laklak wrote:Anybody know that stats on shotguns? I can't imagine surviving a 12 gauge in the mouth, particularly aimed towards the back of the throat. Heavy load should blow the whole back of the head and spinal cord apart.

Again, depends on the particulars of the aim point. I recall hearing of one Kurt Cobain wannabe who blew his face apart with a copycat shot that didn't aim back enough. Brain was pretty much intact, though.

UtilityMonster wrote:People who shoot themselves in the head but don't die should be euthanized.

Even if they don't want to die after their suicide attempt? Is that euthanasia or murder?

Animavore wrote:

Weaver wrote:People survive being shot in the heart, too, and death from heart hits is rarely "instant" - it usually takes a measurable period up to about a half a minute on the outside. The only place one can reliably generate an "instant" death is by destroying the brain stem.

Guns are not the uber-reliable killers they are portrayed to be, - there is a LOT of variability in terminal ballistics. This is one of the things I'm very interested in, that I expect to keep learning more about as long as I live.

I'm sure you've heard of Chris Ryan? In one of his fiction books (which are complete shite,unlike his non-fiction stuff) the protagonist has to shoot the enemy, who is holding a hostage at gun-point, through the brain stem for instant death, lest we get off a shot after being hit.

I guess you read the same manual

Tom Clancy goes on and on about that in 'Rainbow 6' as well.

Jumbo wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Weaver wrote:People survive being shot in the heart, too, and death from heart hits is rarely "instant" - it usually takes a measurable period up to about a half a minute on the outside. The only place one can reliably generate an "instant" death is by destroying the brain stem.

Guns are not the uber-reliable killers they are portrayed to be, - there is a LOT of variability in terminal ballistics. This is one of the things I'm very interested in, that I expect to keep learning more about as long as I live.

I'm sure you've heard of Chris Ryan? In one of his fiction books (which are complete shite,unlike his non-fiction stuff) the protagonist has to shoot the enemy, who is holding a hostage at gun-point, through the brain stem for instant death, lest we get off a shot after being hit.

I guess you read the same manual

Tom Clancy goes on and on about that in 'Rainbow 6' as well.

Is the hero also a sex-god?

There's a belief that a bullet through the mouth = instant lights out, and it's sometimes said to be the sniper's ideal shot. Well if done properly, it will sever the spinal cord at the base of the skull, and the person drops immediately, but it's a shot a sniper is rarely going to take - a high velocity round amidships will usually be enough to ruin someone's day, and it's a more certain hit. But I did see the x-rays of a bloke who'd shot himself in the mouth, aiming up into the brain. The bullet lodged between the brain hemispheres, leaving him with a serious headache & a hole in the top of his mouth, and nothing much more than that. A twelve-bore double-barrelled shotgun would have made sure of the job, though it is rather messy. Tends to be the farmer's choice when it comes to ending it all - they've always got a shotgun hanging around.

BTW, is it just me that thinks euthanasia is fuckwitted & fascist?

Not that i can recall. Its got loads of 'heros' though and IIRC each is pretty much a walking cliche

chairman bill wrote:
BTW, is it just me that thinks euthanasia is fuckwitted & fascist?

Nope, you're in good company.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... cfm?id=307

I don't see anything wrong with voluntary euthanasia so long as there are the appropriate checks and balances.

Offing people without their explicit consent, granted whilst of sound mind, does indeed seem fuckwitted and fascist though.

UtilityMonster wrote:

chairman bill wrote:
BTW, is it just me that thinks euthanasia is fuckwitted & fascist?

Nope, you're in good company.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/ ... cfm?id=307

The Catholic church is not what I'd consider good company, though your standards are clearly different to mine.

Matt_B wrote:I don't see anything wrong with voluntary euthanasia so long as there are the appropriate checks and balances.

Offing people without their explicit consent, granted whilst of sound mind, does indeed seem fuckwitted and fascist though.

We have it here TG! You need three doctors though.

