The NRA Are A Bunch of ****ing ****, Eh?

[Yaya]

http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-boy-shoots- ... 29579.html

Likely, the parents of these children were NRA activists.

Sadly, probably still are. Yes, it runs that deep.

[Professor Smooth]

I see absolutely nothing in that article to suggest they are even NRA *members* let alone activists.

[Yaya]

You're right, we have no indication they are NRA activists. Just incredibly, utterly irresponsible parents who keep their guns in the corner of rooms like they are broomsticks whilst their children play around unsupervised.

[Professor Smooth]

Yeah, but assuming people are members of a group you dislike leads nowhere good.

[Yaya]

This is true. Their irresponsible behavior and the nonchalant way they treat guns makes me wonder, however.

[Professor Smooth]

This is true. Their irresponsible behavior and the nonchalant way they treat guns makes me wonder, however.

You're doing it again.

[Yaya]

Can we settle on "irresponsible" then?

[bumblemusprime]

Even populations that tend to lean left, like Native Americans, can have a deep-rooted tradition of gun use because hunting is a strong traditional activity among families, and a valued source of food. More justifiably humane, too--wouldn't you rather kill an elk that lived out its days enjoying nature than a cow that went from pen to small pasture and back again?

It doesn't accomplish anything to paint the other side as part of a blanket interest. The NRA is a business activist group. Gun owners each have their own reasons for owning and using the things. The battle is in convincing those owners that they should be willing to put up with additional restrictions to weed out the irresponsible.

[Kaylee]

I find the whole issue with you Americans and guns really hard to understand. Why would anyone want to own an automatic rifle or handgun? Hunting guns I can sort of see as useful. Without a doubt I'm betraying a vast ignorance of your society, but why wouldn't you make most guns illegal for civilians and even most police?

[Professor Smooth]

I find the whole issue with you Americans and guns really hard to understand. Why would anyone want to own an automatic rifle or handgun? Hunting guns I can sort of see as useful. Without a doubt I'm betraying a vast ignorance of your society, but why wouldn't you make most guns illegal for civilians and even most police?

Some want powerful guns for the same reason I want a shelf full of toy robots and a drawer full of imported chocolates. Personal taste.

Others want them for hunting or sport. You might say that a high powered weapon isn't very sporting, but I know some hunters who think a *knife* is overkill.

Personal/home defense is a big reason people give for wanting to own firearms.

Finally, some people feel the need to own as many guns as they feel it would take to stand up to the government in case that government ever turns on its people.

Additionally, gun manufacturers have a financial interest in being able sell as many kinds of guns and ammo to as many people as possible.

[Professor Smooth]

I find the whole issue with you Americans and guns really hard to understand. Why would anyone want to own an automatic rifle or handgun? Hunting guns I can sort of see as useful. Without a doubt I'm betraying a vast ignorance of your society, but why wouldn't you make most guns illegal for civilians and even most police?

I'm now going to tear apart everything I wrote above.

Some want powerful guns for the same reason I want a shelf full of toy robots and a drawer full of imported chocolates. Personal taste.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who would like to keep a white tiger in their apartments, but obviously that's not allowed without a certain amount of red tape. Ditto, I can think of more than a few people who would like to convert one (or more) rooms in their abode into a meth lab, but that's generally frowned upon in the eyes of the law. Even keeping it in the "weaponry" category, I somehow doubt that law enforcement officials would be alright with anybody (citizen or not) constructing a nuclear or chemical bomb on their own property.

Heck, I think there are more than a few governments who won't let OTHER GOVERNMENTS use, store, own, produce, or even *attempt* to produce such weapons.

Others want them for hunting or sport. You might say that a high powered weapon isn't very sporting, but I know some hunters who think a *knife* is overkill.

I'm of the mind that hunting should entail at least a bit of risk for the hunter. Otherwise, what's the point? Hunting a deer with a high powered rifle isn't sporting. It'd be like playing dodge ball against elementary school students with a medicine ball. Or, again, keeping it in the category of firearms, using live ammo in a paint ball match.

Personal/home defense is a big reason people give for wanting to own firearms.

This one looks great on paper. If somebody breaks into your home, or tries to rob your family, Batman style, on the street, having a gun seems like a good way to defend yourself and your loved ones.

Except for every instance of somebody warding off a burglar, something like forty other people shoot their spouses and/or children. Worried about home defense? Get a can of mace. Or a stun gun. Or something that shoots non-lethal rounds. Something that, should it wind up being used, accidentally, against the wrong person, it's not a mistake that can't be fixed with an ice pack and some bandages.

