Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

 

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

When will you learn to compare likes to likes? That is basic.

Japan compares poorly to the U.S. It has a history rich in suicidal tradition.

 

prove to me that gun control keeps suicide rates down

 

Did you read Post 346, above?

 

Tom, as stated earlier, social scientists say that the NUMBER ONE, most effective, controller of suicide is gun absence.

 

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> c

 

Here are four study sources.

In my latest paper, Firearms and Suicides in US States, (written with the excellent Justin Briggs) we examine the easier question, what is the relationship between firearms and suicide? Using a variety of techniques and data we estimate that a 1 percentage point increase in the household gun ownership rate leads to a .5 to .9% increase in suicides. (...) The results in the paper appear to be robust but the data on gun ownership is frustratingly sparse due to political considerations.http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/firearms-and-suicides-in-us-states.html#sthash.VORfuuB1.dpuf

 

 

“You can reduce the rate of suicide in the United States substantially, without attending to underlying mental health problems, if fewer people had guns in their homes and fewer people who are at risk for suicide had access to guns in their home,” said Dr. Matthew Miller, a director of Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

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

 

 

Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)

High-Gun States Low-Gun States

Population 39 million 40 million

Household Gun Ownership 47% 15%

Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606

Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446

Total Suicide 14,809 8,052

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

For example, Brent and colleagues studied three groups of adolescents: 47 suicide decedents, 47 inpatient attempters, and 47 psychiatric inpatients who had never attempted suicide. Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups.

(...) For example, one study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide. The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence.

 

 

RESULTS:

Results largely indicated that states with any of these laws in place exhibited lower overall suicide rates and suicide by firearms rates and that a smaller proportion of suicides in such states resulted from firearms. Furthermore, results indicated that laws requiring registration and license had significant indirect effects through the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. The latter results imply that such laws are associated with fewer suicide attempts overall, a tendency for those who attempt to use less-lethal means, or both. Exploratory longitudinal analyses indicated a decrease in overall suicide rates immediately following implementation of laws requiring a license to own a handgun.

CONCLUSIONS:

The results are thus supportive of the potential of handgun legislation to have an impact on suicide rates.

(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print April 16, 2015: e1-e9. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302465).

PMID:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880944>

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.

 

First off, you are hijacking a thread stating a different subject than suicide.

Secondly, you asked for this Kleck and Wang analysis, twice.

 

The work was worth it.

As you can see, Kleck is a loser, who lucked out to be in Priorities for Research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody gives a fuk about self-murderers. So instead why dont you focus on the 5 or 6 thousand intentional murders per year in this country. And go back to work in da 'hood and try and talk some sense into your criminal home boyz......

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.

Why didn't overall suicide rates in Australia go down immediately after the great national gun confiscation?

 

Why didn't Australia confiscate any and all things that were used in suicides by hanging as that would have had the same impact on overall suicide rates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why didn't Australia confiscate any and all things that were used in suicides by hanging as that would have had the same impact on overall suicide rates?

Why didn't overall suicide rates in Australia go down immediately after the great national gun confiscation?

I'm so very glad you asked. The overall suicide rate did go down very soon after. Very fucking convincing isn't it? The rate started decreasing immediately after the gun buy-back. Clearly you don't know shit.

 

Click to enlarge.

Exactly. It took 6 to 7 years to dip below the low levels previous to the point of confiscation. And a couple years to drop significantly from the point of confiscation. Why so long if guns were gone?

 

And over the longer haul how does one tell if the return back to normal lows wasn't due to - or partially due to- other factors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you choose to look at it that simplistically you're a knucklehead.

 

In the +/-20 years since the buy back there has been a massive drive on suicide awareness and a proliferation of aid agencies (beyond blue etc) to assist those with suicidal tendencies.

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.

 

First off, you are hijacking a thread stating a different subject than suicide.

...

 

 

Yes, I did, and my reason is that the stated subject in the thread title is NOT what the topic post is about. It's the cost of "gun violence" but that is meant to mislead people into believing it's about guns being used to harm others. Most of the people killed "by gunshots" are in fact killed by themselves.

 

 

Jennifer Longdon was one of at least 750,000 Americans injured by gunshots over the last decade, and she was lucky not to be one of the more than 320,000 killed. Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

 

...

 

Miller's approach looks at two categories of costs. The first is direct: Every time a bullet hits somebody, expenses can include emergency services, police investigations, and long-term medical and mental-health care, as well as court and prison costs.

 

 

 

Random did a better job, once again proving that people with access to better tools will use them. From the Slate article:

 

If more guns lead to more suicides, should we ban guns as Australia did? Not necessarily. We find that a 1 percentage-point increase in the household gun-ownership rate increases suicides by at most 0.9 percent. There are 114 million households in the U.S., so a 1 percentage-point increase in ownership means approximately 1.1 million more households with guns. Since there are relatively few suicides, this translates into 345 more suicides, at most. In this sense, guns are relatively benign. Most guns are never involved in a suicide or a homicide.

