Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

 

 

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Are you saying being an undergrad means your work should not be considered or did someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

Are you saying being an undergrad means your work should not be considered or did someone else?

 

 

I'm saying "consider the source". You can't weigh ANY undergrad against the PhD authors listed in typical peer review.

The prestige of Kleck's research partner is a reflection on himself...in academic circles, or on typical forums.

Eagles soar with eagles, not sparrows.

 

An epic presentation of Kleck's work was once offered on our forums. Take a good look, mate. Kleck's figures just don't hold up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

 

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, consider your sources.

 

I'm going to push this further. Here is a post-graduate (barely has a B.A.) named David Hardy, age 23, writing the first known "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment:

 

Abstract: (written by Hardy, about historian Hardy)

 

Of Arms and the Law is a 1974 Chicago-Kent Law Review article which essentially began the modern trend toward recognizing the Second Amendment as an individual, rather than collective, right.

It is today mainly of historical interest. It was the first discussion of several significant points, including

-- the fact that in US v. Miller, Miller's attorney filed no brief and did not argue,

--that Federalist 21 and 46 support an individual rights view, and

--that the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments also use "right of the people" to describe individual rights.

Pasted from <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1544064#%23>

 

Here is Hardy, sounding lofty towards Historian (and PhD) Dr. Saul Cornell.n The writing includes condescension (like Tom Ray's).

 

David T. Hardy, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America, 15 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1237 (2007),

 

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol15/ iss4/6

 

Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj

 

Again, consider your sources: Kleck is a gun logistics clown, and David Hardy is an historian clown. He once got his panties twisted around, with a nuclear wedgie...

by an imp named Michael Moore.hardys%20michael%20moore%20book_zpslr8fb

 

 

 

Next, Hardy's contribution to Waco Fever was to claim, in writing, that the FBI fired 200 shots into Mr. Koresh's burning buildings. (Unfortunately, David Hardy's evidence evaporated.) YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

 

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

 

Your post seems to show an unhealthy mindset, Rick. (Am feeling pretty well, thank you.)

 

We have a dynamic. The pattern is that I get more and more informed about the hard evidence of our gun problem, and more organized...and your SA Gun Club has more and more to ignore.

 

I hope you enjoy your Sunday, bud.

 

 

thiswaytothebunker_zpsc37b438d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

Nah..... He's too self absorbed and narcissistic for that. He thinks people here actually care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyone wanna submit JokeAwf's name to our dead pool 2015? 'Cuz not only is this fuking nutcase looney-tune quickly losing it.....but he also has a gun.

I'm betting he'll self murder himself during the holidays....

Nah..... He's too self absorbed and narcissistic for that. He thinks people here actually care.

 

 

 

He's DT's crazier twin brother. Anything can happen.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

...

Kleck, G., and S.-Y. K. Wang. 2009. The myth of big-time gun trafficking and the overinterpretation of gun tracing data. UCLA Law Review (5). http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf (accessed April 29, 2013).

 

 

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

 

 

1. Ahem. His partner in the survey, Wang, was an undergrad. ?????

2. The work was four years old when used.

3. Kleck's previous work was what, 2001? It's now 2015. Where has this scholar been for this very controversial decade?

(I have a pretty complete collection of his ridiculous articles during this period. Let's go there.)

4.Law Reviews are published by law students. I don't know about UCLA, but other such publications have little gravitas. The Harvard "Law Review" is a conservative mouthpiece, for example:

"Harvard Law Review", published Kates and Mauser 2007 (it had zero acceptance for peer-view; Mauser was a shill of the Canadian NRA. Kates is a testimony-for-hire gun rights advocate.)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

4. Law reviews can and will have good content, and can and will draw intelligent criticism, but their input is leagues away from peer review, as such.

 

The Badgeless Wonder's effort to defend or present pro-gun research seems lazy, uninformed, and half-hearted. Just sayin'.

 

 

Yes, yes, I understand. Really bad messengers. That's not what I asked.

 

I asked what they said that was wrong. Address that subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

Your creepy interest in my mother is generally irrelevant, but she's a firm right-to-die person and is proud that I'm the same. Her biggest fear is Alzheimers and she wants to be in control of whether she meets that end. I completely agree. Even if she wants to use a gun, though I'd advise against that because they're messy and not nearly lethal enough.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom, I think there is space on that wall next to AGITC for you as well if you feel the need. I'll give it a day, Max.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

Your creepy interest in my mother is generally irrelevant, but she's a firm right-to-die person and is proud that I'm the same. Her biggest fear is Alzheimers and she wants to be in control of whether she meets that end. I completely agree. Even if she wants to use a gun, though I'd advise against that because they're messy and not nearly lethal enough.

 

 

 

Your partial answer covering right-to-die is classic dodging.

Some part of your fine mother, I suppose, is quite set against rash or poorly considered suicides.

You see, 70% of attempted suicide victims go on to complete a fuller life, Tom.

I suppose she would shudder at your approval of 19,000 suicides every year. No?

 

But your proposals for social atrocities don't stop there, do they?

-- mis-quoted Jefferson posted at the top. Quite a bit. This raises credibility issues, Moms don't like that.

--You clip quotes, to present a distorted, dishonest presentation. An attorney such as your mom would object.

--You will not acknowledge, and would not discuss, the 255 non-suicidal gun casualties every day. Unless your mom is heartless, she might object to your cavalier, breezy, smarmy tone on that one.

--You have never faced the idea of reducing our gun homicide rate from 19.5 time those of other developed countries, to the norm of other higher-income nations. Then you claim falsely that the problem is "abating". The quantity of evidence disputing your POV might impress your Mom.

--You claim that guns protect women, but they are a huge culturally-negative factor in the health of women in the USA. What is Mom's position on women's health?

 

Q.Just how proud could your mother be about your body of work? A. Very proud.

Would you object to me presenting her a few of your choice quotations from Political Anarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you dial your psycho babble bullshit back, JoCal...like right fuking now. You f'ng understand me?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

And on and on...

 

 

 

 

Switzerland is no gun utopia...

Switzerland’s limited gun access does not prevent gun violence. Greater firearm ownership predicts greater firearm suicide...

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

 

Great question. I started to answer it, but only got half a sentence.

 

Like Jeff, you have not shown the good faith to merit such a discussion from me.

The profile of your race-baiting fallacy bits, plus your dumbass, simpleton approach to Mrs. Mason's situation, have painted you in a corner...

and you love it there.

 

Tommie Boy, IMO you don't show enough sense, or have enough self-honesty, to have the power over life, or death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you dial your psycho babble bullshit back, JoCal...like right fuking now. You f'ng understand me?....

 

Guy is a total CREEP.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

 

Great question. I started to answer it, but only got half a sentence.