Finally, some people feel the need to own as many guns as they feel it would take to stand up to the government in case that government ever turns on its people.

Which, as I've said before, is absurd. I get it. I get how it looks on paper. "If the government ever goes all Nazi Germany on us, we need to be able to defend ourselves." But that ship has sailed. Once the US government put together the most powerful military the world has ever known, your chances of defending yourself against that force dropped to zero.

And I still want to know how this ideal plays out from start to finish.

Obama: Round up all the Seventh Day Adventists of Hispanic and/or Asian heritage and put them in labor camps...for now!

*Knock, Knock*

Jackbooted Thug: Hi. We're here to take you and your family to a camp where you'll perform forced labor until you die from exhaustion. Get a move on, please.

Patriot: I think not! You see...I have a gun!

Jackbooted Thug: Oh my! He's got a gun! I guess we'll just be moving along. Have a nice day, sir! Our best to your family.

No. Not gonna happen. And if you happen to, oh, I don't know...USE your gun to kill whoever comes after you (who won't be a jackbooted thug, but rather a cop...or military officer), then you're in all different KINDS of trouble. Let's look at scenario B.

Cop: Sir. We understand that you have firearms in this home. Under the new laws, we have come to confiscate them. You will be compensated for their full value.

Sir: *shoots cop*

*20 minutes later an entire SWAT team takes out the cop-killer.*

There is literally no way that you could use civilian weaponry against the (armed in ways most can't even conceive of) US government.

But what you CAN do is hold on to weapons that have no use beyond "being cool" and wait until, inevitably, a small number of people use them to commit unspeakable crimes. Yes, for every mentally unbalanced shooter or terrorist with an axe to grind, there are thousands of responsible gun owners.

But, you know what? For every idiot who'd try to use one to hold up a 7-11, there's about 100,000 kids who would just play with their Megatron toy at home. And THOSE aren't legal to sell in the US.

I have to give ID to buy Sudafed because somebody MIGHT use it to make meth. But I can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a working rifle specially made for a small child.

Additionally, gun manufacturers have a financial interest in being able sell as many kinds of guns and ammo to as many people as possible.

That last one is the important one. The NRA supports gun manufacturers. And much like you don't see tobacco companies lining up to stop producing items that kill people in droves, you won't see the NRA jumping at the chance to stop making products to sell to people who, for whatever reason, want them.

[Kaylee]

Very interesting- thank you for, no doubt, repeating what you've all been discussing for me in a bite-size piece makes it much clearer.

I suppose what confuses me the most is that guns have only one purpose: to kill. Sure you can use them as a threat (the threat of killing) or to maim (a final warning before killing) but basically they're about ending life. Be it human or animal. Possibly tree.

Natch cars, cigarettes, knives and other things can cause death, but they're not designed to. They're also highly regulated: in my country, you at least need ID and proof of age to acquire/use those things. Knives in public over about 3" long are banned. Cars require a written and practical test before one can drive.

What's the problem with making people show ID, pass some tests for a license and limiting the scope of the weapon? Eg the same way I couldn't just buy and drive a Sherman tank, one shouldn't be able to buy an automatic, high capacity magazine.

That way people can still own, collect and hunt with guns (and use them for self defence and/or insurgency against one's own government [?!!]) but hopefully there would be strict laws about keeping the guns locked up, ensuring everyone has the same level of knowledge and responsibility and minimising the ability of bad/ill/insane people to cause mass murder.

[Hot Shot]

What's the problem with making people show ID, pass some tests for a license and limiting the scope of the weapon?

There's nothing wrong with it, and most of the country realizes that: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... LW20130207

The only reason it's not happening is because the firearm industry is paying the NRA to pay their politicians, who are pretending to act in the interest of freedom and country.

[Computron]

An additional point that hangs over everything is the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[Legal Stuff Incoming - Disclaimer, I am not your lawyer. Yes I actually have to write that. Only licensed to practice in Illinois]

Under the U.S. Constitution, the first Ten Amendments to it are collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights. Because these amendments are explicitly written out, they are considered "enumerated" rights. (The other amendments, and those found in the original document are also enumerated, but for sake of this discussion I am only referring to the Bill of Rights)

An enumerated constitutional right means that Government cannot restrict that right without satisfying what is called strict scrutiny analysis.