 

 

20,345 is worse than 20,000. Whether social scientists can really predict behavior that accurately is something I doubt. In any case, I still believe we have a right to good tools for self defense. Or to kill ourselves, though I still think guns are not nearly lethal enough for that purpose.

 

Guns in the home are a risk factor for suicide, and the risk is especially great if there is a depressed adolescent living at home. Unfortunately, people don’t always weigh risks carefully. In one study, even when strongly recommended by mental health professionals to do so, most parents of a depressed adolescent didn’t remove their guns from their home. It’s also disturbing that guns were least likely to be removed when the father of the depressed adolescent had a drinking or drug problem of his own.

 

 

Our house is not kid-safe at all and I have to run around when the four year old grandson comes down and put all kinds of stuff out of reach. Among the tasks is to make sure guns are locked up, which they usually are anyway. In ten years, he'll be 14 and no doubt depressed because of some girl. I'll probably try to cheer him up by taking him out to blast some old computer monitors or something. But I think the quote above shows that we're dealing with a problem that is not really susceptible to government solutions. The Aussie suicide rate is not significantly different from ours but their rights are significantly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I sell you something, I might buy it back.

 

But if I never owned it and I demand you sell it to me at my chosen price, that's not "buying" it's coercing and it's not going "back" to anyone who previously owned it.

 

So what gun control law caused the Aussie suicide rate to decline down to near the current level back in 1993? And why is it on the rise? Have Aussies relaxed gun control laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many questions from a fuckwit who cannot read graphs. So much you do not know.

 

Guns reduced, deaths reduced. Pretty fucking simple.

I know how to read a graph. You've previously proven your ability with the numbers is limited. Again you've posted information that disproves your position and don't realize why. The slope of a curve at a given point tells very little.

 

What's the normal range before confiscation vs. After? Its took over six years to even get to a point below the normal range of the few years prior to confiscation as shown on the graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If I sell you something, I might buy it back.

 

But if I never owned it and I demand you sell it to me at my chosen price, that's not "buying" it's coercing and it's not going "back" to anyone who previously owned it.

 

So what gun control law caused the Aussie suicide rate to decline down to near the current level back in 1993? And why is it on the rise? Have Aussies relaxed gun control laws?

Dunno Tom, maybe it's the same one that ... but I am wasting my fucking time again, becasue I'm a nice guy. Maybe it was after the AUS population decided not to take so much notice of the USA.

 

In Australia, the annual rate of suicide by any means per 100,000 population is

2012: 11.51

2011: 10.93

2010: 11.52

2009: 10.98

2008: 11.14

2007: 10.73

2006: 10.34

2005: 10.38

2004: 10.49

2003: 11.20

2002: 11.88

2001: 12.72

2000: 12.34

1999: 13.17

1998: 14.34

1997: 14.69

1996: 13.07

1995: 13.10

1994: 12.65

1993: 11.78

1992: 13.11

1991: 13.65

1990: 12.66

1989: 12.47

1988: 13.29

 

And you posted it AGAIN!

 

Let me help you understand the data above.

 

1) what is year of confiscation?

2) what is maximum rate of any year prior? What is minimum of any year prior?

(From simplistic perspective the above the normal range even though it most likely would calculate broader)

3) determine first year after confiscation in which the rate fell below the normal range.

4). Subtract the year of confiscation from the year determined in 3).

 

 

The answer is seven (7). Seven years.

 

The year after confiscation the suicide rate was right about the same. There was a ten percent decrease in gun suicides. But there was a ten percent increase in hanging suicides.

 

It must be assumed that immediately after confiscation was the point in time when there were fewest guns. This would be due to all of the permitting of guns ownership SINCE. Why was the suicide rate not at an all time low?

 

Well of course! Australians prefer self poisoning and hanging over guns to commit suicide. Why not outlaw those?

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

 

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.

 

 

There are two huge problems with this tired statement.

 

The first is the NUMBER of dead. If gun availability is feeding the quantity of deaths, that is a deadly negative.

 

The second is the INCIDENCE of death. FIrearm suicides are about 95% successful: there are few survivors.

The other chosen methods, such as hanging, poisoning, bridge jumping, etc, have survival rates as high as 97%.

Guns are an additional negative if they are proportionately the most deadly means of suicide.

 

Dead is dead? Yes, but more dead is more bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second is the INCIDENCE of death. FIrearm suicides are about 95% successful: there are few survivors.

...

 

 

Cite?

 

And it should probably be a different one this time.

 

 

 

 

“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.

 

 

Guns have gotten quite a bit deadlier just in the last nine days.

 

Wait a couple more weeks. There won't be any living gun owners to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you choose to look at it that simplistically you're a knucklehead.

 

In the +/-20 years since the buy back there has been a massive drive on suicide awareness and a proliferation of aid agencies (beyond blue etc) to assist those with suicidal tendencies.

