4 ms·

That's how California operates already. Defenseless population who aren't allowed to defend themselves, skyrocketing crime, and police who are borderline worthl

That's how California operates already. Defenseless population who aren't allowed to defend themselves, skyrocketing crime, and police who are borderline worthless.

spaceribs 3y ago
It seems urban centers are significantly safer than rural counties, by about 37%: https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely-small-towns-big-cities https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely...
- chung8123 3y ago
  "Over that same period, the most rural county type had a 54% higher gun suicide death rate and a 50% lower gun homicide death rate compared with the most urban counties." I am not sure I am reading the data the same way as you. To me this shows urban areas have a much higher homicide rate which would be more associated with safety.
  - spaceribs 3y ago
    you don't think self harm and suicide is just as bad, if not worse, from a safety perspective?
    - FatCat1978 3y ago
      Yes. Suicide doesn't infringe on other people's rights, and in fact, everyone should have the right to it, like you see in actually free countries like Canada. Using suicide as a safety metric is both misleading and generally in bad faith - it's usually a far better representation of mental health (generally loneliness/depression) or overall quality of life.
      - spaceribs 3y ago
        Agreed that the overall quality of life is lower in rural counties which is leading to a mental health crisis, and agreed on the right to suicide. This amount of suicides from people who I assume are mostly able bodied and otherwise healthy though by gun indicates a few things to me though: 1. Guns are an extremely effective and fast method of suicide. 2. Sudden depression or psychosis could happen to anyone. 3. A mental state can be and usually is transitory or treatable. I think my belief from the above is that this is a safety issue in terms of the immediacy of the act, rather than the act itself. Taking pills, jumping from a bridge, asphyxiation all take time and planning. All you need is one gun in your house for self-defense bought years ago or inherited/borrowed from a close associate, or even for hunting, and there's nothing our societal safety net or your future self can provide for protection from your present self. I have a friend who was admitted to the hospital for medically induced psychosis (a known side effect of the medication prescribed by his doctor), it scares me to think that anyone trusts that their brain chemistry and state is this solid and unwavering foundation of sanity, that's simply not always the case.
        FatCat1978 3y ago
        > nothing our societal safety net or your future self can provide for protection from your present self. That's generally the case of rural living as a whole. Internet? fat chance before starlink. have fun with dialup or horrendous phone. This alone limits your financial flexibility greatly. Thank god Starlink exists now. Have a heart attack? Have fun being dead or getting over it on your own by the time an ambulance shows up! Ditto for pretty much anything. House fire? tough tits, the fire department will show up an hour later to make sure there's no embers. Legislation? Unless your state/province is mostly rural (which it pretty much never is), Urbanites are the golden goose. 90% of legislation is made with them in mind. This has lead rural communities to be entirely self reliant, for good reason. they don't have society to rely on. They, more than pretty much any urbanite, have actual reason to have guns. Taking them away isn't going to change the fact that nobody gives a shit about them on a systemic level lol, and if anything will probably make them resent urbanites more for taking their shit away.
    - chung8123 3y ago
      I don't. I am not in danger of suicide killing me.

That's how California operates already. Defenseless population who aren't allowed to defend themselves, skyrocketing crime, and police who are borderline worthless.

spaceribs 3y ago

It seems urban centers are significantly safer than rural counties, by about 37%: https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely-small-towns-big-cities https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely...

chung8123 3y ago
"Over that same period, the most rural county type had a 54% higher gun suicide death rate and a 50% lower gun homicide death rate compared with the most urban counties." I am not sure I am reading the data the same way as you. To me this shows urban areas have a much higher homicide rate which would be more associated with safety.
- spaceribs 3y ago
  you don't think self harm and suicide is just as bad, if not worse, from a safety perspective?
  - FatCat1978 3y ago
    Yes. Suicide doesn't infringe on other people's rights, and in fact, everyone should have the right to it, like you see in actually free countries like Canada. Using suicide as a safety metric is both misleading and generally in bad faith - it's usually a far better representation of mental health (generally loneliness/depression) or overall quality of life.
    - spaceribs 3y ago
      Agreed that the overall quality of life is lower in rural counties which is leading to a mental health crisis, and agreed on the right to suicide. This amount of suicides from people who I assume are mostly able bodied and otherwise healthy though by gun indicates a few things to me though: 1. Guns are an extremely effective and fast method of suicide. 2. Sudden depression or psychosis could happen to anyone. 3. A mental state can be and usually is transitory or treatable. I think my belief from the above is that this is a safety issue in terms of the immediacy of the act, rather than the act itself. Taking pills, jumping from a bridge, asphyxiation all take time and planning. All you need is one gun in your house for self-defense bought years ago or inherited/borrowed from a close associate, or even for hunting, and there's nothing our societal safety net or your future self can provide for protection from your present self. I have a friend who was admitted to the hospital for medically induced psychosis (a known side effect of the medication prescribed by his doctor), it scares me to think that anyone trusts that their brain chemistry and state is this solid and unwavering foundation of sanity, that's simply not always the case.
      - FatCat1978 3y ago
        > nothing our societal safety net or your future self can provide for protection from your present self. That's generally the case of rural living as a whole. Internet? fat chance before starlink. have fun with dialup or horrendous phone. This alone limits your financial flexibility greatly. Thank god Starlink exists now. Have a heart attack? Have fun being dead or getting over it on your own by the time an ambulance shows up! Ditto for pretty much anything. House fire? tough tits, the fire department will show up an hour later to make sure there's no embers. Legislation? Unless your state/province is mostly rural (which it pretty much never is), Urbanites are the golden goose. 90% of legislation is made with them in mind. This has lead rural communities to be entirely self reliant, for good reason. they don't have society to rely on. They, more than pretty much any urbanite, have actual reason to have guns. Taking them away isn't going to change the fact that nobody gives a shit about them on a systemic level lol, and if anything will probably make them resent urbanites more for taking their shit away.
  - chung8123 3y ago
    I don't. I am not in danger of suicide killing me.