 

Like Jeff, you have not shown the good faith to merit such a discussion from me.

The profile of your race-baiting fallacy bits, plus your dumbass, simpleton approach to Mrs. Mason's situation, have painted you in a corner...

and you love it there.

 

Tommie Boy, IMO you don't show enough sense, or have enough self-honesty, to have the power over life, or death.

 

 

That last sentence looks like an answer to me. You believe your superiority gives you a claim on my life that is greater than mine.

 

You're going to need a better answer. I think I own my life and you have no right to stop me from killing myself. Sorry if you don't think I'm qualified to own my life and make up my mind. Your belief doesn't affect my rights over my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns and suicide: A fatal link

 

In the United States, suicides outnumber homicides almost two to one. Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms.

 

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

 

The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

 

What gives anyone else the right to control my impulses?

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawman response to a very straight forward and clear report. Clearly you don't want to address the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Your campaign for easy suicides assumes that suicide is socially acceptable. It is not. Suicide will be taboo forever.

Your beliefs show, consistently, a ruthless aberration of human decency. For guns.

Your mother must be proud indeed. Correct?

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

 

Great question. I started to answer it, but only got half a sentence.

 

Like Jeff, you have not shown the good faith to merit such a discussion from me.

The profile of your race-baiting fallacy bits, plus your dumbass, simpleton approach to Mrs. Mason's situation, have painted you in a corner...

and you love it there.

 

Tommie Boy, IMO you don't show enough sense, or have enough self-honesty, to have the power over life, or death.

 

 

That last sentence looks like an answer to me. You believe your superiority gives you a claim on my life that is greater than mine.

 

You're going to need a better answer. I think I own my life and you have no right to stop me from killing myself. Sorry if you don't think I'm qualified to own my life and make up my mind. Your belief doesn't affect my rights over my life.

 

 

Here, you speak for yourself alone. What about others?

All suicides experts mention that a high rate of impulsive behavior is involved.

Supplying guns to known impulsive behavior is what you are openly proposing.

You sound foolish at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

If you have an answer to that question you might get me to agree with your efforts to keep our suicide rate down by preventing gun ownership.

 

But I have seen no answer.

 

 

Great question. I started to answer it, but only got half a sentence.

 

Like Jeff, you have not shown the good faith to merit such a discussion from me.

The profile of your race-baiting fallacy bits, plus your dumbass, simpleton approach to Mrs. Mason's situation, have painted you in a corner...

and you love it there.

 

Tommie Boy, IMO you don't show enough sense, or have enough self-honesty, to have the power over life, or death.

 

 

That last sentence looks like an answer to me. You believe your superiority gives you a claim on my life that is greater than mine.

 

You're going to need a better answer. I think I own my life and you have no right to stop me from killing myself. Sorry if you don't think I'm qualified to own my life and make up my mind. Your belief doesn't affect my rights over my life.

 

 

Here, you speak for yourself alone. What about others?

All suicides experts mention that a high rate of impulsive behavior is involved.

Supplying guns to known impulsive behavior is what you are openly proposing.

You sound foolish at that point.

 

 

OK, we can talk about others.

 

If others want to kill themselves, what gives you any right to stop them?

 

Since they are all individuals, the answer for each one should be the same as the answer to the question you are avoiding:

 

If I want to kill myself, what gives you any right to stop me?

 

Yes, it is known that some people kill themselves, and yes, I'm proposing that people continue to be allowed to supply ourselves with guns. You want to cut off that supply for all people because of the actions of a few. Seems foolish to me, but maybe that's just because I don't understand what gives me (or anyone else) the right to stop others from taking their own lives.

 

I continue to think that I don't own those lives, they do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no identifiable relationship between suicide rates and gun ownership internationally. The highest rate of suicide, in fact is found in Lithuania, a country with no guns.

 

international-suicide-rates.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

 

 

Fine, you want math - here's some math: 2A > 11,000 homicides + 22,000 Suicides + 600 accidental deaths + 85,000 gunshot injuries, etc.

 

Furthermore: DGUs are > 0, Therefore x (DGUs) + y (Protection against Tyranny) + z (defense of the nation) = 2A

 

2A > jocal

 

jocal = 0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

 

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

What gives you any right to prevent someone from killing himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

 

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

 

 

What gives you any right to prevent someone from killing himself?

 

The same thing that puts an auto passenger into a seatbelt, or a skateboarder into a helmet.

The same principle that brings drivers to a wait at many, many empty intersections.

It's called social order. The transaction cost of living in a society.

 

Much of the suicide damage is to susceptible teens and pre-teens: they are kids; they need protection while they develop.

 

Suicide by Firearm Among American Youth Hit 12-Year High in 2013

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suicide-firearm-among-american-youth-hit-12-year-high-2013-n303266>

 

 

***For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His Badgelessness: Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

Show me some responsible numbers for "wounded or driven off."

Most wounded wind up in hospitals, where their gunshot wounds are reported.

 

 

Do criminals go to the hospital when they are shot?Results: Over 90% of over 300 criminals who had been wounded sometime before their incarceration reported going to a hospital for treatment after being shot. These results are consistent with previous findings from one jail. Conclusions: Jail inmates who had previously been shot were likely to have been treated in a hospital. This limited finding is consistent with the proposition that hospital/emergency department data may miss only a small percentage of gunshot wounds to criminals.http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/8/3/236.full#ref-list-1>

 

Most of the "driven off" instances were deemed illegal, upon examination.

A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges.

The authors conclude that guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense and that most reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society.

Pasted from <http://www.firearmsresearch.org/content.cfm/article_summary?article_id=3855>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Thanksgiving is one less day away....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

When calculating the "cost of gun violence', how do you factor in the value of a life saved, a robbery or rape or murder prevented. These things are never a part of the calculus of the folks who want people to surrender their firearms.

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

 

 

Fine, you want math - here's some math: 2A > 11,000 homicides + 22,000 Suicides + 600 accidental deaths + 85,000 gunshot injuries, etc.

 

Furthermore: DGUs are > 0, Therefore x (DGUs) + y (Protection against Tyranny) we control politicians by free election + z (defense of the nation) name ANY ragtag militia which has defended us post Whiskey Rebellion = 2A

 

2A > jocal

 

jocal = 0

 

 

U.S. Militia = sub-zero. Unless you are imagining.

 

Your best private militia example, in U.S. history, would be William Quantrill. He left a despicable trail of terrorism, enforced by private firearms.

 

But I have another example, shared earlier. We had a very effective, proven militia from Oregon in the PNW, during our native battles. In April of 1856, they aimed a howitzer at a sitting federal court, after jailing another federal judge (Edward Lander)...twice. It took a second posse comitatus to face off the first posse comitatus... (There were THREE armed face-offs, with the judge being carried away twice. No shots were fired.)