Nah, that couldn't be it.

 

Btw - I wonder if randumb can answer why US murder rates have been steadily dropping while the number of gun sales, especially assault weapons has increased dramatically?

 

 

Another Jeffie cliche. You keep asking this question...but you don't respond to the answers from social scientists.

 

Why crime is down

Because the pattern "transcends cities and US regions, we can safely say crime is down," says James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston. "We are indeed a safer nation than 20 years ago."

He and others give four main reasons for the decline:

--Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, that keeps more criminals off the streets.

--Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology.

--The waning of the crack cocaine epidemic that soared from 1984 to 1990, which made cocaine cheaply available in cities across the US.

--The graying of America characterized by the fastest-growing segment of the US population – baby boomers – passing the age of 50.

http://www.csmonitor.com/...

 

From the AAP (American Acadamy of Pediatrics).

(Note: this attributes fewer guns (i.e. a decline in firearms availability) as one reason for the crime drop.

 

Am Academy of Pediatrics:

Postulated reasons include

  1. improved socioeconomic conditions,
  2. violence prevention programs,
  3. decline in the crack/cocaine market,
  4. changes in legislation,
  5. declines in firearms availability for other reasons, and
  6. community policing.

American Academy of Pediatrics on guns:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2012-2481.full.pdf

 

Here are other reasons for improved crime stats (as presented in misc. other articles):

 

--The 911 emergency response system was implemented.

--Triage centers improved in emergency rooms, and medical advances better addressed multiple,high velocity bullet cavitations.

--Security camera use, and the presence of cellphone cameras diminished criminal activity.

--An impressive (but incomplete) body of evidence suggests that because the presence of lead poisoning (from both gasoline and paint) was curbed, violent behavior diminished.

--Birth control has meant that unwanted children would not extend poor upbringing into criminal fields.

--Increased incarceration, including longer sentences, keep more criminals off the streets.

--Improved law enforcement strategies, including advances in computer analysis and innovative technology, have contributed.

Jeffie, there have been many reasons for the drop in crime listed by social scientists. But in my reading, vigilante gun justice has NEVER been a talking point for these learned men.

I only read that guns cause crime to drop on pro-gun websites and articles.

The idea has zero scientific foundation currently, except the quasi-science of Dr. Gary Kleck and John R. Lott.

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.

 

First off, you are hijacking a thread stating a different subject than suicide.

...

 

 

Yes, I did, and my reason is that the stated subject in the thread title is NOT what the topic post is about. It's the cost of "gun violence" but that is meant to mislead people into believing it's about guns being used to harm others. Most of the people killed "by gunshots" are in fact killed by themselves.

 

WHAT IS THIS GOBBLEDEGOOK?

 

Badlatitude's OP is consistent with the thread title. Costs of Gun violence.

 

 

Total annual cost of gun violence: $229 billion, 33,000 deaths and 80,000 injuries ...

Even your thread purity bit is quite impure.

 

Each gun suicide is a violent gun casualty. The "tool" implemented, in each, is a gun.

Gun suicides are not free. They are not a write-off.

Each gun suicide is not without emotional, social, and financial costs.

You are a scalawag, a third-rate, third-grade, cheerleader for gun suicides in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I did, and my reason is that the stated subject in the thread title is NOT what the topic post is about. It's the cost of "gun violence" but that is meant to mislead people into believing it's about guns being used to harm others. Most of the people killed "by gunshots" are in fact killed by themselves.

 

WHAT IS THIS GOBBLEDEGOOK?

 

 

 

 

Total annual cost of gun violence: $229 billion, 33,000 deaths and 80,000 injuries ...

 

 

As I said, most of those 33k are self-murders. It's not gobbledygook. That's what the thread is mostly about.

 

I still don't believe that the costs or other consequences of my killing myself give anyone else the right to prevent me from doing it. My life, my choice.

 

Hey, that's a catchy slogan! I wonder if anyone else has already used it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The second is the INCIDENCE of death. FIrearm suicides are about 95% successful: there are few survivors.

...

 

 

Cite?

 

And it should probably be a different one this time.

 

 

 

 

“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.

 

 

Guns have gotten quite a bit deadlier just in the last nine days.

 

Wait a couple more weeks. There won't be any living gun owners to worry about.

 

 

Have you been tracking this growth rate, jocal?

 

If it gets up to about 99% effective, at least one of my reasons for thinking a gun is a bad choice for suicide will go away. When do the social scientists project we will see that rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a rat bastard grandpa out there selling cheap suicide on the internet (ad nauseam), you seem to think you are pretty cute:

 

Have you been tracking this growth rate, jocal?

 

If it gets up to about 99% effective, at least one of my reasons for thinking a gun is a bad choice for suicide will go away. When do the social scientists project we will see that rate?

 

 

I stand corrected. Thanks, Tom.

Here is the best info I've found.

Firearm lethality is 85% effective in suicide.

