Here's one with more to come tonight. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423192/gun-control-suicide-rates-ezra-klein And yes, reducing suicides is something we should be working on...which makes all this money and time wasted on gun control so maddening. If you truly care about reducing suicides, we should be focusing our efforts on improving economic opportunities, being better parents, and investing in mental health.
You're aware that the background check process already has access to some mental health data right? It's inconsistent because it's optional for states to contribute to the database. Some states (California?) are going so far as to have processes for confiscating any weapons from people who have been committed for mental health reasons.
We should do all that and limit access to guns for those individuals. Are the other elements more important? Absolutely.
That Ezra Klein article is pretty thin especially when 2 of the 4 examples have cultural norms regarding suicide that he himself points out. Suicides in Japan and South Korea are expected in some instances where failure impacts large amounts of people.
Husker, I should have just sent you here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Since the US has the most guns per 100 people in the world, there are at least 49 countries with a higher suicide rate than the US. And suicides in a lot of countries are heavily underreported. Again, you're just reinforcing that other factors are the main drivers in suicides.
Yes, I am aware of that but very few (actually a negligible percentage) people fail the background check for mental health reasons. So the question still remains, how do you propose to expand background checks to help reduce suicides?
By what? Reducing the amount of guns? France, Iceland, Belgium, Finland, Japan, Russia, South Korea with a higher rate and Austria, Sweden, Ireland, Australia, Canada who have ballpark suicide rates and still with much fewer guns per capita or even no guns... Given those examples, reducing guns would likely increase the suicide lethality rate as you reduce the options to more effective methods.
Right now generally speaking we can't get people who are mentally ill and prone to violence help they do not want. We can't force them to take meds. We can not force them, for the most part, into secure hospitals. Spending more on mental health sounds great. But how and where would this money be spent? Is anyone in favor of enforced hospitalization?
Pretty interesting stats - France with its strict gun control laws has a higher suicide rate than the US. And Australia where guns have been confiscated has only a 12% lower suicide rate than the US. Not seeing much correlation between guns and suicide rates.
I would argue that the reason for that is the mental health information is very incomplete. Many state laws prohibit the sharing of this data. Nothing the Obama admin can do about the state laws. To be fully transparent, I see background checks having only a nominal impact on suicide rates. Universal background checks are simply a good business process no different than requiring drivers licenses. Over time, I think the gun safety technology that the NRA fights so vociferously would have an impact on suicide and gun crime rates.
Preventive efforts. Education for parents. Maybe pharmaceutical r&d for those that are under treatment.
What is your basis given that countries with much fewer guns per capita such as France and Australia have similar suicide rates as the US?
Internet memes are usually worthless waste of bits in the ether. But this one...this one was was created by King Solomon.
Beto couldn't get elected as a dog catcher in Texas anymore thanks to his gun grabbing rhetoric and all the other extreme left-wing positions he's taken. He's going to have to live off the spouse's inheritance the rest of his life.
The people who already voted for him would let the gun thing bother them that much? Seriously, even the dolts who voted for him must realize that is all just campaign rhetoric. No one can actually believe he would have the ability to make it happen, right? They'd vote for him based on his other loony policies and ignore this is my guess.
But they love the thought of guns being taken away, too. Well, national media, so I get your point there. Whomever they fellate is who Dems vote for.
I have to think there are many Texas Democrats that wouldn't vote for O'Rourke due to the claims of confiscating guns. There are progressive loonies that would love that but I doubt more than half of Texas Democrats are for that.
That was his Hail Mary. He's done as a politician. No future on the national level. No way in heck he'll ever be elected from any district except the most blue of blue in Texas.
He's probably hoping to get an appointment in a Democratic administration or a position with a special interest group or media outlet. If he wants to run for anything again, his old seat is probably out of the question. His successor is fairly young (50 years old) and Hispanic. The state senate seat is held by a 71 year old. He could retire at some point, which could give Beta a chance. However, you can't really do that as a full time gig. The legislature has a generous retirement and health plan, but it only pays $600 per month. The bottom line is that Beta better hope his wife (who's rich) doesn't dump his ***. If she does, he might have to restart his rock band.
His family has some money too,not as much as his father in law . He can always go back to the city council and make deals for cash and evict illegals. Beto O'Rourke Named 'AR-15 Salesman of the Year' by NRA Democratic presidential candidate and gun control activist Beto O'Rourke is the "national AR-15 salesman of the year," according to the National Rifle Association (NRA).