 

The U.S. Army Commander during our native battles was Gen.John Ellis Wool. He had won the Mexican American war for Zachary Taylor (thus making ZT POTUS in 1850). Wool had raised, trained, fought, and WON with non-regular volunteer forces.

 

I don't know what happened, but the experience in Mexico make Wool adamantly, psychotically opposed to private militia activity. So much so, that Wool issued arrest orders for the enlisted territorial volunteers who rode to fight the natives here.

 

I can source every word of this summary (try www.historylink.org #5130). But it shows, in layers, that righteousness plus private guns equals crimped civil rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no identifiable relationship between suicide rates and gun ownership internationally. Cite it, pal. The highest rate of suicide, in fact is found in Lithuania, a country with no guns.

 

 

Let's take a look at Lithuania. It's a depressed, alcohol-ridden, jobless, nation. It's Soviet Block road kill. It will have severe problems for the duration, too.

 

Stalin, rock music and bad weather: story behind suicides in Lithuania

Before the second world war, eight out of 100, 000 Lituanians committed suicide.

Most of the population were churchgoers living in the countryside. There was a strong community with a stable routine.

After the war broke out and the soviets took power, Stalin deported the richest farmers to Siberia and set up the rest in

kolkhozes (collective farms). Vodka and home-brewed alcohol began to flow like a daily anaesthetic. The rate grew every year to reach thirty suicides for every 100, 000 people in the eighties. With the collapse of the USSR, the number rocketed to an all-time high between 1994 and 1996 (46 for every 100, 000). Lithuanians committed suicide each year.

‘Suicide is generally more common in large cities, but in Lithuania the opposite is true: the rate is twice as high in rural areas,’ Navickas explains. ‘The only new thing independence brought to rural Lithuania was unemployment. Everything else is the same: poor infrastructure, a lack of social services, alcoholism…’ A third of Lithuanians live in rural communities, where poverty levels are three times higher than in urban areas. Half of the population do not have a shower or indoors toilet, and only 25% have running water. The mortality rate is 75%.

http://www.ilovelithuania.com/profiles/blogs/why-lithuanian-suicide-rates>

 

NGS, I get the feeling you are thrashing about looking for propaganda to support your love of guns.

But your comparison to Lithuania is crap.

 

Read this great article, mate--inform yourself.

You need to compare suicides and guns from similar economies and cultures.

Better Than Somalia -- How to Feel Good About Gun Violence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Do the math.

 

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

 

 

What gives you any right to prevent someone from killing himself?

 

The same thing that puts an auto passenger into a seatbelt, or a skateboarder into a helmet.

The same principle that brings drivers to a wait at many, many empty intersections.

It's called social order. The transaction cost of living in a society.

 

 

...

 

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

 

 

I fought for idiots (some of whom are my friends) to ride their motorcycles without helmets. I was careful to tell each one that I thought it was incredibly stupid, but their choice. So we just disagree on whether the nanny state should protect us all from our bad decisions.

 

I don't have to do the math, since you presented it for us: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate. A higher firearm suicide rate might matter to meddlesome people who care exactly how a person kills himself and wants to control others, but it doesn't matter to me. If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't.

 

The only point you keep making is that people who have tools may use them, but people who don't have them can not. That revelation goes in the "Well, duh" pile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Do the math.

 

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

 

 

I fought for idiots (some of whom are my friends) to ride their motorcycles without helmets. I was careful to tell each one that I thought it was incredibly stupid, but their choice. So we just disagree on whether the nanny state should protect us all from our bad decisions.

 

I don't have to do the math, since you presented it for us: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate. A higher firearm suicide rate might matter to meddlesome people who care exactly how a person kills himself and wants to control others, but it doesn't matter to me. If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't.

 

The only point you keep making is that people who have tools may use them, but people who don't have them can not. That revelation goes in the "Well, duh" pile.

 

 

Of course not Tom, 2012 figures below, I'm sure that the number of guns has fuck all to do with it. Well much anyway ...

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Do the math.

 

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

 

 

I fought for idiots (some of whom are my friends) to ride their motorcycles without helmets. I was careful to tell each one that I thought it was incredibly stupid, but their choice. So we just disagree on whether the nanny state should protect us all from our bad decisions.

 

I don't have to do the math, since you presented it for us: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate. A higher firearm suicide rate might matter to meddlesome people who care exactly how a person kills himself and wants to control others, but it doesn't matter to me. If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't.

 

The only point you keep making is that people who have tools may use them, but people who don't have them can not. That revelation goes in the "Well, duh" pile.

 

 

Of course not Tom, 2012 figures below, I'm sure that the number of guns has fuck all to do with it. Well much anyway ...

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

 

Yeah, I'm not meddlesome and don't care how someone does something that I believe he has a right to do.

 

I think that the people who killed themselves in other ways probably mattered to their relatives just as much as those who killed themselves with guns. Do you agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray said "If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't."

 

Random said "Of course not Tom, 2012 figures below, I'm sure that the number of guns has fuck all to do with it. Well much anyway ...

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

Must be pure coincidence that AUS has way less guns. But then there are others with low gun ownership with even lower figures

 

GBR Gun Suicide/100k = 0.15

 

Looking a bit weak Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray said "If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't."

 

Random said "Of course not Tom, 2012 figures below, I'm sure that the number of guns has fuck all to do with it. Well much anyway ...

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

Must be pure coincidence that AUS has way less guns. But then there are others with low gun ownership with even lower figures

 

GBR Gun Suicide/100k = 0.15

 

Looking a bit weak Tom.

 

I understand that you care nothing about non-firearm suicides.

 

Why don't you post the suicide rates instead of just the gun suicide rates? Seems you care more about gun control than you do about life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck off Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck off Tom.

 

Tom - 30

 

Randumb - love

 

We are still waiting for those overall suicide rates, randy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I fought for idiots (some of whom are my friends) to ride their motorcycles without helmets. I was careful to tell each one that I thought it was incredibly stupid, but their choice. So we just disagree on whether the nanny state should protect us all from our bad decisions.

 

I don't have to do the math, since you presented it for us: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate. A higher firearm suicide rate might matter to meddlesome people who care exactly how a person kills himself and wants to control others, but it doesn't matter to me. If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't.

 

The only point you keep making is that people who have tools may use them, but people who don't have them can not. Are you suggesting to issue more guns, for more suicides?That revelation goes in the "Well, duh" pile.

 

 

You are playing dumb, twisting, and disinformation with these words: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate.

 

Our present average suicide rates would be far below average if we could take out the abnormally high gun suicides represented within the figures.

Your statement is dishonest propaganda. Decreasing firearm ownership is the most effective suicide prevention known to the social sciences.