Shooting oneself in the head is clear consent that one wishes to die. Keeping then alive violates their wishes rather than grants them.

Wrong.

Shooting oneself in the head is a statement that the person may have wished to die AT THAT MOMENT - or they may have wanted to hurt someone else by hurting themselves.

However, once that moment has passed, there is simply no way of knowing what their wishes will be. I recall hearing the personal tale of someone who jumped off of the Golden Gate Bridge and survived. He said that the instant he left the bridge, he thought to himself "That is the stupidest thing I've ever done, I wish I hadn't done it."

Do not be in a hurry to decide what others want for them, especially with something as final as death.

If they wanted to die before fucking up their head with a bullet, they'll want to die after.

Evidence needed - you're making assertions that are just plain wrong.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 94d42.html

This person crippled himself with a GSW to the head - but did not want to die later, and has gone on to improve himself with college education.

Now, can we quit talking shit and making incorrect, blanket assertions and get back to the subject?

Weaver wrote:Wrong.

Shooting oneself in the head is a statement that the person may have wished to die AT THAT MOMENT - or they may have wanted to hurt someone else by hurting themselves.

However, once that moment has passed, there is simply no way of knowing what their wishes will be. I recall hearing the personal tale of someone who jumped off of the Golden Gate Bridge and survived. He said that the instant he left the bridge, he thought to himself "That is the stupidest thing I've ever done, I wish I hadn't done it."

Do not be in a hurry to decide what others want for them, especially with something as final as death.

I've heard that is fairly common from people who survived jumping off a bridge. However, if someone wants to die to the point they shoot themselves, and then end up making their life a whole lot worse, their actions should probably be considered a DNR.

If you think about it makes sense. Someone can create a DNR right now, even though they never tried living with the major injury. If they get in a horrible accident, they might be fine living with that injury (just like someone who attempts suicide), but they still can choose not to be resuscitated.

Actions > Words

Using a gun for a suicide attempt is not a signal that the person wants to die more, or is more committed to suicide. It is simply more lethal, on average, than most other methods. Survivors of all suicide attempts should be treated the same - as injured people in need of help.

Weaver wrote:Using a gun for a suicide attempt is not a signal that the person wants to die more, or is more committed to suicide. It is simply more lethal, on average, than most other methods. Survivors of all suicide attempts should be treated the same - as injured people in need of help.

I don't think most people have your medical knowledge. I'm sure most people think a shot to the head is a sure, and instant death. I was one of them until yesterday.

Requring an official DNR probably makes sense from a legal standpoint for the hospital, but anyone who was in a horrible accident, or a failed suicide attempt could end up being fine with living after surviving it. No one "cries for help" by shooting themself in the head; they do it because they want to die. IMO that should be considered a DNR.

To give some idea of just how easy it is to survive traumatic brain injury. A few images for your delectation








In the cross -section I have labeled the approximate position of the brain stem.

For anyone who needs some help on this: There's a "T" formed by a line across the eyebrows from temple to temple, and down to the sternum. A close range bullet on that "T" is well nigh irrevocable.

I'm thinking large caliber hollow point through the eye would work, maybe angle it in and down a bit. .44 Mag, .45 ACP, .357 Mag. Of course a .50 if you have a Desert Eagle lying around.

I always figured I'd go with the 12 gauge, or maybe my old Steyr M95 cavalry carbine. It's quite short so it would be easy to toe fire, and the 8x56mm should be good enough for government work. Might have to drill and cut the jacket, can't find hollow point in that caliber and I don't want it going straight through. My Dad did it with a 9mm FMJ and did his best to get the brain stem from behind the ear, went right through and into the concrete wall. He lived for probably 15-20 minutes, not how I'd like to go. I think he was trying to leave less of a mess for my Mom, because his 12 gauge was loaded and in the closet.

Couple of words of advice for anyone thinking about it. Leave a note, do it outside, and do it when nobody else is home but call the cops first so they're first on the scene. You don't want your spouse or kids finding you, leaves a really poor last memory.