Strict Scrutiny analysis states that in order for a constitutional right to be infringed upon, the Government must show 1) A Compelling State Interest at Stake, and 2) that the infringement is the least restrictive way of satisfying that interest.

An example:

The First Amendment gives U.S. Citizens almost unfettered free speech rights, especially in public or publicly funded areas. However we really don't like people protesting through our public city streets at rush hour and clogging up traffic for everyone. So in the interest of ensuring safe and clear motorways, we restrict free speech in the middle of the road (whether protest, parade or Cirque du Soleil), to certain times and usually with a permit ahead of time.

A key factor is that the Government isn't regulating the content of the speech, but rather the Time, Place and Manner of Speech.

Content based restrictions do occur, but again they have to satisfy strict scrutiny. It is rare for a content based restriction to survive. (It's why we allow hate groups to host rallies, even though they are nutballs.)

So how does this apply to guns? Well, the same level of legal rigor is applied. This means that any restriction on firearms almost assuredly will get challenged in the Courts, and the Courts will have to determine whether the restriction satisfies both prongs of the test.

The first prong is usually pretty easy to hurdle. Preventing homicide is clearly a compelling governmental interest. It's the 2nd hurdle that trips up many laws.

D.C. v. Heller pretty much settled the issue, legally speaking, that owning a firearm for self defense is allowed. This means that any law that could potentially take away a weapon has to do so as to infringe on that right in the most minimal fashion possible.

Long story short, since the aim of gun control is reduce firearm distribution, and since possession of a firearm is now sacrosanct, it is pretty difficult to restrict most "basic" firearms. (Automatic weapons and basically weapons above .50 caliber are considered "destructive" weapons and are not considered legally obtainable for private citizens, for the same reason we don't let people own TNT and Thermonuclear weapons.)

You can certainly delay the acquisition of a firearm through background checks or safety classes, but to actually stop a purchase entirely (from a non-felon that is), is almost certainly constitutionally problematic.

In short you'll never get a firearms ban in the U.S. The 2nd Amendment won't allow it. At best you can get universal background checks, safety courses and restrictions on where a gun can be brought. (No schools etc)

You may never get full licensing though. Here is the rationale. We don't have to get a license for free speech and would be pretty worried if the government had to hand out permits for ordinary free speech. Similarly we don't want licenses for firearms because again, it's an enumerated right and we don't want the government having a database of who owns what (The Anti-Dictatorship argument.) or telling us when we can use our rights. (They aren't really rights if we need permission to use them all the time.)

I don't necessarily agree with the rationale, BUT it is the relative state of the law at the moment and you have to be careful when dealing with constitutional rights. If we casually disregard the 2nd Amendment it becomes way too easy to do the same to the really important ones, like the 1st, 4th and 5th.

[bumblemusprime]

Yep. And silly, since the whole point of the original amendment was so the government wouldn't have to foot the bill for arming their own military. If you take away the enormous US imperialist military, then bands of trained citizens make sense. But that went out in 1945, if not earlier.

Hunting makes sense, though, if you think about a source of food, not simply sport. Very poor rural populations use weapons because of convenience for obtaining food. Better to put an entire elk in the deep freeze than buy a roast each week, and better to have a rifle to shoot the elk good and dead than take your chances on your family's food with a bow and arrow (also expensive to maintain and train with).

But there's nothing stopping the government from adding provisos to accomodate this population and waive fees for the background checks or create programs to track and train gun owners who plan to use their guns to obtain a food source.

[Kaylee]

>> You may never get full licensing though. Here is the rationale. We don't have to get a license for free speech and would be pretty worried if the government had to hand out permits for ordinary free speech. Similarly we don't want licenses for firearms because again, it's an enumerated right and we don't want the government having a database of who owns what (The Anti-Dictatorship argument.) or telling us when we can use our rights. (They aren't really rights if we need permission to use them all the time.)

Okay, so the legal rationale sounds like:

1. Guns are legally defined in the same breath as free speech
2. If we change that, what's to stop us changing x, y and z?

Assuming that's a fair, albeit glib, assessment on my part... Outside of legal terminology, in what way is owning a firearm anything like freedom of speech? What is the, seemingly, religious connotation attached to guns that prevents them being reclassified as a non-enumerable (sp?) right?

It was my, again ignorant, understanding that plenty of changes had been made to your constitutional documents? What's the big deal about putting freedom of speech as a separate thing to owning a metal tube filled with gunpowder and metal that kills stuff?