 

 

 

In the real world, the social sciences are in full disagreement with Mr. Ray.

 

In overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations. However, we are the exception when it comes to suicides among children between the ages of 5 and 14, with an overall rate twice the average of other developed nations. This stark difference is driven almost exclusively by a firearm-related suicide rate that is 10 times the average of other industrialized nations.

 

Adolescents living in states with higher gun prevalence also suffer from higher rates of suicide. Adolescents who commit suicide are significantly more likely to live with a firearm in their home even after adjusting for various risk factors. This increased risk holds true regardless of how the firearm is stored or the type of gun. Firearms that are stored loaded have the highest risk, while safely stored guns (locked and unloaded) are much safer. Proper firearm storage can’t mitigate the entire risk of adolescent gun suicide, but it is a necessary step.

Pasted from <http://www.armedwith...ic-combination/>

International studies are pretty conclusive. So are the national studies.

 

UCSF, Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

http://medicalxpress...e-homicide.html>

Access to guns increases risk of suicide, homicide

http://medicalxpress...e-homicide.html>

Research: Less Access to Guns Does Reduce Suicide

http://www.motherjon...ckground-checks>

Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

http://www.hsph.harv...ns-matter/risk/>

Suicide Barriers and Gun Control

http://www.armedwith...s-relationship/>

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide

http://annals.org/ar...id=1814426#f2-6>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has had is arse kicked so fucking hard around here that he has regular nose bleeds. Then all he has to come back with, to someone advocating a reduction in suicide, is nonsensical crap about not caring about life? A Fuck off is in order

 

I'll go with the numbers thanks.

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

Pick which one does not have a gun for every citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom has had is arse kicked so fucking hard around here that he has regular nose bleeds. Then all he has to come back with, to someone advocating a reduction in suicide, is nonsensical crap about not caring about life? A Fuck off is in order

 

I'll go with the numbers thanks.

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

Pick which one does not have a gun for every citizen.

 

What is AUS and US overall suicide rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I fought for idiots (some of whom are my friends) to ride their motorcycles without helmets. I was careful to tell each one that I thought it was incredibly stupid, but their choice. So we just disagree on whether the nanny state should protect us all from our bad decisions.

 

I don't have to do the math, since you presented it for us: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate. A higher firearm suicide rate might matter to meddlesome people who care exactly how a person kills himself and wants to control others, but it doesn't matter to me. If we had a higher suicide rate as a result of our guns, you might have a point. But we don't, so you don't.

 

The only point you keep making is that people who have tools may use them, but people who don't have them can not. That revelation goes in the "Well, duh" pile.

 

 

Are you suggesting to issue more guns, for more suicides?

 

You are playing dumb, twisting, and disinformation with these words: our guns are not resulting in a higher suicide rate.

 

Our present average suicide rates would be far below average if we could take out the abnormally high gun suicides represented within the figures.

Your statement is dishonest propaganda. Decreasing firearm ownership is the most effective suicide prevention known to the social sciences.

 

International studies are pretty conclusive. So are the national studies.

 

 

 

I have never suggested "issuing" guns. I just have issues with preventing people from buying them based on shaky social "science" like what you posted.

 

Those were pretty funny, always asking a weird question: did the person have access to guns? Did he live in a high-gun state? Did the state require background checks? Pretty much any question other than the obvious: did the person killing himself use a gun?

 

Researchers who avoid the obvious question are questionable to me.

 

One of the reports you posted specifically said that they could not tell whether the "gun access" or other factors like "rurality" account for the high suicide rate.

 

So based on "research" that fails to ask the obvious question, but that states it does not give the answer you want, you expect me to pretend they got the answer you wanted.

 

That might work on people who don't click and read. I'm not one of those. It won't work on me.

 

And by the way:

 

Aussie suicide rate (all methods): 10.6 per 100k

US suicide rate (all methods): 12.1 per 100k

 

If Australia could get their gun access levels down to Japan's, their rate might fall to 18.5 per 100k. Oops, that wouldn't be falling. Maybe gun control isn't a magic cure-all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan, really? Bit desperate. How about some similar cultures?

 

GBR Gun Suicide/100k = 0.15

France = 2.2

Germany = 0.84

Canada = 1.79

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79

 

Looking a bit weak Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives a flying fuk if we have more depressed people here than in other countries?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stage 3 of the Booze Cycle. Appears when logical argument has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You've eliminated an evil guy, after all, and all the bad things he might do in the future.

That hero logic has a flip side. Documented DGU's are few, unless you can source otherwise for us.

 

Weigh your ~200 justifiable homicides per year against the lost potential, the lost ideas, the lost sharing, and the lost leadership of `~30,000 individuals per year...not counting the trauma and disruption to 85,000 gunshot injury survivors, and the families of both.

 

Do the math.

 

Your math suggests that the only way to prevent a crime is to kill the criminal. In fact, many are wounded or driven off.

 

As for the 30k, glad we're back to the major topic of this thread: self-murder. I don't think the word murder applies to killing oneself.

 

 

What gives you any right to prevent someone from killing himself?

 

The same thing that puts an auto passenger into a seatbelt, or a skateboarder into a helmet.

The same principle that brings drivers to a wait at many, many empty intersections.

It's called social order. The transaction cost of living in a society.

 

Much of the suicide damage is to susceptible teens and pre-teens: they are kids; they need protection while they develop.

 

Suicide by Firearm Among American Youth Hit 12-Year High in 2013

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/suicide-firearm-among-american-youth-hit-12-year-high-2013-n303266>

 

***For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

 

Yet motorcyclists don't even need to wear a helmet. Where's the social order in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2012 according to the Australian bureau of statistics poisoning and hanging are by far the most popular method to commit suicide in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan, really? Bit desperate. How about some similar cultures?

 

GBR Gun Suicide/100k = 0.15 6.2

France = 2.2 12.3

Germany = 0.84 9.2

Canada = 1.79 9.8

 

USA Gun Suicide/100k = 6.70 12.1

AUS Gun Suicide/100k = 0.79 10.6

 

Looking a bit weak I understand what you're getting at now Tom.

 

FIFY. You're welcome.

 

Interestingly, It seems that all those low gun owning cultures have found other tools to self-murder at similar rates as the US. I wonder how that happens? I thought the removal of guns would significantly reduce the suicide rate? WTF randumb, how do you explain that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides

 

"Suicides come in ones and twos, here and there; they rarely make the national news, and when they are reported at all they are veiled in euphemism (“He died suddenly”). Suicides go so underreported that Slate’s Gun Deaths Project, which collects data from news articles and other online sources, categorizes only roughly one-tenth of the reported deaths as suicides.

