hurts the people closest to them, but it's their life, their body, and their choice. Also, jurisdictions are increasingly allowing assisted death in non-terminal cases. For example, Canada is poised to expand its assisted death program to individuals with mental illness. That is effectively carte blanche for anyone to access assisted dying.
  - ajross 4y ago
    > That is effectively carte blanche for anyone to access assisted dying. But not by just getting drunk one evening and deciding to end it all! I have to repeat the question: you really don't think there's a moral distinction to be made here?
    - pseudo0 4y ago
      It's a bad idea to make any significant decision while drunk. If someone has suicidal ideation and does not want to act on those thoughts while inebriated, then they should choose to either not become inebriated, or not have firearms easily accessible. Both of those factors are within their control.
xyzzy_plugh 4y ago
This is an incredibly grotesque take. Yes, I'm sure we'll see growth in self-inflicted, fatal gunshot wounds, administered while surrounded by their loved ones. There is no such thing as a good gun death.
- cogman10 4y ago
  There are way better alternatives available. We can do way better as a society. The issue with guns and quick access to death is suicide can often be impulsive. Something hits wrong, a traumatic event happens, or just a temporary depression. All of those can lead to death by suicide that wouldn't have otherwise happen. There needs to be nuance. I fully support someone's right to die by suicide, but I also support a waiting period with plenty of "opt out" opportunities. It also does not have to be cruel or painful. We have a painless methods for someone to die.
masklinn 4y ago
> An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingertips. Even if we take "you can impulsively shoot yourself at a moment's notice" as a good thing (I don't think it is), none of that is correct: 1. Any gun will do, and france (and more generally europe) has extensive allowance for hunting and sports shooting, both of which can easily be used to try to kill yourself. 2. Try being an important word here, fucking up a gun suicide attempt is a common occurrence and can leave you extensively maimed and debilitated (e.g. gun pointed too high, recoil moves the gun and blows up your entire face leaving you alive, gun pointed too low, bullet hits the palate or misses the skull entirely and hits the spine, ...) 3. Whether successful or not, finding a gun-suicide is one of the worst discoveries you can make, to say nothing of the cleanup (mostly in case of success). While a gun is not the worst suicide method by a mile (train, car, or cop involve and endanger other people), it's still a shitty one.
- Ao7bei3s 4y ago
  I'm in all in favor of strict gun laws, but your arguments aren't entirely correct. That "side effect" is is not because of impulse buying and getting guns on short notice. In fact, there's a mandatory waiting period in 1/5th of US states (10 days in California) specifically to prevent that situation, which seems like a _very_ good idea to me. It's about a) getting them without learning a large amount of material (not everyone memorizes things as easily as engineers), and b) without approval buy someone who might actually object. To get a gun in France, you need a hunting/sports license. The hunting license requires a 1-day theoretical and practical exam, as well as a medical exam that is specifically meant to verify if the physical and mental health is compatible with the stated purpose of the purchase. Whereas in the US, you need at most a trivial knowledge test (firearms safety certificate, with questions like in which direction to point the gun. possible answers: safest possible direction, up, down, north (!) [1]) to buy a firearm (hunter's safety education is only required to purchase a hunting license, not a gun). And regarding your third point, sure, but the solution to that is to provide a better, legal, safe and professionally supervised pathway. Anything else makes as much sense as writing a law that bans cancer. [1] https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms...
irjustin 4y ago
> It will be interesting to see how the public debate handles that fact The majority of those who severely defend the 2nd amendment are conservative and thusly - it won't be handled. It's as you state, morally bad, to take ones own life. That's the perception/belief setting idea for conservatives and the actual thing you're going against. Reality/facts actually have a very difficult time changing people's beliefs as we've seen with COVID, drugs, etc.
- aliasxneo 4y ago
  > The majority of those who severely defend the 2nd amendment are conservative and thusly - it won't be handled. What does this mean? Just trying to understand the assumption being made about me.
  - watwut 4y ago
    Conservative people are against this and have suicide heavily tabooised.
- watwut 4y ago
  Why is taking own life morally bad? I don't think so, genuinely.
  - chrisbaker98 4y ago
    Your death affects other people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
saiya-jin 4y ago
There is a world of difference between pressing a button that launches some complex machinery that will at the end oversedate you so you die in sleep, and outright gruesome suicide for which there are many options everywhere, no need to drag gun politics into this. Also its usually the closest people like husband, father or brother who usually find the corpse... what an assholish act. Yet for some reason most folks would be fine with former and strongly reject the latter, maybe due to religious dogmas around suicide. Anyway this way out of topic, most folks going through this in ie Switzerland would be barely able to hold the gun properly. Its much more about dying with dignity (which gun has 0) and ending it all with power over one's fate, instead of misery dragging out for months and years, of which elderly homes are choke full.
throwaway120219 4y ago
Guns are /not/ an extremely effective suicide method. The mortality rate of a gunshot wound to the head is only 90%. This leaves around a 1 in 10 chance of surviving with injuries that will make the remainder of one’s life far more miserable than it was prior to the attempt. I would encourage anyone who is interested to review medical literature on the subject. Even a shotgun wound to the head is survivable if the weapon is not suitably oriented. In the least fortunate cases, both of the eyes, nose, and/or jaw may be removed, along with the rest of the face, without resulting in death. It is not without reason that qualifying individuals are willing to pay aid societies in Switzerland thousands of US dollars for assistance in ending their lives. The required lethal dose of barbiturates is incredibly difficult to obtain legally.
- pseudo0 4y ago
  Extremely effective relative to the other methods available, at least according to the studies that I have seen. Perhaps in the near future, firearm suicides will be considered along the same lines as back-alley abortions, a barbaric practice made necessary by our denial of a basic human right.
captainoats 4y ago
Lots of peoples reaction to this is that suicide is always bad when done by firearm because it’s gruesome or frightening to them. I would ask that these people introspect and ask if their own emotions and biases are leading them to this conclusion. If the goal here is to let people live and die on their own terms, then this seems like a particularly hypocritical take. I think to many, suicide by gun is favorable as more immediate, private, and time and place are entirely within your own control.
- bhaak 4y ago
  Using a gun for ending your life is like using a rock to get a bad tooth out. It might work but chances are hight that you might not like the result. There's a reason professional medical assistance is needed. Human bodies are pretty resilient and as an amateur you often have no experience in the matter. Professional do.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    TBF some methods are quite clean and very reliable. The professional medical bit would mostly be to ensure proper oversight, proper handling of the remains, and allow the service to be provided to people physically incapable of doing so on their own.
    - bhaak 4y ago
      Examples for being clean and reliable methods? I have a hard time coming up with examples, as after all the body has to be disposed off eventually. The sooner the better. You don't want the body to stay undetected for any period of time. Or the simple fact many people don't know that most just deceased people release some poop and pee.
      - masklinn 4y ago
        > Examples for being clean and reliable methods? Neutral gas asphyxiation (“exit bags”). It’s possible to screw up but fairly limited, I think the only real risk is getting found too soon. That aside it’s reportedly a really calm way to go. > I have a hard time coming up with examples, as after all the body has to be disposed off eventually. Oh yes unless you throw yourself in a volcano that’s always going to be an issue. It’s mostly the other bits which the method has an impact on. Well I guess an other option is a diving suicide, but that requires a lot of planning and certifications so seems unlikely to be worth.