[Computron]

>> You may never get full licensing though. Here is the rationale. We don't have to get a license for free speech and would be pretty worried if the government had to hand out permits for ordinary free speech. Similarly we don't want licenses for firearms because again, it's an enumerated right and we don't want the government having a database of who owns what (The Anti-Dictatorship argument.) or telling us when we can use our rights. (They aren't really rights if we need permission to use them all the time.)

Okay, so the legal rationale sounds like:

1. Guns are legally defined in the same breath as free speech
2. If we change that, what's to stop us changing x, y and z?

Assuming that's a fair, albeit glib, assessment on my part... Outside of legal terminology, in what way is owning a firearm anything like freedom of speech? What is the, seemingly, religious connotation attached to guns that prevents them being reclassified as a non-enumerable (sp?) right?

It was my, again ignorant, understanding that plenty of changes had been made to your constitutional documents? What's the big deal about putting freedom of speech as a separate thing to owning a metal tube filled with gunpowder and metal that kills stuff?

An enumerated right is simply one that is explicitly stated in the Constitution. There are plenty of implied and un-enumerated rights that are also given strict scrutiny protections. (Such as the right to privacy, which covers your ability to decide what medical treatment to receive, all the way to private consensual adult activity.)

On an aside, it is important to note that the U.S. Constitution explicitly says that there are other rights not mentioned that are also important and protected. That way people don't get the idea that only things that are enumerated are rights. Otherwise we wouldn't get the right to privacy, oddly enough.

The benefit of being an enumerated right is that you automatically get strict scrutiny protection. The right to privacy that I mentioned earlier took a long time to develop. It wasn't until Griswold v. Connecticut that it really came into its own.

Thus, because the 2nd Amendment is enumerated we already have a high burden to overcome.

As to why we can't "un-enumerate" it, the answer is two-fold.

The first is the U.S. Constitution can only be amended by approval of 3/4 of the States. Thus to "legally" do away with the 2nd amendment would require the approval of 38 states, a ridiculously high burden given that the entire South will certainly vote no, which already puts you behind the curve.

The second is that giving the 2nd Amendment second class status somehow (either quasi-legally or by just ignoring it) would mean the same could be done to the other Amendments. If it is done by ignoring the 2nd, then it's no stretch of the imagination to imagine a particularly evil or vindictive judge or legislature attacking other rights. Heck it happens already. A justice of the peace in Louisiana refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, in direct contravention of the law. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 22784.html

Encouraging this behavior would not be a good thing.

If it is done via a law, but without following the constitution (i.e. the law is illegal) then the same problem happens. Why not pass a law outlawing all abortions? Patently unconstitutional, but there are plenty of people who would enforce the heck outta it. Heck people in State legislatures try to pass those laws all the time, and when they do succeed the Courts strike it down as unconstitutional precisely because it violates one of our Constitutional rights, namely the unenumerated right to privacy.

[Kaylee]

So, majority in a vote notwithstanding, nothing in the list of explicit or implicit articles in your constitution can feasibly be changed because it sets a bad precedent? I thought one of the key strengths of American democracy was its flexibility?

[Computron]

So, majority in a vote notwithstanding, nothing in the list of explicit or implicit articles in your constitution can feasibly be changed because it sets a bad precedent? I thought one of the key strengths of American democracy was its flexibility?

It depends how you change it. If you change the constitution via the amendment process all is fine. It's just very difficult to get 38 out of 50 states to agree. (In order to finally banish slavery we had to conquer the South in the Civil War and basically get them to pass those anti-slavery amendments or never become states again. Ever since the Civil War, the amendments that have passed have not tended to be very controversial.)

If you want to change it by simply ignoring the parts you don't like, then the whole thing falls apart, because at that point why have a Constitution?

The strength of the document is that because it is so elegantly simple, you can read a lot into it without having to amend it. For example, the right to privacy, while not explicitly stated, is heavily implied by the 4th Amendment protections against search and seizure. Thus the Courts interpreted the Constitution to provide these protections, and voila there they are.

Legally, and philosophically speaking, those rights were present long before they were "interpreted" but they were made enforceable once the Courts made it clear what the law was. Interpreting the Constitution is pretty much the big legal philosophy debate. (Originalists who only accept what is explicitly written vs. Living Breathing Document types who argue we should interpret the Constitution from a modern viewpoint and not necessarily through a 18th century lens.)