 

So in a new paper published in the International Review of Law and Economics, we studied the relationship between guns and suicide in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009. Using five measures of gun ownership and controlling for other factors associated with suicide, such as mental illness, we consistently found that each 1 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership rates leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent more suicides. Or, to put it the other way, a percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but I wasn't put on this Earth to save the fuking depressed. I gots a lot more important shit to contend with right now....like what salsa to put on my enchiladas tonite....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides

 

"Suicides come in ones and twos, here and there; they rarely make the national news, and when they are reported at all they are veiled in euphemism (He died suddenly). Suicides go so underreported that Slates Gun Deaths Project, which collects data from news articles and other online sources, categorizes only roughly one-tenth of the reported deaths as suicides.

 

So in a new paper published in the International Review of Law and Economics, we studied the relationship between guns and suicide in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009. Using five measures of gun ownership and controlling for other factors associated with suicide, such as mental illness, we consistently found that each 1 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership rates leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent more suicides. Or, to put it the other way, a percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides."

Is there a cite for the USA regarding a reduction in guns equaling a reduction in overall suicide rate or is that an inference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40% of suicides in Australia are by hanging. Next is drug overdose. Then self inflicted gunshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suicide rate in us for 2014 was highest in 25 years. Households with at least one gun is down to 2010 levels which was an all time low. Current households with at least one gun is down to 32% - was 50% in mid '70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To simply say more guns means more suicide is dishonest...untruthful...a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

40% of all suicides in Australia are by hanging

 

Hanging accounts for around 60% of all suicides in Australia.

 

With all that extra time to reconsider what they are doing they still hang themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To simply say more guns means more suicide is dishonest...untruthful...a lie.

Ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To simply say more guns means more suicide is dishonest...untruthful...a lie.

Hahahah yes says some anonymous fuckwit on the interweb. :lol:

 

Please contact those who did the research above, I'm sure they would be very interested in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the only one laughing. Clown.

 

You know you are dishonest and won't answer Toms questions. Dishonest clown.

 

We're both anonymous fuckwits on the interweb. Stupid clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honey, but I wasn't put on this Earth to save the fuking depressed. I gots a lot more important shit to contend with right now....like what salsa to put on my enchiladas tonite....

 

Wasn't asking you. I was talking to the smart people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're the only one laughing. Clown.

 

You know you are dishonest and won't answer Toms questions. Dishonest clown.

 

We're both anonymous fuckwits on the interweb. Stupid clown.

 

Nice, "clown", "stupid clown", I can see you are a valuable intelligent contributor.

 

But I'm still laughing :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Japan, really? Bit desperate. How about some similar cultures?

 

We nation-built the shit outta that place! Forgot to give 'em a second amendment though. Doh!

Australia is probably the most similar and the suicide rate of 10.6 per 100k is not all that different from our rate of 12.1 per 100k.

 

Anyway, jocal already covered that ground:

 

CONCLUSIONS:

The United States has far higher rates of firearm deaths-firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and unintentional firearm deaths compared with other high-income countries. The US overall suicide rate is not out of line with these countries, but the United States is an outlier in terms of our overall homicide rate.

 

Pasted from <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20571454>

 

So did I:

 

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

 

 

 

All suicides
  • Number of deaths: 41,149
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 13.0
  • Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
  • Number of deaths: 21,175
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.7
Suffocation suicides
  • Number of deaths: 10,062
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.2
Poisoning suicides
  • Number of deaths: 6,637
  • Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

 

They add up to 16k people, far more than are killed by the type of gun violence that is inflicted by others. Almost as many as self-inflicted "violence" using guns.

 

We obviously need plastic bag control just to start. How much financial responsibility should plastic bag manufacturers take? Or do people usually use ropes? Are we going after the rope moguls for being merchants of death?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really fascinating Tom. After all this time with you and JB arguing that suicide figures need to be left out of the Gun death figures, we finally have a concession that more guns (1 per person) generates more deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You're the only one laughing. Clown.

 

You know you are dishonest and won't answer Toms questions. Dishonest clown.

 

We're both anonymous fuckwits on the interweb. Stupid clown.

Nice, "clown", "stupid clown", I can see you are a valuable intelligent contributor.

 

But I'm still laughing :lol:

Its very apparent honesty is of little value to you. Only a clown would think that is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really fascinating Tom. After all this time with you and JB arguing that suicide figures need to be left out of the Gun death figures, we finally have a concession that more guns (1 per person) generates more deaths.

Which also means more people generates more deaths. Clown, dishonest clown, and stupid clown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really fascinating Tom. After all this time with you and JB arguing that suicide figures need to be left out of the Gun death figures, we finally have a concession that more guns (1 per person) generates more deaths.

 

Only in your fucked up randumb world could you conclude that. In fact, if you look at the graph from Post #330, it shows exactly the opposite.

 

 

international-suicide-rates.jpg

 

If more guns caused more deaths - there would be a corresponding spike in both suicides and homicides. Not only is there no causation, there isn't even any correlation. The US is SO far off the scale in terms of numbers of guns in society, yet we have much lower relative numbers of both suicides and homicides compared to developed countries with barely any guns in society. With the numbers of guns we have, we should be on the far left side of that scale. But we are not. Nor are we even remotely at the top of the list in terms if overall homicides.

 

You are a disingenuous cunt because you continually refuse to put gun murder and gun suicide #'s in context with the overall rates of both. That is the ONLY honest way they can be looked at to see if its a problem.

 

Of course a society with more access to guns will likely see higher gun murder and suicide rates. Fucking duh. But if the overall murder and suicide rates are "normal" when compared to others, it means that people in other countries are not more civilized - its just that they find different tools to get the same job done.

 

Dead is dead. It makes zero difference how you die. Its a BS argument, and you know it and no one here is buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its Simple: Fewer Guns, Fewer Suicides

 

"Suicides come in ones and twos, here and there; they rarely make the national news, and when they are reported at all they are veiled in euphemism (He died suddenly). Suicides go so underreported that Slates Gun Deaths Project, which collects data from news articles and other online sources, categorizes only roughly one-tenth of the reported deaths as suicides.

 

So in a new paper published in the International Review of Law and Economics, we studied the relationship between guns and suicide in the U.S. from 2000 to 2009. Using five measures of gun ownership and controlling for other factors associated with suicide, such as mental illness, we consistently found that each 1 percentage-point increase in household gun ownership rates leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent more suicides. Or, to put it the other way, a percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides."

Is there a cite for the USA regarding a reduction in guns equaling a reduction in overall suicide rate or is that an inference?

 

 

In Israel there was compelling evidence of just that. When service weapons were kept on base, suicides went down a whopping 40%.

 

Rockdog, an increase in guns in homes in the US means an increase in suicide. The inverse can be inferred.

I've posted multiple, quality sources half a dozen times. Yesterday, too, IIRC. (Post 546, on this page.)