polski-g 4y ago

Every country has bridges people can jump off.

NeutralForest 4y ago
There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > There's a big leap between knowing that and actually doing it. Which is mostly a good thing, as it leaves some room for relenting. > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. There's a difference between being able to go as you wish, and being able to go as an impulse you can't take back.
  - NeutralForest 4y ago
    Agreed and if people are able to reach out when they want to end it, it'll help us provide a structure to point people at either mental health resources or genuine end of life care; depending on the situation.
- cogman10 4y ago
  > People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy. Your right to "go how you wish" ends when it impacts others. For example, if you jump off a building there's a good chance you could kill a person you land on. Then there's emotional trama. If you feed yourself to the lions at the zoo, you've harmed the onlookers and likely given people/children PTSD.
  - NeutralForest 4y ago
    Not remotely the point I was making.

ajross 4y ago

You really don't think there's a moral distinction to be made between supervised and regulated use of drugs to end terminal suffering and just grabbing a gun and blowing out the back of your skull? No one anywhere thinks that end of life care should be a spur of the moment decision by the sufferer. Basically, yeah, gun suicides are bad, and they'll remain bad even given the existence of an "assisted dying" program.

inkblotuniverse 4y ago
I would rather shoot myself or jump off a bridge than have some bored nurse kill me in the cleanest, most cost-efficient way possible.
- cogman10 4y ago
  The bored nurse death doesn't result in emotional trauma for some random kid that finds your rotting corpse.
pseudo0 4y ago
I think that individuals have a right to end their own life. Often doing so is a selfish act that hurts the people closest to them, but it's their life, their body, and their choice. Also, jurisdictions are increasingly allowing assisted death in non-terminal cases. For example, Canada is poised to expand its assisted death program to individuals with mental illness. That is effectively carte blanche for anyone to access assisted dying.
- ajross 4y ago
  > That is effectively carte blanche for anyone to access assisted dying. But not by just getting drunk one evening and deciding to end it all! I have to repeat the question: you really don't think there's a moral distinction to be made here?
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    It's a bad idea to make any significant decision while drunk. If someone has suicidal ideation and does not want to act on those thoughts while inebriated, then they should choose to either not become inebriated, or not have firearms easily accessible. Both of those factors are within their control.

xyzzy_plugh 4y ago

This is an incredibly grotesque take. Yes, I'm sure we'll see growth in self-inflicted, fatal gunshot wounds, administered while surrounded by their loved ones. There is no such thing as a good gun death.

cogman10 4y ago
There are way better alternatives available. We can do way better as a society. The issue with guns and quick access to death is suicide can often be impulsive. Something hits wrong, a traumatic event happens, or just a temporary depression. All of those can lead to death by suicide that wouldn't have otherwise happen. There needs to be nuance. I fully support someone's right to die by suicide, but I also support a waiting period with plenty of "opt out" opportunities. It also does not have to be cruel or painful. We have a painless methods for someone to die.

masklinn 4y ago

> An underappreciated side effect of the second amendment is that an awful lot of Americans have an extremely effective means of "assisted dying" at their fingertips. Even if we take "you can impulsively shoot yourself at a moment's notice" as a good thing (I don't think it is), none of that is correct: 1. Any gun will do, and france (and more generally europe) has extensive allowance for hunting and sports shooting, both of which can easily be used to try to kill yourself. 2. Try being an important word here, fucking up a gun suicide attempt is a common occurrence and can leave you extensively maimed and debilitated (e.g. gun pointed too high, recoil moves the gun and blows up your entire face leaving you alive, gun pointed too low, bullet hits the palate or misses the skull entirely and hits the spine, ...) 3. Whether successful or not, finding a gun-suicide is one of the worst discoveries you can make, to say nothing of the cleanup (mostly in case of success). While a gun is not the worst suicide method by a mile (train, car, or cop involve and endanger other people), it's still a shitty one.

Ao7bei3s 4y ago
I'm in all in favor of strict gun laws, but your arguments aren't entirely correct. That "side effect" is is not because of impulse buying and getting guns on short notice. In fact, there's a mandatory waiting period in 1/5th of US states (10 days in California) specifically to prevent that situation, which seems like a _very_ good idea to me. It's about a) getting them without learning a large amount of material (not everyone memorizes things as easily as engineers), and b) without approval buy someone who might actually object. To get a gun in France, you need a hunting/sports license. The hunting license requires a 1-day theoretical and practical exam, as well as a medical exam that is specifically meant to verify if the physical and mental health is compatible with the stated purpose of the purchase. Whereas in the US, you need at most a trivial knowledge test (firearms safety certificate, with questions like in which direction to point the gun. possible answers: safest possible direction, up, down, north (!) [1]) to buy a firearm (hunter's safety education is only required to purchase a hunting license, not a gun). And regarding your third point, sure, but the solution to that is to provide a better, legal, safe and professionally supervised pathway. Anything else makes as much sense as writing a law that bans cancer. [1] https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms...