For the record, our Courts work the same as the U.K. system when it comes to case law, so your Courts do the same thing all the time. They just don't have a written constitution to interpret. Take any 9 British Judges and they could do the U.S. Supreme Court's work and vice versa.

[Kaylee]

Right, I see. I misunderstood by thinking you were saying that even in the event of a majority of states voting in favour, it was viewed as a poor idea to change the constitution as it would open the door to other changes, so to speak.

Why would the southern states be so against more gun control?

[Computron]

Why would the southern states be so against more gun control?

Hoo-boy, how much time do you have?

Here is the Spaceballs short version of it all. I promise I'll answer your question, but I want you to know the full context of things.

The great American divide is really between North and South. (For purposes of this comparison, the States on the Pacific Coast are considered North.)

The divide is not based only on geographical location but also on cultural and historic roots.

The North, starting in the Northeast (New York, Boston) were all settled by British Protestants, who, while certainly having their own faults, tended to have a fairly decent view of human rights. (By 17th century standards anyways. It was still terrible to be a woman, black or God help you, gay. So really it was a decent view of human rights if you were a white male.)

In addition, the region is geared towards industry rather than farming, so it promoted the growth of urban areas, technology, the whole deal. Living in close proximity to other humans tends to produce some level of tolerance.

The South, while also settled by British Protestants, were settled by the less...religious of the two groups. The North contained Quakers, Puritans and so on. The South was your standard 17th Century Christian. But more importantly the land was perfect for an agrarian lifestyle.

To work that land with 17-18th century technology required massive manpower. At first indentured servants were brought over from the U.K., but the U.K. end of the deal soured when people just didn't want to do it to the extent that manpower was needed.

So slavery started. From an economic standpoint it made sense. It was cheap disposable labor that maximized profit.

From the beginning the North hated this. First, the Christian upbringing of a lot of Northeasterners really saw this as an abomination. They may not have thought black people were equals, but they definitely did not see them as property.

(Note: These are generalizations of course. You could find plenty of people on both sides who held opposite views. But the overall view was definitely North = Anti-Slavery, South = Pro-Slavery.)

Secondly, the North did not want the South using its slave population to gain additional control in Congress. Thus the infamous 3/5 compromise, where a slave was considered 3/5 of a person for purposes of the Census and Congressional districting.

Thirdly, the North wanted people to use its machines, rather than people, for industry and manufacturing.

There are other reasons, but those are some of the big ones.

For a time tensions were held in check by the Missouri Compromise. In order to make sure the status quo held, no new state could be admitted to the Union unless another state, holding an opposite view of slavery was also admitted. This ensured that all votes regarding slavery were always a tie. (Equal number of Anti-Slave and Pro-Slave states)

This ensured that slavery could neither be expanded to the North, which had outlawed it ages ago, or made illegal in the South by majority abolitionist vote.

This worked until 1861. At that point, the Northern Anti-Slavery movement had hit a peak, and slaves were being actively rescued from the South via the Underground Railroad.

In addition, political leaders were making noises about telling the South to **** off and abandon slavery. Hilariously enough, it was Republicans who led the effort and it was democrats who were pro-slavery. Ah how things change.

The South took this as a direct threat to their economic viability and their rights as individual states.

South Carolina partisans fired on the U.S. Fort Sumter, and the rest is history.

After 4 brutal years of war the North conquered the South and imposed its will via Reconstruction. The South was forced to accept black citizenship, abolish slavery and even had its Federal Congressional Delegation made up of free blacks.

The Civil War, at the cost of thousands of lives, had settled the question of Federal Supremacy over State's rights.

This really burned the South and still haunts a small, but vocal minority of Southerners to this day.

That burning core of lingering hatred, racism and bigotry spawned many hate groups, lynchings, and fueled the fight against desegregation, etc. But more relevant to your question, it instilled a deep resentment against the Federal Government.

You see it was the Feds who had to handle enforcing civil rights laws, desegregation and indicting and prosecuting hate groups because local southern authorities literally could not be trusted to do it.

As a result there are and were a lot of orders that come from D.C. to order the Southern States to do things that the Northern states really didn't have to deal with, even though racism was rampant in the North as well.

Now to steer back to guns, guns are seen as a symbol of independence. You can feed yourself, protect yourself etc etc. In addition, early American History is rife with people protecting their communities by using their own guns, whether it was against the French, the English or whoever. Guns are really a huge part of American history, particularly in the South.