 

 

Blocking the Paths to Suicide

Availability is a consistent factor in how most people choose to attempt suicide, said Ms. Barber, regardless of age. People trying to die by suicide tend to choose not the most effective method, but the one most at hand.

“Some methods have a case fatality rate as low as 1 or 2 percent,” she said. “With a gun, it’s closer to 85 or 90 percent. So it makes a difference what you’re reaching for in these low-planned or unplanned suicide attempts.” Statistically, having a gun in the home increases the probability of suicide for all age groups. If the gun is unloaded and locked away, the risk is reduced. If there is no gun in the house at all, the suicide risk goes down even further.

http://www.nytimes.c...&seid=auto&_r=3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News flash, fuck face.....we ain't in Israel.

 

Please stop being stupid on our time, s'kay?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I utterly and totally give up on you jocal. You're so fucking wrong, but I don't have the patience to explain why. Your own articles you post are disingenuous, misleading and often blatantly dishonest and you are too fucking stupid to see it. For instance, Yes people use the most convenient tool when committing suicide. But the presence of guns DOES NOT increase suicides. It increases GUN suicides, yes - but not overall suicides. If it did, the US suicide numbers would be off the scale. But we are consistent with other similar nations. It just means that others use other means to self murder when a gun isn't handy. SO FUCKING WHAT? Dead is dead. Without guns, how do all those pusstralians manage to kill themselves???

 

So Jo, go fuck yourself. You are dead to me. Please take this shit to PNW batshit crazy anarchy. WE.DON'T.CARE!

 

I'm going shooting. I hope some gangbanger is not reading this and decides to murder some more black kids. Their death will be on your head, joke-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I utterly and totally give up on you jocal. You're so fucking wrong, but I don't have the patience to explain why. Your own articles you post are disingenuous, misleading and often blatantly dishonest and you are too fucking stupid to see it. For instance, Yes people use the most convenient tool when committing suicide. But the presence of guns DOES NOT increase suicides. It increases GUN suicides, yes - but not overall suicides. If it did, the US suicide numbers would be off the scale. But we are consistent with other similar nations. It just means that others use other means to self murder when a gun isn't handy. SO FUCKING WHAT? Dead is dead. Without guns, how do all those pusstralians manage to kill themselves???

 

So Jo, go fuck yourself. You are dead to me. Please take this shit to PNW batshit crazy anarchy. WE.DON'T.CARE!

 

I'm going shooting. I hope some gangbanger is not reading this and decides to murder some more black kids. Their death will be on your head, joke-off.

 

Did you read the excellent article which random presented?

With suicide, method substitution for guns can occur, but impulsive suicide acts far outweigh committed suicide actors.

75% to 90% of suicide survivors go on to lead productive lives. OTOH very few survive suicide attempts by gun.

 

Much of the analysis is flat-out gun friendly.

 

Gun advocates and supporters of Second Amendment rights shouldn’t assume that more research simply means more arguments against guns. We are eager, for example, to see more studies on the defensive use of guns, a phenomenon about which there is currently very little trustworthy data. another Kleck doubter Moreover, better research might find ways of reducing gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights.

 

The author has no known associations with the Joyce Foundation, Hemenway, or Bloomberg. He appeals to your leadership skills, Jeff, and suggests that

... reducing gun violence could be one of the best ways of reducing the demand for gun control.)

 

Ding ding ding!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I utterly and totally give up on you jocal. You're so fucking wrong, but I don't have the patience to explain why. Your own articles you post are disingenuous, misleading and often blatantly dishonest and you are too fucking stupid to see it. For instance, Yes people use the most convenient tool when committing suicide. But the presence of guns DOES NOT increase suicides. How could that be, with the "convenience" of 3.5 million guns present?? It increases GUN suicides, yes - but not overall suicides. If it did, the US suicide numbers would be off the scale. lessened. But we are consistent with other similar nations. It just means that others use other means to self murder when a gun isn't handy. Scientists disagree, and submit careful, non-incendiary evidence. SO FUCKING WHAT? Dead is dead. Without guns, how do all those pusstralians manage to kill themselves???

 

 

Ah,memory lane.

So Jo, go fuck yourself. You are dead to me.

JBSF, on 22 Jul 2014 - 13:09, said: I give up. You are a dumbass and will always be a dunbass. And GITC was correct, you really DO need to be under mental supervision. Good luck. You're dead to me. You're not even worth mocking anymore. You're just sad. Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=158223&page=4#entry4622518>

An SA Gun Club classic. In this very post, above, Jeff slips in an assfact..the post lead to an "uncle."

Please take this shit to PNW batshit crazy anarchy. WE.DON'T.CARE! If you don't care, which is what I suspected, then Shannon Watts gets my support, by default.

 

 

 

More gangbanger scapegoating (below). I find this whole gangsta stream pretty amusing. The conflict is an argument against both black and white gun mentality, IMO.

I hope some gangbanger is not reading this and decides to murder some more black kids. Their death will be on your head, joke-off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's really fascinating Tom. After all this time with you and JB arguing that suicide figures need to be left out of the Gun death figures, we finally have a concession that more guns (1 per person) generates more deaths.

 

Only in your fucked up randumb world could you conclude that. In fact, if you look at the graph from Post #330, it shows exactly the opposite.

 

...

 

Dead is dead. It makes zero difference how you die. Its a BS argument, and you know it and no one here is buying it.

 

 

You seem confused about who said there was a relationship JB. I posted a paper. Argue with the researchers.

 

You are the kind of gun nut that gets very angry with those who disagree with you, lash out at the nearest person without thinking about it, the kind of person who should not be allowed to own guns. You could hurt someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I utterly and totally give up on you jocal. You're so fucking wrong, but I don't have the patience to explain why. Your own articles you post are disingenuous, misleading and often blatantly dishonest and you are too fucking stupid to see it. For instance, Yes people use the most convenient tool when committing suicide. But the presence of guns DOES NOT increase suicides. It increases GUN suicides, yes - but not overall suicides. If it did, the US suicide numbers would be off the scale. But we are consistent with other similar nations. It just means that others use other means to self murder when a gun isn't handy. SO FUCKING WHAT? Dead is dead. Without guns, how do all those pusstralians manage to kill themselves???

 

So Jo, go fuck yourself. You are dead to me. Please take this shit to PNW batshit crazy anarchy. WE.DON'T.CARE!

 

I'm going shooting. I hope some gangbanger is not reading this and decides to murder some more black kids. Their death will be on your head, joke-off.

Did you read the excellent article which random presented?

With suicide, method substitution for guns can occur, but impulsive suicide acts far outweigh committed suicide actors.

75% to 90% of suicide survivors go on to lead productive lives. OTOH very few survive suicide attempts by gun.