irjustin 4y ago

> It will be interesting to see how the public debate handles that fact The majority of those who severely defend the 2nd amendment are conservative and thusly - it won't be handled. It's as you state, morally bad, to take ones own life. That's the perception/belief setting idea for conservatives and the actual thing you're going against. Reality/facts actually have a very difficult time changing people's beliefs as we've seen with COVID, drugs, etc.

aliasxneo 4y ago
> The majority of those who severely defend the 2nd amendment are conservative and thusly - it won't be handled. What does this mean? Just trying to understand the assumption being made about me.
- watwut 4y ago
  Conservative people are against this and have suicide heavily tabooised.
watwut 4y ago
Why is taking own life morally bad? I don't think so, genuinely.
- chrisbaker98 4y ago
  Your death affects other people.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

saiya-jin 4y ago

There is a world of difference between pressing a button that launches some complex machinery that will at the end oversedate you so you die in sleep, and outright gruesome suicide for which there are many options everywhere, no need to drag gun politics into this. Also its usually the closest people like husband, father or brother who usually find the corpse... what an assholish act. Yet for some reason most folks would be fine with former and strongly reject the latter, maybe due to religious dogmas around suicide. Anyway this way out of topic, most folks going through this in ie Switzerland would be barely able to hold the gun properly. Its much more about dying with dignity (which gun has 0) and ending it all with power over one's fate, instead of misery dragging out for months and years, of which elderly homes are choke full.

throwaway120219 4y ago

Guns are /not/ an extremely effective suicide method. The mortality rate of a gunshot wound to the head is only 90%. This leaves around a 1 in 10 chance of surviving with injuries that will make the remainder of one’s life far more miserable than it was prior to the attempt. I would encourage anyone who is interested to review medical literature on the subject. Even a shotgun wound to the head is survivable if the weapon is not suitably oriented. In the least fortunate cases, both of the eyes, nose, and/or jaw may be removed, along with the rest of the face, without resulting in death. It is not without reason that qualifying individuals are willing to pay aid societies in Switzerland thousands of US dollars for assistance in ending their lives. The required lethal dose of barbiturates is incredibly difficult to obtain legally.

pseudo0 4y ago
Extremely effective relative to the other methods available, at least according to the studies that I have seen. Perhaps in the near future, firearm suicides will be considered along the same lines as back-alley abortions, a barbaric practice made necessary by our denial of a basic human right.

captainoats 4y ago

Lots of peoples reaction to this is that suicide is always bad when done by firearm because it’s gruesome or frightening to them. I would ask that these people introspect and ask if their own emotions and biases are leading them to this conclusion. If the goal here is to let people live and die on their own terms, then this seems like a particularly hypocritical take. I think to many, suicide by gun is favorable as more immediate, private, and time and place are entirely within your own control.

bhaak 4y ago
Using a gun for ending your life is like using a rock to get a bad tooth out. It might work but chances are hight that you might not like the result. There's a reason professional medical assistance is needed. Human bodies are pretty resilient and as an amateur you often have no experience in the matter. Professional do.
- masklinn 4y ago
  TBF some methods are quite clean and very reliable. The professional medical bit would mostly be to ensure proper oversight, proper handling of the remains, and allow the service to be provided to people physically incapable of doing so on their own.
  - bhaak 4y ago
    Examples for being clean and reliable methods? I have a hard time coming up with examples, as after all the body has to be disposed off eventually. The sooner the better. You don't want the body to stay undetected for any period of time. Or the simple fact many people don't know that most just deceased people release some poop and pee.
    - masklinn 4y ago
      > Examples for being clean and reliable methods? Neutral gas asphyxiation (“exit bags”). It’s possible to screw up but fairly limited, I think the only real risk is getting found too soon. That aside it’s reportedly a really calm way to go. > I have a hard time coming up with examples, as after all the body has to be disposed off eventually. Oh yes unless you throw yourself in a volcano that’s always going to be an issue. It’s mostly the other bits which the method has an impact on. Well I guess an other option is a diving suicide, but that requires a lot of planning and certifications so seems unlikely to be worth.