 

Results: From January 1990 to December 1997, among individuals 10 years or older in the state of Illinois, there were 37 352 hospital admissions for para-suicide and 10 287 completed suicides. Firearms are the most lethal suicide method. Episodes involving firearms are 2.6 times (95% CI 2.1 to 3.1) more lethal than those involving suffocation—the second most lethal suicide method. Preventing access to firearms can reduce the proportion of fatal firearms related suicides by 32% among minors, and 6.5% among adults.

Conclusions: Limiting access to firearms is a potentially effective means of reducing suicide mortality.

J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:120–124

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732374/pdf/v057p00120.pdf

 

Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm, United States, 2001

The table below illustrates the significantly higher likelihood of death in a suicide attempt using a firearm versus other methods. The “Percent Fatal” column shows the suicide “case fatality rate”: of those who attempt suicide using a given method, the percent who die in that attempt.

Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal

Firearm

16,869

2,980

19,849

85% fatal

Suffocation

6,198

2,761

8,959

69% fatal

Poisoning/overdose

5,191

215,814

221,005

2% fatal

Fall

651

1434

2,085

31%

Cut/pierce

458

62,817

63,275

1%

Other

1,109

35,089

36,198

3%

Source: Vyrostek SB, Annest JL, Ryan GW. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries–United States, 2001. MMWR. 2004:53(SS07);1-57.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5307a1.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As I said, most of those 33k are self-murders. It's not gobbledygook. That's what the thread is mostly about ever since I hi-jacked it.

 

I still don't believe that the costs or other consequences of my killing myself give anyone else the right to prevent me from doing it. My life, my choice. The outcome can be heinous, emotionally destructive to many, and ill-considered. Not desireable, Tom.

 

Hey, that's a catchy slogan! I wonder if anyone else has already used it? You are a real cutie pie, bro.

 

 

 

You have hi-jacked the thread to a macabre subject. It is a distraction mechanism you have been using on all the gun threads.

It's part of your despicable stream of propaganda.

 

Whenever a normal person quotes gun fatalities, you insist the suicide fatalities are beneficial. You distract the calamity to a claim that suicides are not gun violence. You direct the discussions to this thread, and marginalize ALL suicides here.

 

But many of these lethal decisions to attempt suicide are precipitated by gun availability, and are impulsive. Such suicides are the third leading cause of death among youth in the USA, mate. You are trying to disguise significant American tragedies with confusing, very deadly propaganda.

 

IMO, the stream of shameful values in play casts shame upon your elk, and on your brazen gun culture.

You make guns smell bad by being indifferent about gun suicides. You make yourself vulnerable in doing so.

 

What is it about Guns?

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)

Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/#What is it>

When considering suicides by nonfirearm methods in the identified literature, researchers have generally found reduced odds of suicide completion by any means other than a firearm, comparing firearm accessibility (OR range, 0.68 to 0.90) (7, 10, 22, 24).http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426#f2-6>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a perfect advertisement/argument for even more guns here in America. To allow these poor depressed souls to end their pain & suffering in the most efficient manner possible.

 

Wfd, JokeAwf.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Not if 70% to 90% of suicide survivors live on, and die of other causes.

Their lack of availability of firearms worked in their favor, Rick.

Their gals and kids and buddies continued to benefit, too.

 

Edit. It's pretty sad that you guys (Tom, Jeffie, and Mr. Booze) will justify suicides, extensively, to marginalize our gun fatality figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The determined self-murderers who choose a gun....will still find another permanent manner to successfully self-murder themselves. Removing every gun in America will not cause a drop in our suicide rate. And you know that.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The determined self-murderers who choose a gun....will still find another permanent manner to successfully self-murder themselves. Removing every gun in America will not cause a drop in our suicide rate. And you know that.....

 

FIrst off, substitution occurs, but not in a ratio of 100%.

"Determined self murderers" must measure 10% to 30% of first attempters (using Hemenway and subtraction).

 

Then, this is how an absence of guns works further: since no means of dying is as sudden as gunfire, survival rates in other attempts increase...but only if guns are not convenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As I said, most of those 33k are self-murders. It's not gobbledygook. That's what the thread is mostly about

 

I still don't believe that the costs or other consequences of my killing myself give anyone else the right to prevent me from doing it. My life, my choice.

Hey, that's a catchy slogan! I wonder if anyone else has already used it?

 

 

 

The outcome can be heinous, emotionally destructive to many, and ill-considered. Not desireable, Tom.

 

You have hi-jacked the thread to a macabre subject. It is a distraction mechanism you have been using on all the gun threads.

 

 

Undesirable outcomes don't give others the final word on my life. It's a self-ownership thing.

 

I have focused on most of the deaths mentioned at the topic post link. Far from using this method on all the gun threads, my intention is to take posts about self-murder to this thread for discussion wherever I find them.

 

The fact that I will find self-murder discussions throughout discussions of things normal people consider "violence" is not my fault.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why the need to redefine words, random?