 

Much of the analysis is flat-out gun friendly.

 

Gun advocates and supporters of Second Amendment rights shouldnt assume that more research simply means more arguments against guns. We are eager, for example, to see more studies on the defensive use of guns, a phenomenon about which there is currently very little trustworthy data. another Kleck doubter Moreover, better research might find ways of reducing gun violence without violating Second Amendment rights.

The author has no known associations with the Joyce Foundation, Hemenway, or Bloomberg. He appeals to your leadership skills, Jeff, and suggests that

... reducing gun violence could be one of the best ways of reducing the demand for gun control.)

Ding ding ding!

Unfortunately substitute methods do in fact occur. It isn't a matter of may occur. Why aren't you also trying to ban rope? Or hanging to death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About: Gary Kleck's only study since 2001.

 

 

jocal505, on 05 Jun 2015 - 11:01 AM, said:

Let's look at your discredited DGU source. Don't get me started on this clown:

 

Tom Ray, on 06 Jun 2015 - 7:36 PM, said:

Go ahead. Get started. Explain why the UCLA Law Review was so foolish as to give him any attention at all. Also, explain why his research at the link you provided is deficient.

 

He's just a professor, not a bright... um... whatever you are. Correct the clown.

 

 

Excuse the scholarly nature of this posting. Excuse me for the length, too.

But Tom asked a good question, more than once.

 

THE MYTH OF BIG-TIME GUN TRAFFICKING AND THE OVERINTERPRETATION OF GUN TRACING DATA

Gary Kleck* Shun-Yung Kevin Wang**

* Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University.

** Doctoral student in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University.

http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/56-5-6.pdf

Here is what some pro-gunners are saying about Kleck and Wang 2008.

 

Calguns: Kleck and Wang submitted a very interesting paper entitled The Myth of Big-Time Gun Trafficking and the Overinterpretation of Gun Tracing Data (PDF here.)

A couple of the most interesting findings:

1. One in 30 day laws have no correlation with gun trafficking.

2. Illegal guns are bought and sold for less than their equivalent retail price.

3. The only thing that correlates with criminal access to firearms is the burglary rate locally. If the burglary rate falls, criminal access to firearms falls. The interesting implication is that if law enforcement concentrated on catching burglars it may be the most effective way to get illicit firearms off the street.

Gene Hoffman

Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

Pasted from <http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204312

Kleck and Wang (2009)—If gun trafficking is a profitable business one would expect it to flourish in cities with very stringent gun laws, such as N.Y.C., Chicago, & Washington, D.C. • Data from arrestee interviews conducted in these cities in 1997 indicate criminals generally pay less than retail price for their handguns •

(graph snipped here)

Average Price Paid by Arrestees for Recently Acquired Handgun, 1997 (Source: DOJ, 1998)

Average Retail Price of Crime Guns Recovered by Police Department, 1998 (Source: Kleck & Wang, 2009)

Conclusion: The claim that gun traffickers can sell guns at a premium to their original price is not supported by the evidence, even in cities with highly restrictive gun laws.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~tvk071000/guntrafficking1.pdf

To their credit, the research was mentioned in the CDC 2013 Priorities for Research:

 

P24-25 of CDC 2013

The ATF tracks firearm possession and subsequent use only after a gun is used in a crime. Even if the ATF is able to successfully trace a firearm from its original point of purchase, the firearm may have changed hands many times without a paper trail (both legally and illegally) after its original purchase. As a result, the sources identified when guns are traced by the ATF are unrepresentative of the proximate sources of guns used in crimes, and ATF data may exaggerate the share of guns that have attributes associated with gun trafficking, such as quick movement from first retail sale to recovery by police in connection with a crime (Kleck and Wang, 2009). Improving the representativeness of ATF tracing data might help researchers better understand the link between gun sources and gun crime.

Pasted from <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=25>

Kleck and Wang's paper was published in the UCLA Law Review. Their article was not peer-reviewed, but as I mentioned to Tom Ray, law reviews can draw some impressive critiques...and four years later, Kleck and Wang 2008 drew a peer-reviewed study as a direct response. The commenters were experienced veterans of gun research.

Braga 2012, Interpreting the Empirical Evidence on Illegal Gun Market Dynamics

Anthony A. Braga, 1,2 Garen J. Wintemute,3 Glenn L. Pierce,4 Philip J. Cook,5 and Greg Ridgeway6

Author information ► Copyright and License information ►

Peer Reviewed in J Urban Health. 2012 Oct; 89(5): 779–793.

Published online 2012 Jun 6. doi: 10.1007/s11524-012-9681-y

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3462834/

In the Braga 2012 Study, we find a review of the Kleck and Wang Paper, and the position they had taken.

Tom, it's a good read, and not long. But it demonstrates what happens when careful, non-incendiary scientists approach a subject.

Their thorough analysis has many sides, but shows a series of flaws (each with a pro-gun outcome) in Kleck and Wang's approach.

The scientists actually complain of a straw man. The straw man is in the title. Kleck and Wang claim that a few particular studies and the ATF place an emphasis on large-scale supply of guns to criminals. The claim is false.

SUMMARY

--Kleck and Wang claim that the ATF and certain studies maintain that large illegal gun shipments account for criminal supply. These writings, however, articulate a broad variety of crime gun sources, with no emphasis on bulk gun sales to syndicates.

--There were problems with Kleck and Wang's unsupported assertion that newish (short time-to-crime) guns used in crimes were obtained by burglary. They offered zero data.

--Kleck and Wang use a very high threshold (traficking arrests involving 100 guns or more) to quantify major gun trafficking. The bulk of solid arrests contain a fraction of that amount. Their chosen criteria artificially screens, and insulates, the conclusions of Kleck and Wang.

--Kleck and Wang attempt to refute that new guns are an important connection between crime and retail suppliers. The researchers, however, detect straw man activity, because of criminal preference for guns in original packaging. (By their own preference, perps don't want "a body" on a used gun). Braga et al examine the criminal preference for clean ballistics, as opposed to used guns...again relating new guns, and their known short time-to-crime, to legal retail sales.

They are scientists, Tom. So here is their math:

(…) If theft is the predominant source of crime guns, the age distribution of crime guns should follow the age distribution of legally owned firearms

(…) One-year-old handguns are overrepresented by a factor of nearly 4.6 times when the handgun production history age distribution and time-to-crime distribution are compared.

--The Kleck and Wang research takes the position that crime gun sourcing cannot be determined from ATF trace data. Well, yes, the data, how the data is stored, and access to the data by public disclosure request was severely restricted. (The mechanisms for this legislationwere unrelated appropriations riders sponsored by Sen Todd Tiahart in 2003).