So you combine all this and then add an Amendment that essentially says you have a hard and fast right to a firearm, and then sprinkle that with distrust of central authority / Federal Government and you have an issue that is just ripe for strong feelings.

Nowadays, the South has suffered from poor economic management of its people, resources and abilities. It really has been a travesty to be honest. Education, obesity, health care costs, quality of living...you compare the North and the South and it is night and day.

Now normally you would get voted out of office for running States into the ground this way, but by constantly pressing the "THE GOVERNMENT IS GONNA TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS" button, hardcore conservative Republicans have kept their populations focused on social issues rather than on their jobs.

So to answer your question, the South hates Fed control of any issue, links guns with their own independence, and is resentful of any attempt to change their "past".

(As a caveat, there is a danger in just painting the South as one giant pit of despair. Things have changed a lot as more Northerners move south, and as the younger generations grow up substantially more liberal than their parents.

Virginia and North Carolina, two of the old Confederacy States voted for Barack Obama. The influx of hispanics into Florida has changed that state tremendously. The urban areas of Austin, Texas, Raleigh, NC, or Atlanta Georgia are culturally progressive. It is estimated that at the current rate of demographic change, parts of the South may eventually turn blue again.)

[Professor Smooth]

I just need interject one little thing in defense of owning certain guns.

Hunting is not the only reason you may want or need to kill an animal. There's also defense.

As most of you know, I live in Japan, which has so few guns that even the Yakuza are hesitant to use them. But relatives in rural areas are still allowed to own and use guns. Why? Because if a huge wild pig, group of monkeys, or goddamn deer starts messing up your land, crops, or you know, children, you've got to be able to do something about it.

The same goes for certain parts of the US. Animal attacks happen. And a gun is a perfectly reasonable way to protect yourself from a large, dangerous creature...when "animal control" is an hour away.

[Kaylee]

That's a very in depth, detailed answer, Nathan! Thank you very much: it's really interesting.

I might plague you with more questions tomorrow once I've read it again, if that's okay

[Computron]

That's a very in depth, detailed answer, Nathan! Thank you very much: it's really interesting.

I might plague you with more questions tomorrow once I've read it again, if that's okay

No problem at all. The U.S. is a fascinating mix of geopolitical enclaves that all ultimately root in the North / South divide. Whenever you see something in the news about how our government is dysfunctional, that divide helps explain it.

As the joke goes, Republicans say government is the root of all problems and that it can't do anything right. Then they get elected into power and prove themselves correct.

[Professor Smooth]

At least 12 people shot at New Orleans Mother's Day parade.

[Yaya]

How about this?

On call, called in for bilateral ruptured globe from failed attempted suicide via gunshot to the temple. Patient lives, globes are mush. Husband asks "Doc, she loved to read. Will she ever be able to read again?". Husband says they just bought the gun due to "seeing all the stuff going on on television" and bought it for protection. Very, very sad case. You could actually see the brain pulsating in the back of the orbit upon retraction of the lids.

Very sad. I ******* hate, HATE guns.

[Kaylee]

Me, too

[Computron]

How about this?

On call, called in for bilateral ruptured globe from failed attempted suicide via gunshot to the temple. Patient lives, globes are mush. Husband asks "Doc, she loved to read. Will she ever be able to read again?". Husband says they just bought the gun due to "seeing all the stuff going on on television" and bought it for protection. Very, very sad case. You could actually see the brain pulsating in the back of the orbit upon retraction of the lids.

Very sad. I ******* hate, HATE guns.

I remember reading somewhere that the presence of a gun in a home dramatically increases the chances of a gunshot related injury due to accident or suicide attempt. Seems pretty intuitive, but sometimes you need a study to point out that having a gun is dangerous.

As for her injury, that's just devastating. It is even more distressing that their fear over "what's going on in the media" drove them to make this decision. The fact that it was a suicide attempt also shames our mental health care system.

There is a lot to love about the U.S. How we treat our citizens health needs is not one of them. Not by a long-shot.

[bumblemusprime]

How about this?

On call, called in for bilateral ruptured globe from failed attempted suicide via gunshot to the temple. Patient lives, globes are mush. Husband asks "Doc, she loved to read. Will she ever be able to read again?". Husband says they just bought the gun due to "seeing all the stuff going on on television" and bought it for protection. Very, very sad case. You could actually see the brain pulsating in the back of the orbit upon retraction of the lids.

Very sad. I ******* hate, HATE guns.

Heart is broken.