 

"Self-murder" when everyone knows what suicide means.

 

"Buyback" as if the government owned the guns in the first place, and in some cases, as if the sale was really a voluntary transaction.

 

Can't we just talk about suicides and forced sales?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More of the same shit Tom. I did not define the words, call those who did.

 

Already done the suicide thing (so has Jocal) very conclusively, but you don't read anything posted.

 

The report above says all needed, just doesn't fit your paradym.

 

Paradym sounds like a good name for a high tech spinnaker fabric.

 

And self-ownership isn't "shit" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FockDog. Stick to things you know something about.

 

Do Gun Buybacks Save Lives? Evidence

from Panel Data

 

 

5. Discussion and Conclusions

...

We show that the largest falls in firearm deaths occurred in states where more

firearms were bought back. Compared to time series studies, this approach

has some key bene fits. First, it allows us to control for national-level trends

in death rates through the use of national-level fixed effects and at the state

level through state-specific time trends

the results show that, even aftercontrolling for such trends, there was a statistically

significant decline in firearm deaths in states with higher firearm buyback rates. Second, we are

able to examine in more depth the time pattern of any response of deathsto the NFA

the results show that firearm deaths in states with higher buyback rates fell relative to

those with lower buyback rates and that this relative reduction in the firearm death rate was maintained

subsequently. Finally, we use an instrumental variables strategy to allow

for possible endogeneity in the gun buyback rate andfind that this makes no substantive difference

to the results. That the results in the baseline regression are robust to all three approaches suggests that the

relationship between buyback rates and death rates is likely causal.

 

 

Every fuking gun 'buy-back' in California since day one has reduced homicides and intentional shootings by exactly....zero. Nice try.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to discuss self-ownership and what it is that you think gives you or anyone else the right to stop me from killing myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Random did a better job, once again proving that people with access to better tools will use them. From the Slate article:

 

If more guns lead to more suicides, should we ban guns as Australia did? Not necessarily. We find that a 1 percentage-point increase in the household gun-ownership rate increases suicides by at most 0.9 percent. There are 114 million households in the U.S., so a 1 percentage-point increase in ownership means approximately 1.1 million more households with guns. Since there are relatively few suicides, this translates into 345 more suicides, at most. In this sense, guns are relatively benign. Most guns are never involved in a suicide or a homicide.

 

 

20,345 is worse than 20,000. Whether social scientists can really predict behavior that accurately is something I doubt. In any case, I still believe we have a right to good tools for self defense. Or to kill ourselves, though I still think guns are not nearly lethal enough for that purpose.

 

 

 

My butt still hurts from the insertion of this fact.

 

Are the predictions of social scientists really "facts" to you, random?

 

Do you really think they are accurate enough to make the guess referenced in the article you posted, that we are going to be within a few hundred deaths of 20,000 whether or not we attempt self-murder control through gun control?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adler A110 lever action shotgun released in Aussie. Sells out in one day.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/conservation-groups-up-in-arms-as-legal-semiauto-shotgun-sells-out-20150624-ghwefx.html

 

Note the terminology applied by the hoplophobes

 

LMAO.

 

"What it is is a semi auto weapon," says Laurie Levy, campaign director for the Coalition against Duck Shooting.

 

"It shouldn't be able to come to Australia. It's a rapid fire weapon very much like a pump action shotgun – in fact it looks like one."

 

 

Pump shotguns are semi-auto's over there?

 

I thought the point of a semi-auto shotgun is that you don't have to pump it?

 

This isn't really self-murder related. No one's going to operate the lever and get off that second shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Changes to Australia's firearms laws to restrict the sale of lever action shotguns may be made retrospective.

Government authorities are moving quickly to restrict the sale of all lever action firearms in Australia.

Almost 7000 shooters have preordered the rapid fire seven shot weapon.

Firearms technology and design has evolved since the NFA in 1996.

And we will argue that these weapons should have a category c level restriction.

 

In 1996,almost 700,000 semi auto rifles and shotguns were handed in by shooters.

www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/lever-action-gun-buyback-may-be-triggered-by-law-changes/story-fnkfnspy-1227414273228

 

Got that, firearms technology has evolved since 1996,lever action was unheard of before then if you never watched a cowboy and indian movie.

 

It was 640,000 guns surrendered can these hoplophobes ever get their facts straight,Victoria was the only state to count weapons by type and they had a total of 3% for semi auto with the majority being 10/22's.

That reporter makes it sound like 700,000 semi autos were surrendered,the pictures of the buy back show the majority of guns surrendered were bolt action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really only need one round from a shotgun to attempt self-murder. I don't see the relevance of this lever gun to this thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Pussification of Pusstralia is strong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Nine dead victims are a distinct inconvenience, particularly when they are all black.

 

Why are they inconvenient to you?

 

The dead people? I'm glad to see you noticing them. That is a positive step!

 

They are inconvenient for anyone that thinks that black people should enjoy the same rights as white people, and thought that we might have moved past the days when white folks went around s-h-o-o-t-i-n-g black folks because they did not like them.

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Unless you're one of those people that believes black people should not enjoy the same rights as white people, they're not inconvenient for you. You're just imagining how others feel.

 

I'll join in. Bloomberg $peak$ about the need to throw black people up against the wall and frisk them, so I imagine the dead are inconvenient to him. While I'm at it, I'll imagine he hasn't noticed them yet.

 

I think they don't need to be thrown up against the wall and hope that we rid ourselves of the last racist gun control laws soon. The murderer and the dead have not made that inconvenient at all, offering another opportunity to draw comparisons between current and historic racist gun control laws.

 

Of course, there have been a few classy people who have had to drag self-murders into the subject, as if they have anything to do with violence. But there are going to be some stinky malarkey bombs thrown anywhere, you know?

 

 

 

 

Maybe, Tom, because you try hard to ignore beaucoup (19,000/yr) cgun suicides:

 

 

 

 

I'm not ignoring the self murders and don't see how my views on suicide could mean I would not notice the Charleston shooting.

 

I really don't see how violent crimes and self-murders are so similar in your mind. To me, it would have been a very different day if the murderer in Charleston had simply decided to become a self-murderer instead of going after other people. The going after other people thing is the big difference to me.

 

Why is that not a big difference to you?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

 

Maybe, Tom, because you try hard to ignore beaucoup (19,000/yr) gun suicides:

 

I'm not ignoring the self murders You are claiming, ad nauseam, that they are negligible. You are pretending and preaching that they are not gun fatalities. and don't see how my views on suicide could mean I would not notice the Charleston shooting. Here's how: you also dismiss 700 gun accidents/yr as being "a handful". You show a pattern of dismissing gun deaths, pal. Your suicide gambit is a mechanism to mask 11,500 gun deaths a year...and 85,000 gun injuries.

 

I really don't see how violent crimes and self-murders are so similar in your mind. To me, it would have been a very different day if the murderer in Charleston had simply decided to become a self-murderer instead of going after other people. The going after other people thing is the big difference to me.

 

Why is that not a big difference to you?

 

Once again, you are forming your own beliefs, then expecting another person to think the same as you.

You'll need to discover the answer your question (Why is that not a big difference to you?) on your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That recap of the topic post on "gun violence" starts this way:

 

Each year more than 11,000 people are killed with guns in the United States, an additional 20,000 people commit suicide with guns and 80,000 people survive gunshot wounds with a wide range of injuries, including life-altering paralysis. That means bullets pierce the bodies of at least 111,000 people each year. Maybe.

 

 

And maybe if you repeat it often enough, people will start to think suicides are gun violence. Or maybe, like me, they'll think it's more ridiculous each time they see it.

 

I discovered the answer to my question to jocal: violence is when people go after others. Suicide is not that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Propoganda. Can't you think for yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That recap of the topic post on "gun violence" starts this way:

 

Each year more than 11,000 people are killed with guns in the United States, an additional 20,000 people commit suicide with guns and 80,000 people survive gunshot wounds with a wide range of injuries, including life-altering paralysis. That means bullets pierce the bodies of at least 111,000 people each year. Maybe. There's no "maybe" involved. These casualties are documented.

 

 

And maybe if you repeat it often enough, people will start to think suicides are gun violence. Or maybe, like me, they'll think it's more ridiculous each time they see it.

 

I discovered the answer to my question to jocal: violence is when people go after others. Suicide is not that.

 

Lame. A gun suicide creates serious emotional damage within loved ones; each is a loss to vibrant others. Families are never the same.

Each suicide is a loss to the community, not just to the deceased.

Family members who survive these gun deaths don't celebrate and hand out more guns to the family.

You are following a dark, sociopathic line of reasoning...for guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah yeah fuckin yeah. Of course there has.

 

jackie-chan-stupid.jpg

 

 

Record number of calls to Lifeline

AAP June 29, 2015, 10:28 am

Lifeline has taken a record 800,000 calls in the past year and expects that figure to top one million in the next 12 months.

 

The national counselling group also had more than 40,000 online chats via the Crisis Support Chat service, up nearly 8000 on the previous year.

 

Eight out of 10 users seeking help from the online service were aged between 15 and 44, Lifeline said on Monday.

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/28595724/record-number-of-calls-to-lifeline/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a helluva lotta depressed future self murderers in such a small country, eh Grumps?. Maybe Pusstralia ain't quite the Nirvana that so many claim it is?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you imagined I did not notice them.

 

Maybe, Tom, because you try hard to ignore beaucoup (19,000/yr) gun suicides:

I'm not ignoring the self murders You are claiming, ad nauseam, that they are negligible. You are pretending and preaching that they are not gun fatalities. and don't see how my views on suicide could mean I would not notice the Charleston shooting. Here's how: you also dismiss 700 gun accidents/yr as being "a handful". You show a pattern of dismissing gun deaths, pal. Your suicide gambit is a mechanism to mask 11,500 gun deaths a year...and 85,000 gun injuries.

 

I really don't see how violent crimes and self-murders are so similar in your mind. To me, it would have been a very different day if the murderer in Charleston had simply decided to become a self-murderer instead of going after other people. The going after other people thing is the big difference to me.

 

Why is that not a big difference to you?

Once again, you are forming your own beliefs, then expecting another person to think the same as you.

You'll need to discover the answer your question (Why is that not a big difference to you?) on your own.

As are you. Liberty and rights come at a cost. If you are worried about the cost you should be REALLY concerned about free cell phones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a helluva lotta depressed future self murderers in such a small country, eh Grumps?. Maybe Pusstralia ain't quite the Nirvana that so many claim it is?.....

 

Yes, and that's just one agency. There have been many more established since the buy back (paid confisdcation)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah yeah fuckin yeah. Of course there has.

 

jackie-chan-stupid.jpg

 

 

Record number of calls to Lifeline

AAP June 29, 2015, 10:28 am

Lifeline has taken a record 800,000 calls in the past year and expects that figure to top one million in the next 12 months.

 

The national counselling group also had more than 40,000 online chats via the Crisis Support Chat service, up nearly 8000 on the previous year.

 

Eight out of 10 users seeking help from the online service were aged between 15 and 44, Lifeline said on Monday.

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/28595724/record-number-of-calls-to-lifeline/

 

 

And not one original word. Can't think for himself apparently.

 

 

Aren't you the little pussy hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, that link is broken, Random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Total annual cost of gun violence: $229 billion, 33,000 deaths and 80,000 injuries ...

 

Mother Jones spent 6 months calculating the total cost of gun violence in America. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/true-cost-of-gun-violence-in-america

 

No one should have to surrender or have to be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to bare the cost of guns used improperly. That $229 billion should be charged directly to the people responsible for creating the cost, not to those who do nothing to create it.

 

 

 

I assume you read this little tidbit in that article?

 

 

 

 

Each year more than 11,000 people are murdered with a firearm, and more than 20,000 others commit suicide using one.

 

 

 

 

Kinda change$ the whole game now, donut?....

 

 

 

No change. Same old, tired game.

 

As a right-to-die supporter, I believe our right to life includes the right to destroy our own lives and that right implies a choice about how to go about it.

 

I just don't buy the idea that society SHOULD prevent a person like Phil Bolger from killing himself as he did. Whether we can is another question, and I don't believe we can, but I don't think we should even if it could somehow be made to work.

 

 

 

 

 

In a shameless, ghoulish move, a few of our forum posters are using suicide numbers to marginalize the US gun casualty numbers.

...

 

Yeah, I know. I wish your elk could learn that there's a difference between suicide and gun violence.

 

But when there are statistics to be padded and a gullible public that does not check into stats like R Booth did above, I expect the continued conflation of "self murders" with actual murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your meme to support gun suicide is sociopathic, Tom. Repugnant. cYou have no shame.

Many, many loved ones of the departed would take issue with you face-to-face...and I would, too.

Please source my quotes, as you frequently bring them from other threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your meme to support gun suicide is sociopathic, Tom. Repugnant. You have no shame.

Many, many loved ones of the firearm-departed would take issue with you face-to-face...and I would, too. Gun suicide sucks.

For the heck of it please source my quotes...as you frequently bring them from other threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. His position regarding suicide are common. As proven by Australia they will find a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your meme to support gun suicide is sociopathic, Tom. Repugnant. cYou have no shame.

Many, many loved ones of the departed would take issue with you face-to-face...and I would, too.

Please source my quotes, as you frequently bring them from other threads.

 

 

I'm not hard to find, but people don't seem to even want to confront me online using their real names.

 

As for sourcing quotes that I transplant, every single one is sourced. For those who know how to use the forum, anyway.

 

Did you ever click that little box up in the corner of a quote box?

 

The one with the red arrow pointing to it in this pic?

 

quote-linkback.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. His position regarding suicide are common. As proven by Australia they will find a different way.

 

Wrong wrong wrong. Present your source.

 

I have a few sources which state, expressly, that method substitution for gun suicides was not significant.

Australian gun suicides fell to 41% of pre-change rates, with no change to non-gun suicide rates.

-- andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

Simple results. Tally of facts:

-- Firearm related homicide rate fell to 41% of the pre-change rate

-- Firearm suicides fell to 35% of pre-law rate

States that ran quicker buy-backs saw faster declines to gun suicide rates

 

Average yearly number of firearm deaths prior to 1996 = 627.7; after 1996 = 332.6.

Average yearly number of firearm suicides prior to 1996 = 491.7; after 1996 = 246.6

Average yearly number of firearm homicides prior to 1996 = 92.9; after 1996 = 55.6

Dr. Chapman reported he could find no evidence of a “substitution effect” - a hypothesized phenomenon whereby a lack of guns would result in increased numbers of non-firearm suicides and non-firearm homicides.

Indeed, after 1996, the total number of non-firearm suicides declined an average of 4.1% per annum, while the total number of homicides (by any method) declined an average of 3.0% per annum. The differences between pre-1996 and post-1996 annual rates of non-firearm suicides and homicides by any method were both statistically significant.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/08/1309710/-Gun-Laws-And-Shooting-Injuries-The-Experience-in-Canada-and-Australia-Part-III>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Average yearly number of firearm deaths prior to 1996 = 627.7; after 1996 = 332.6.

Average yearly number of firearm suicides prior to 1996 = 491.7; after 1996 = 246.6

Average yearly number of firearm homicides prior to 1996 = 92.9; after 1996 = 55.6

Dr. Chapman reported he could find no evidence of a “substitution effect” - a hypothesized phenomenon whereby a lack of guns would result in increased numbers of non-firearm suicides and non-firearm homicides.

Indeed, after 1996, the total number of non-firearm suicides declined an average of 4.1% per annum, while the total number of homicides (by any method) declined an average of 3.0% per annum. The differences between pre-1996 and post-1996 annual rates of non-firearm suicides and homicides by any method were both statistically significant.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/08/1309710/-Gun-Laws-And-Shooting-Injuries-The-Experience-in-Canada-and-Australia-Part-III>

 

 

So the non-firearm rate declined, huh?

Here's the sour cherry from the same source:

 

Writing in the British Journal of Criminology in 2007, Baker and McPhedran report that firearm suicide rates in Australia were declining in the period prior to passage of the NFA, while non-firearm suicides were increasing. After the NFA, the researchers observed further reductions in firearm suicides (statistically significant lowering of post-NFA firearm suicides from what was predicted by pre-NFA firearm suicide rates), and no significant change in the rate of non-firearm suicides post-NFA.

 

 

Oh, so it didn't decline, huh?

 

I think they need some more time above the urinal so more peers can check this discrepancy out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Russia and Mexico have strict controls and gun problems. New Zealand doesn't and doesn't.

 

Here in America, our worst problems occur in areas like DC and Chicago, where we also have very strict gun control. In Idaho, with very loose gun laws, we don't have big problems, nor in Vermont, where no permit to carry a concealed weapon has ever been required.

 

You have to carefully ignore things like that to continue believing that gun control solves crime problems.

 

 

Cherry picking, are we? Thanks for some exceptions to the rules.

Scratch beneath the surface, and Vermont has some gun problems that show clearly, and go back a ways.

 

Based on CDC Data Mass Vermont

Gun violence outcomes #49 of 50 states #37

2.11/100K 10.55/100K

Ave. for ten years prior 3.38 8.96

Homicides 2010 126 deaths,1.92/100K 27 deaths 0.98/100K*

Suicides 2010 2.11/100K 10.55/100K

Gun deaths, children .074 /100K 1.02/100K

Armed aggrav. Assaults 33.19 /100K 12.60*

Crime Gun export rate 3.6/100K 22.8/100K

2009 Short time-to-crime 9.8% guns recovered 19.6%

 

*These state favor Tom's theory, so he cherry picks them.

The other stats, not so much.

 

 

If you mean the self-murder stats, we should probably talk about them in this thread, where I have laid out my thoughts on that subject.

 

As for stuff that normal people consider "violence" I'd say thanks for confirming that the weak gun laws in Vermont have not led to a hotbed of crime.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Russia and Mexico have strict controls and gun problems. New Zealand doesn't and doesn't.

 

Here in America, our worst problems occur in areas like DC and Chicago, where we also have very strict gun control. In Idaho, with very loose gun laws, we don't have big problems, nor in Vermont, where no permit to carry a concealed weapon has ever been required.

 

You have to carefully ignore things like that to continue believing that gun control solves crime problems.

 

 

Cherry picking, are we? Thanks for some exceptions to the rules.

Scratch beneath the surface, and Vermont has some gun problems that show clearly, and go back a ways.

 

Based on CDC Data Mass Vermont

Gun violence outcomes #49 of 50 states #37

2.11/100K 10.55/100K

Ave. for ten years prior 3.38 8.96

Homicides 2010 126 deaths,1.92/100K 27 deaths 0.98/100K*

Suicides 2010 2.11/100K 10.55/100K

Gun deaths, children .074 /100K 1.02/100K

Armed aggrav. Assaults 33.19 /100K 12.60*

Crime Gun export rate 3.6/100K 22.8/100K

2009 Short time-to-crime 9.8% guns recovered 19.6%

 

*These state favor Tom's theory, so he cherry picks them.

The other stats, not so much.

 

 

If you mean the self-murder stats, we should probably talk about them in this thread, where I have laid out my thoughts on that subject.

 

As for stuff that normal people consider "violence" I'd say thanks for confirming that the weak gun laws in Vermont have not led to a hotbed of c