But Braga et al go to pre-2003 information (material that is now prevented by the Tiahart Amendments, and examine time-to-crime characteristics, and the high numbers of new crime guns recovered.

--There were fundamental problems with conclusions Kleck and Wang made about guns with removed serial numbers. Their data showed a selective view:

 

…"Kleck and Wang misinterpreted a key ATF table that explored possible links between guns with obliterated serial numbers and multiple handgun sales.18 To be included in that table, an obliterated serial number gun had to be traced, which requires the serial number to be restored. Many handguns with obliterated serial number cannot be traced, and the guns in the table therefore represent a selective undercount of guns with obliterated serial numbers. Kleck and Wang’s estimate is therefore incorrect.

…"Unfortunately, the ATF report from which Kleck and Wang collected their obliterated serial number data clearly states that these data were seriously limited: they were reported from just eight cities, did not include long guns, and did not include older guns.18 The flaws in the data raise serious doubts about the reliability and validity of Kleck and Wang’s conclusions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FBI did a report on active shooting incidents. John R. Lott chimed in.

This is the response of the writers of the FBI report.

 

Misrepresenting the FBI Active Shooter Report: A Response to Lott

Pete Blair, Ph.D* and M. Hunter Martaindale**

The March 2015 edition of ACJS Today published a paper by John Lott criticizing the report titled “A Study of Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013” released by the FBI in September of last year (see Blair & Schweit, 2014 for the entire report). As part of the team that produced this report, we feel the need to respond to this criticism and explain the importance of these data. Lott’s essential argument is a straw man; he accuses us of saying something that we did not and then attempts to show this is wrong. We provide the specifics of this straw man argument below.

33 Volume XL, Issue 3 May 2015

The Straw Man

Lott begins by admitting the FBI report is about active shooter incidents and not mass murders or mass shootings. Active shooter events are a specific type of attack that involves one or more individuals attempting to commit mass murder by firearm, regardless of what the outcome of this attempt is. In some instances, many deaths occur. However, in the majority of cases, fewer than three deaths result. Active shooter events have garnered substantial public and law enforcement attention since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and even more so following the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The first text pages of the report (pp. 4–5) identify the definition of active shooter incidents and distinguish them from mass murders and shootings. Throughout the FBI report, the only times the terms mass murder or mass shooting are mentioned are to clarify that active shooter incidents and mass murder shootings are not synonymous (e.g., pp. 7, 9, and 20 all state that only 40% of the active shooter incidents reviewed qualify as mass murder under the federal definition of three or more people killed during a single incident).

Lott then cites a number of news headlines in which the media mistakenly reported mass shootings were on the rise. The media reports did not say that mass murders were on the rise; rather, they stated that mass shootings were. We agree with Lott’s assessment that some media outlets got it wrong. At the press conference releasing the report, we went to great lengths to clarify how active shooter events were different from mass murders and mass shootings. Several speakers made this point and specific sections in the report were highlighted in an attempt to make it clear that, in most of these events, fewer than three people were killed and fewer than five were shot.

 

While we went to great efforts to avoid misrepresentations by the media, they unfortunately happened anyway. We have little control over this. We wonder if some members of the media intentionally misreported findings in an attempt to generate a bigger headline or advance their own agendas. -Nonetheless, the report does not misrepresent the data. Next, Lott accuses the FBI of a bait and switch, stating, “While the FBI study discusses ‘mass shootings or killings,’” (p. 19). However, the report does not discuss mass shootings or killings other than to distinguish them from active shooter incidents. It is at this point that he begins to confound mass shootings with mass murders. His definition of a mass public shooting requires that a specific number of people die, but it does not require that a certain number of people be shot. Lott then switches his focus from mass shootings to mass murder (using the criteria of the number of people killed instead of the -number shot) while still periodically referring to mass shootings.

 

His analysis can be criticized on a number of points (e.g., discussing mass shootings without considering the number of people shot, the use of two deaths as the definition of mass murder when three or four is typical, the use of significance tests on what should probably be considered population data). Most important, the FBI report never claims mass murders or shootings are on the rise. We reported an increase in the number of active shooter incidents, most of which were not mass murders or shootings. Overall, Lott’s paper is clearly a straw-man argument. His assertion that the FBI claims mass shootings are on the rise is simply not true. Lott then attempts to show that mass shootings/murders are not on the rise (puzzling, the data still show an upward trend after the adjustments) to prove that what the FBI report does not say is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what that has to do with self-murders, jocal.

 

Didn't you read the topic post? This thread is mostly about suicides. Find one that's mostly about people shooting others. We have plenty of those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not the reason we can't discuss Sol's idea that we block only those intent on mass murder without affecting anyone else.

 

We can't discuss it because it's stupid and Sol doesn't want to discuss how his idea would affect everyone else.

 

You're dealing with a guy who thinks this article has nothing about statistics because he doesn't want to talk about the fact that he's using suicide numbers to promote gun control.

Gun suicide numbers in the USA are the biggest reason for gun control.

No social scientists support you, Tom, in your promotion of these gun fatalities. 90% are arbitrary. 90% are impulsive.

(Only one in ten who attempt suicide were objectively intent on it, since only one in ten follow up their intention.)

 

 

They manage to follow up pretty well in places like Japan, despite an almost complete lack of guns.

 

I know, I know, they don't use guns and that's somehow better to you. It's not to me. I'm interested in suicide rates, not gun suicide rates. In other words, whether people kill themselves as opposed to how.

 

In the unlikely event you start to address suicide rates, not just gun suicide rates, and manage to prove to me that gun control keeps suicide rates down, I still won't believe it's a good idea because I believe in the right to die, including the right to choose the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray said "In the unlikely event you start to address suicide rates, not just gun suicide rates, and manage to prove to me that gun control keeps suicide rates down, I still won't believe it's a good idea because I believe in the right to die, including the right to choose the means."

 

Tom, you clearly refuse to read or acknowledge material when it is posted. But in the unlikely event that you may, this link is to a post I made (15 June 2015 - 10:38 AM in Political Anarchy) providing exactly what you have just asked for. There is no shortage of papers showing that suicide rate come down in total when gun numbers are reduced,

 

AND wait there's more,

 

"The study confirms that people with guns at home are no more likely to attempt to kill themselves - but they are more likely to succeed because they are more likely to use a gun, Dr. Eric Fleegler, a pediatric emergency medicine doctor at Boston Children's Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, said.

 

For example, about three percent of people who attempt suicide with drugs or cutting actually kill themselves, he said. But about 90 percent of attempts using a firearm are successful.

 

According to the CDC, about 12 in every 100,000 Americans committed suicide in 2010 - half of them with a gun."

 

But is seems to me that nothing posted here, no paper, will alter the view you have on this subject. Waste of fucking time to post this and you are disingenuous in asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites