Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

...

The link says ZIP about the NRA awakening to 2nd A concerns circa 2007.

Your great source tells how NRA figures and Levy bickered about SC timing around 2002. Then the NRA's Gura did the heavy lifting, pre-2007, while NRA attorney Halbrook threw spagetti at a SC wall concurrently, each on behalf of the Second.

 

 

 

You mean this part, in which "the NRA's Gura" complains about the NRA's efforts to stop the Parker/Heller case from proceeding?

 

...Meanwhile, the NRA again began to press its argument in Congress for passage of the D.C. Personal Protection Act, the 2003 legislation that would have repealed the ban. Levy says that this spring he finally persuaded NRA lobbyist LaPierre to back off, for at least a little while. Still, it was just another distraction the Parker lawyers didn’t appreciate.

 

“I had to spend a number of weeks on Capitol Hill because of it,” Gura says. “If the NRA’s bill had passed, it would have mooted our case and vacated our [D.C. Circuit] opinion.”

 

 

Gura wanted to press the case, the NRA wanted to hijack it to avoid a second amendment decision and/or moot it to avoid a second amendment decision. It was only after Gura won that the NRA suddenly discovered that winning was possible and became less afraid of pursuing second amendment cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder.

The docs and researchers disagree with this statement. To dispute them, Tom, you need to lay out your argument, using quality statistics and their sources.

I have laid out the evidence-based position of the medical community many times on these boards. The American Psychologist Assn., the AMA, and the American Peditrician Assn. have weighed in, unequivalently, against you.

 

 

To infringe on a protected right, there must be a compelling reason.

According to your own sources, Tom, 21,000 compelling reasons (deaths on the receiving end of a gun barrel) happened last year. Many were rash, impulsive, and/or devastating to our communities.

 

 

The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide...

Says you, based on a vacuum of science. The present rate of gun suicide in the USA is not acceptable. Far from being excusable somehow, these suicides may be the biggest reason to not accept guns in our homes and in our lives.

 

 

Ah geez with the self-murders again? What about the poison violence?

 

Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg

 

Must be the guns.

 

But what about the suffocation violence and the poison violence?

...

 

 

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

This discussion was about the high level of gun suicide in the USA.

To introduce poisonings and suffocations in other countries is not germaine.

Neither is the pathetic non-relevance of plastic bag control. (Do we have 85,000 plastic bag attack survivors every year? And 11,000 non-survivors?)

 

You quote yourself a lot. Please provide the thread links to these other hollow discussions.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns save lives:

 

 

A HERO SAS sniper gunned down a knife-wielding Islamic State (ISIS) maniac just as he was trying to brutally behead a father and his young son.

sniper-rifle-597166.jpgALAMY

An SAS sniper took out the ISIS executioner just in time

The brave British marksman saved the terrified eight-year-old and his father after taking out the crazed jihadi with a head shot from 1,000 metres away.

ALAMY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’re walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock 40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

______________________________________________________________________________

Liberal’s Answer:

Well, that’s not enough information to answer the question!

+ Does the man look poor or oppressed?
+ Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
+ Could we run away?
+ What does my wife think? What about the kids?
+ Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
+ What does the law say about this situation?
+ Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it?
+ Why am I carrying a loaded gun and what kind of message does this send to society and my children? Is it possible he’d be happy with just killing me?
+ Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
+ If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?

This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
______________________________________________________________________________

Conservative’s Answer:

BANG!
______________________________________________________________________________

Texan’s Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click (sounds of reloading).

Wife: “Sweetheart, he looks like he’s still moving. What do you kids think?”
Son: “Mom’s right Dad, I saw it too…”

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click.

Daughter: “Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And look there - nice big military presence in pusstralia. One phone call and you are ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go for it PoxDog. The record of the US invasions in the last years if one of fail after fail after fucking fail. Losers.

 

"If we get chased out of Iraq with our tail between our legs, that will be the fifth consecutive Third-world country with no hint of a Navy or an Air Force to have whipped us in the past 40 years." Hunter S Thompson 2003

Losers who control your government and thus your country. Our government loves countries that they can place huge military forces into and then get hosts to disarm themselves. Suckers.

 

American public isn't as dumb as you think. We'll keep our arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pusstralia were only there due to pressure. They gotta pay for their protection somehow. Nothing in life is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice bullshit as usual. "Violent Crime"? So you are comparing gun numbers to Beatings?

 

Meanwhile ...

 

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

Year: Deaths

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351

2010: 31,672

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

2005: 30,694

2004: 29,569

2003: 30,136

2002: 30,242

2001: 29,573

2000: 28,663

1999: 28,874

 

How dare you mix violent crimes with violent crimes? Outrageous!

 

Now excuse me while I mix self-murders with actual murders and accidents!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey it's Tom, the NRA spokesperson. So how was the last "Friends of the NRA" meeting? Any black people rock up this time?

 

Oh sorry, that's right I forgot. The NRA is about white people having guns to protect themselves from a slave rebellion.

 

I've been waiting and waiting for you to actually ask that question.

 

You assumed, based on one picture, that no black people were in attendance. You assumed wrong. Yes, black people "rocked up" last time.

 

But feel free to continue pursuing your wrong assumption and act like you never actually asked a question and learned something. It will be more in character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Hey it's Tom, the NRA spokesperson. So how was the last "Friends of the NRA" meeting? Any black people rock up this time?

 

Oh sorry, that's right I forgot. The NRA is about white people having guns to protect themselves from a slave rebellion.

 

I've been waiting and waiting for you to actually ask that question.

 

You assumed, based on one picture, that no black people were in attendance. You assumed wrong. Yes, black people "rocked up" last time.

 

But feel free to continue pursuing your wrong assumption and act like you never actually asked a question and learned something. It will be more in character.

 

 

Pictures or it didn't happen.

 

 

Specifically, I'd like a picture of some black Friends of the NRA at Tom's table. And maybe a recording of the conversation.

 

Some suggestions for TR (a nice icebreaker transition to get things rolling):

"Good evening, all. Nice to see you again. Nice weather out.

How was your day today? Is your back-to-school shopping complete?

I'm quite close to Ernie, and I'm all about learning, so let's chat a bit about cultural developments.

I hear that the Black Panthers are coming, with their guns.

And that Louis Farrakhan & the Nation of Islam are coming, with their guns.

I have heard that Rev. Mosteller is leading the armament of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Have any updates?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...

 

Tom, why would the VA recommending that a vet suffering from dementia not have a gun, be inappropriate if it lowers self murder? Or is self murder always a good thing?

 

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder. To infringe on a protected right, there must be a compelling reason. The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide, even if we assume that dementia means that his right to life has been assumed by the government. That last assumption is debatable in my mind too, but I assumed for argument's sake that the debate went your way.

 

Self ownership is almost always a good thing and should be overridden only in rare, extreme circumstances.

 

 

You wax philosophically really well here, Tom. Very high-tone...using empty, debunked claims.

You have claimed that you have an interest in learning, so what's the deal?

You forgot a recent interchange with me.

You couldn't dispute these rate-of-suicide death sources then. So you oughta know better than claim the bolded, above.

You learned nothing, then denied the knowledge.

 

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>

Pasted from <http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165680&p=4948543>

 

 

The rates of self murder using guns should not be mixed in with other rates of self-murder, jocal. Aren't you the one who taught me that?

 

Either way, I still believe more strongly in self-ownership and our right to die than I do in the nanny state's obligation to protect us from ourselves. The fact that suicide rates are unaffected by strict gun control in places like Japan is really not relevant. Even if protecting us from ourselves through gun control worked, I would still oppose it.

 

Why do you keep bringing up self-murder in other threads? You know it's just going back to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tom. You are a gun suicide cheerleader, who hi-jacked a thread to rant for more human tragedy.

Avoid this woman.Rhonda%20Rousey%20and%20sociopaths_zps6w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rates of self murder using guns should not be mixed in with other rates of self-murder, jocal. STRAW MAN ALERT Aren't you the one who taught me that?

 

Either way, I still believe more strongly in self-ownership and our right to die than I do in the nanny state's obligation to protect us from ourselves. The fact that suicide rates are unaffected by strict gun control in places like Japan is really not relevant. Even if protecting us from ourselves through gun control worked, I would still oppose it.

 

Why do you keep bringing up self-murder in other threads? Because you lied about suicides here. You know it's just going back to this thread.

 

 

You changed the subject to a libertarian talking point. Back up your statement, Badgeless Boy:

Tom Ray, on 08 Aug 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder...The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide

 

The info that I find is consistent with this very intelligent, evidence-based content:

 

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/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Back up your statement

Tom Ray, on 08 Aug 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder...The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide

 

The info that I find is consistent with this very intelligent, evidence-based content:

 

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/>

 

 

Your cite backs up my statement. The red words agree.

 

In the context of gun control, the rest of what you posted probably means we should make it illegal to sell guns to 5 year olds.

 

Oh, wait, we already did.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just cherry-picked your quote. You left these out:

 

 

...small effect on the rate of self-murder
...change the method (but not rate) of suicide

 

Then you cherry-picked my content from yesterday. See Post 519. Yikes, six informed sources show that guns are stoking U.S. suicides.

Five of six sources mention the gun access problem in the article's title.

 

You have no cites for your dishonest statements, but are stating your deadly, compromised opinions as definitive.

You are trying to use 21,500 gun suicides/yr. to marginalize11,500 gun fatalities per year, and 85,000 gunshot survivors per year.

I'm not sure it's working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I already agreed that we should make it illegal to sell guns to kids. What more do you want? The problem doesn't apply to adults as your own cite shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - Jocal is just making noise. His attitude and desires are irrelevant, because he's trying to address a symptom, and not a cause.

 

The fight he's trying to pick was lost before he even got to the playground. I'm tired of beating my forehead against the wall with him, but, will end my participation in this conversation by acknowledging that his attitude has indeed been responsible for changing my mind: I will now, for the first time ever, join the NRA, and enthusiastically engage my elected representatives in promoting pro-2nd positions.

 

I will now start utilizing the CCW permit that I've had for 25+ years, by carrying my handgun, and enjoying the angst that such an act causes to the ignorant grabbers who want to focus on everything EXCEPT the real causes of violence in this country - the 50 years of failed liberal social policies that have gutted poor communities, leaving behind generations of desperate, dependent, disillusioned people with no family, no hope, and no way to express their despair except violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, the real cause of gun violence is the thought process you are peddling.

 

 

Tom Ray, Suicide Cheerleader, Posted Today, 07:36 AM

The problem doesn't apply to adults

 

Tom, if you enjoy learning, you will enjoy this post. It's about ADULT suicide in the USA.

 

STUDY: More Guns Lead To More Suicides

A new study, coauthored by a libertarian-aligned economist, has found strong evidence that the spread of gun ownership around the United States is a threat to public health. Guns, this research suggests, really do cause people to kill themselves when they wouldn’t otherwise.

Gun research is often unfairly tarred as “biased” liberal hackwork, but Alex Tabarrok, one of the study’s two authors, isn’t anyone’s idea of a progressive. Tabarrok teaches at George Mason University, a famously libertarian-inclined economics department. He’s a fellow at the libertarian Mercatus Institute and one of the lead authors of Marginal Revolution, one of the web’s most famous libertarian-inclined blogs.

Lots of studies have investigated the relationship between firearms and homicide but the potential for reverse causality makes this a difficult problem. More homicides in a region, for example, might cause an increase in gun ownership so a positive correlation between guns and homicide doesn’t tell you which is cause and which is effect. Reverse causality is less of a problem for understanding the guns to suicide link because it’s less likely that a rash of suicides would encourage gun ownership.http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/firearms-and-suicides-in-us-states.html>

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.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/>

When firearms were accessible, men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-01-access-guns-suicide-homicide.html>

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., (A study by total unknowns. from the University of Southern Mississippi)

US military brass have been spending a lot of time and money looking at how best to reduce the suicide rate among US troops, which has skyrocketed in recent years. They have concluded that it's false to assume that people intent on killing themselves will find a way to do it even if they can't get a gun. In a report to Congress in July, the Military Suicide Research Consortium noted that "Studies demonstrate that method substitution is rare."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, the less slackers and weak minded folks in this country the better....doncha think?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations.

 

Where do we rank in access to firearms and gun ownership rate among those same nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray, where do we find your base of evidence for these statements?

Tom Ray, on 08 Aug 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder...The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide.

I can offer quite a few academics who offer another opinion. The American Academy of Pediatricians doesn't want even locked guns in our homes. It's no better for grown-ups.

Who is Most Affected by Suicide?

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. and the fourth leading cause for males under 65.1

For each death, about 45 people attempt and survive. Those who die are more likely to be male, older, and to use more lethal methods.

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/basic-suicide-facts/who/>

So, an overall 45:1 suicide survival ratio. With an 85% gun lethality ratio, the lethality of firearms itself is a player.

 

Guns most deadly choice in suicide attempts

(Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal12:07 a.m. EDT July 21, 2013

While suicide attempts usually stem from temporary setbacks, access to guns makes the equation much more lethal — because those who choose a gun over pills, cutting or hanging almost never survive.

(...) -- More than 38,000 Americans, including roughly 600 Kentuckians, take their lives each year, and those numbers are growing. From 1999 to 2010, suicide rates in Kentucky rose 22 percent to 14.2 deaths per 100,000 residents. Indiana's rate rose 26 percent, to 13.1 per 100,000; the U.S. rate rose 15 percent, to 12.1 per 100,000.

-- Guns are used in about half of U.S. suicides, compared with 64 percent in Kentucky. And suicides involving firearms are fatal 85 percent of the time, compared with less than 3 percent for pills, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Suicide, Guns, and Public Health

“Means reduction” TOOLS (reducing a suicidal person’s access to highly lethal means) is an important part of a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. It is based on the following understandings (click on each to learn more):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom - Jocal is just making noise. His attitude and desires are irrelevant, because he's trying to address a symptom, and not a cause.

 

The fight he's trying to pick was lost before he even got to the playground. I'm tired of beating my forehead against the wall with him, but, will end my participation in this conversation by acknowledging that his attitude has indeed been responsible for changing my mind: I will now, for the first time ever, join the NRA, and enthusiastically engage my elected representatives in promoting pro-2nd positions.

 

I will now start utilizing the CCW permit that I've had for 25+ years, by carrying my handgun, and enjoying the angst that such an act causes to the ignorant grabbers who want to focus on everything EXCEPT the real causes of violence in this country - the 50 years of failed liberal social policies that have gutted poor communities, leaving behind generations of desperate, dependent, disillusioned people with no family, no hope, and no way to express their despair except violence.

 

Some of the wisest thoughts in our gun forums have come from you, Guy

You often speak to the internal workings behind human behavior.

You also seem to be genuine in asking for efficacy in gun solutions.

You expect proven policy, you say.

By hiding the facts and fighting gun violence study, the SAF and NRA are responsible for making effective policy impossible.

I wish you all the best, Guy, but effective, causally-related solutions won't be found in your chosen direction.

 

No bondo for the Guyster...yet the chassis of the NRA has the worst body rot in town.

 

 

BoothandJefffieNRAmembers_zpsf6520cf3.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray, where do we find your base of evidence for these statements?

Tom Ray, on 08 Aug 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder...The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide.

 

Right here in this thread. Isn't it convenient keeping all the self-murder talk in one thread?

 

 

 

 

The info that I find is consistent with this very intelligent, evidence-based content:

 

In overall suicide rate, the United States ranks roughly in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations. ..

 

In gun ownership rate, where do we rank against those same countries?

 

You seem to want to compare states with different gun ownership rates but the differences between countries are larger. We should see a pronounced effect!

 

Unless other countries in your study own guns at more or less the same rate we do. If the guns are causing the suicides and we're middle of the pack, we must be middle of the pack in gun ownership rates, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it more than fuking hysterical that in four years. JokeAwf has been telling us that 'gun violence ' research and studies have been severely curtailed, dumbed down, under funded or have completely ceased altogether----yet in those same four years he has literally cut & pasted hundreds and hundreds of them.

 

Wierd, innit?.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tom Ray, where do we find your base of evidence for these statements?

Tom Ray, on 08 Aug 2015 - 12:39 PM, said:

Gun bans may have some small effect on the rate of self-murder using firearms but seem to have little or no effect on the overall rate of self-murder...The government has no compelling reason to change the method (but not rate) of suicide.

I can offer quite a few academics who offer another opinion. The American Academy of Pediatricians doesn't want even locked guns in our homes. It's no better for grown-ups.

Who is Most Affected by Suicide?

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. and the fourth leading cause for males under 65.1

For each death, about 45 people attempt and survive. Those who die are more likely to be male, older, and to use more lethal methods.

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/basic-suicide-facts/who/>

So, an overall 45:1 suicide survival ratio. With an 85% gun lethality ratio, the lethality of firearms itself is a player.

 

Guns most deadly choice in suicide attempts

(Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal12:07 a.m. EDT July 21, 2013

While suicide attempts usually stem from temporary setbacks, access to guns makes the equation much more lethal because those who choose a gun over pills, cutting or hanging almost never survive.

(...) -- More than 38,000 Americans, including roughly 600 Kentuckians, take their lives each year, and those numbers are growing. From 1999 to 2010, suicide rates in Kentucky rose 22 percent to 14.2 deaths per 100,000 residents. Indiana's rate rose 26 percent, to 13.1 per 100,000; the U.S. rate rose 15 percent, to 12.1 per 100,000.

-- Guns are used in about half of U.S. suicides, compared with 64 percent in Kentucky. And suicides involving firearms are fatal 85 percent of the time, compared with less than 3 percent for pills, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Suicide, Guns, and Public Health

Means reduction TOOLS (reducing a suicidal persons access to highly lethal means) is an important part of a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. It is based on the following understandings (click on each to learn more):

Some please explain to me how pediatricians are experts on fire arm related issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

85% lethal means 15% chance of surviving with horrible injuries and probably brain damage.

 

15% is waaay to high for me.

 

In the unlikely event I ever decide to kill myself, I will choose a much more lethal and less messy method.

 

But I think that's a choice for individuals and would not presume to impose my choice on others. If someone is fine with a 15% chance of horrible injuries and brain damage, it's their life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some please explain to me how pediatricians are experts on fire arm related issues.

 

 

Because they notice their kids getting shot a lot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

85% lethal means 15% chance of surviving with horrible injuries and probably brain damage.

 

15% is waaay to high for me.

 

In the unlikely event I ever decide to kill myself, I will choose a much more lethal and less messy method.

 

But I think that's a choice for individuals and would not presume to impose my choice on others. If someone is fine with a 15% chance of horrible injuries and brain damage, it's their life.

Just make it doubly illegal to kill yourself with a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Some please explain to me how pediatricians are experts on fire arm related issues.

 

Because they notice their kids getting shot a lot?

Pediatricians kids get shot a lot?

 

So we're all experts then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it more than fuking hysterical that in four years. JokeAwf has been telling us that 'gun violence ' research and studies have been severely curtailed, dumbed down, under funded or have completely ceased altogether----yet in those same four years he has literally cut & pasted hundreds and hundreds of them.

 

Wierd, innit?..... :lol:

 

This has been asked and answered a few times.

 

Publicly funded studies have great creds with the American people. Federal grants follow study suggestions, and then universities pave the way for fact-based public awareness. The game-changing role models include classic fights with vested interests of coal mining, asbestos, tobacco, automobile production, superfund cleanup, alcohol prohibition, timber over-harvest, and civil rights.

 

Public funding for gun research will be a game changer. It was quite clever (but also devious and deadly) for the gun lobby to stuff the flow of this damaging information. Ex-Sen. Jay Dickey regrets creating such a monster, and publicly admitted his regret for the '96 ban in July 2012.

 

Opening the flow of public funding will be about second base in this game of gun sensibility, IMO. How the present "gun culture" reacts will be pivotal. From what I've seen, the gun nutters will change little, and with their favorite amendment, will become social pariahs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

He practices on human shaped targets.

 

Practice makes perfect.

 

 

 

Well I bet if you asked a couple of the 'Progressives' here, they'd probably tell you that white cops practice at the range using buckets of fried chicken and watermelons....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it's still going up to me ...

 

Oh, and the OP? (date May 14, 2013 @ 10:00 PM)?

Same old JB bullshit, just Homicides, no accidents or suicides. Nothing new here.

 

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351

2010: 31,672

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

2005: 30,694

2004: 29,569

2003: 30,136

2002: 30,242

2001: 29,573

2000: 28,663

1999: 28,874

 

And yet, despite our high gun ownership rates, we have an average suicide rate.

 

 

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

Tom - Jocal is just making noise. His attitude and desires are irrelevant, because he's trying to address a symptom, and not a cause.

 

The fight he's trying to pick was lost before he even got to the playground. I'm tired of beating my forehead against the wall with him, but, will end my participation in this conversation by acknowledging that his attitude has indeed been responsible for changing my mind: I will now, for the first time ever, join the NRA, and enthusiastically engage my elected representatives in promoting pro-2nd positions.

 

I will now start utilizing the CCW permit that I've had for 25+ years, by carrying my handgun, and enjoying the angst that such an act causes to the ignorant grabbers who want to focus on everything EXCEPT the real causes of violence in this country - the 50 years of failed liberal social policies that have gutted poor communities, leaving behind generations of desperate, dependent, disillusioned people with no family, no hope, and no way to express their despair except violence.

 

Jocal has had this effect for me -- now buying my .223 / .556 ammo by the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Target Shooters Bring Mayhem to National Forests

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAUG. 22, 2015

Photo

 

 

Recreational target shooters call it “trigger trash” — tons and tons of refrigerators, car parts, televisions, sofas, bowling pins and other unwanted junk that shooters haul onto pristine federal woodlands and shred with gunfire for sheer enjoyment.

 

The abuses are scarring forest lands from the Carolinas to the Pacific Northwest. An emergency halt to target shooting had to be issued for the Croatan National Forest, in North Carolina, after hundreds of complaints from alarmed visitors. Forest Service records show an increasing raft of violations, like shooting from cars and shooting in campgrounds

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/23/opinion/sunday/target-shooters-bring-mayhem-to-national-forests.html?emc=edit_th_20150823&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=62011679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Looks like it's still going up to me ...

 

Oh, and the OP? (date May 14, 2013 @ 10:00 PM)?

Same old JB bullshit, just Homicides, no accidents or suicides. Nothing new here.

 

In the United States, annual deaths resulting from firearms total

2013: 33,636

2012: 33,563

2011: 32,351

2010: 31,672

2009: 31,347

2008: 31,593

2007: 31,224

2006: 30,896

2005: 30,694

2004: 29,569

2003: 30,136

2002: 30,242

2001: 29,573

2000: 28,663

1999: 28,874

 

And yet, despite our high gun ownership rates, we have an average suicide rate.

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

"Plastic bag control"? Liability for makers of rope, when rope suicides are not an epidemic?

YOUR NUMBERS SAY HALF THE SUICIDES ARE BY GUN? (6.6 /100K out of 13.0/100K)

Tom Ray, where is your pro-gun-suicide premise supported by research or study or academics or social scientists?

 

The simple math is that half of successful suicides employ guns, as agents in our rash of high gun suicide numbers.

Since the evidence shows that method substitution is rare, fewer guns = fewer suicides.

 

Our average suicide rates could fall below average...while saving vibrant lives.

Let's me mindful of these guns.

 

Here are four Tom Ray mis-truths (well, lies) about gun suicide in the USA:

 

Suicide%20cheerleading%20with%20Tom%20Ra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have about as many suffocation suicides in a year as we do homicides. Excluding the self-murders, of course, since normal people make a distinction between murder and suicide.

 

So if rope suicides are not an epidemic, that means gun homicides are not either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even under this broad definition, it's worth noting that mass shootings make up a tiny portion of America’s firearm deaths, which totaled more than 32,000 in 2013.

 

 

Ah geez, not more self-murder stats being used to justify gun control. Haven't we established that the US is NOT an outlier in self-murders, despite our high firearm ownership rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting how Tom can't bring himself to use the word 'Suicide'.

 

Nope. Never have. I think self-murder is waaaay funnier.

 

OK, so maybe I used it two posts above yours.

 

Self-murder is still way funnier.

 

 

We have about as many suffocation suicides in a year as we do homicides. Excluding the self-murders, of course, since normal people make a distinction between murder and suicide.

 

So if rope suicides are not an epidemic, that means gun homicides are not either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic of suicide in the USA is a rolling tragedy, not a breezy amusement for you and your lowbrow friends.

Mr. Ray, your ideas about suicide are shameless, and sociopathic. Rhonda%20Rousey%20and%20sociopaths_zps6w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

normal people make a distinction between murder and suicide.

 

NO, THEY DON'T. Social scientists, researchers, doctors, and pediatricians are "normal people," but put suicide firmly at the top of the list of gun violence. That's where it belongs.

21,000 suicide deaths per year relate to the acceptance of guns in our lives, and in our homes.

Gun suicides are the biggest part of the U.S. gun problem.

You are abnormal, Bubba. You lack the decency to accept that.

 

Instead, you peddle the most lethal tool available for suicide.

This blatantly advertises the scary values in play with the gun mentality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only people who use suicide stats to promote gun control are gungrabbers like yourself, jocal.

 

I don't care who considers it

 

 

 


It's deceptive to try to drag some of our self-murders into the gun debate. If the concern for suicide were real, those same people would be advocating rope and plastic bag control, but they don't. They want more gun control, not fewer deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

a little data for the head-in-the-sand folks (Favre)

 

Here are a few facts, however, to help arm thoughtful people in arguing with the charitably uninformed masses:

  • This is the 264th mass shooting this year. Yes, 264 mass shootings in less than a year.
  • Firearms kill 33,000 people every year.
  • ..The second amendment was written by slave-holding men who carried muskets to protect themselves from tyranny and from their slaves. A musket took over 10 seconds to reload for a single shot.

 

 

Can't we keep the self-murder discussion over here? Most of those 33k are self-murders after all. I really don't see what self-murders have to do with angry losers who murder people like the one in that other thread.

By the way, are those just things you listed off the top of your head or was there a source?

 

Here's what else they said.

 

The second amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms for a "well-regulated" militia the people in order to preserve their ability to form a militia if needed.

 

 

Edited for accuracy since some people seem to think that a right of the people is something other than what the words actually say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

So many questions but no answers Tom. You have so much to learn.

 

No time to waste then! Start teaching. You can start by answering whether you think gun possession is gun violence, whether you think a car crash is gun violence if the car contained a gun, and whether stealing a gun is gun violence.

 

I don't think any of them are gun violence and am eager to learn from those who disagree why those things should be considered gun violence.

 

 

Please link where I said those things.

 

 

 

If I had an answer from you, I would not be asking for an answer from you. You have offered no opinion on the things I found misleading, other than a bit of derision that I might find such things misleading in post 93. I could assume from the derision that you don't share my view that those are misleading examples of gun violence, but decided to ask instead of assuming.

 

You say I have things to learn about gun violence. OK, let me in on your wisdom about some of the gun violence Sean posted. Do you believe a car crash is gun violence if the car contains a gun? Do you believe gun possession is gun violence? Do you believe stealing a gun is gun violence? Do you share Sean's belief that a policeman shooting an assailant in self-defense is the kind of gun violence we should by trying to prevent?

 

 

 

Fuck your 'beliefs' or 'opinions', I'm not interested.

 

What I'm interested in is seeing a reduction in the facts as reported. Like those below.

 

Every Day on Average (ages 0-19)

Every day, 48 children and teens are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, unintentional shootings, and police intervention.

 

Every day,

  • 7 children and teens die from gun violence:
  • 5 are murdered
  • 2 kill themselves.

Every day,

  • 41 children and teens are shot and survive:
  • 31 shot in an assault
  • 1 survives a suicide attempt
  • 8 are shot unintentionally

 

 

OK, if you want to express an opinion on my beliefs and then claim to have no opinion, we can discuss self-murders instead here in the self-murder thread. We might need a new thread to talk about 19 year old "children" and the fact that they can't vote or sign contracts, being children. Except for the fact that they are adults.

 

Despite our much higher rate of gun ownership, the US has a suicide rate in line with the rest of the developed world. Or a bit below. Maybe if we had almost no guns we could have a much higher suicide rate, like Japan. Wouldn't that be wonderful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

RD, you need to fix the hump in that international assault fatality chart.

If you don't, others will set about to do so.

 

 

Hey dumbschidt - given that the "hump" was back in the late 70s - I'd say its been fixed.

 

 

You'd say "its been fixed"? Look at Post 271 again.

It shows that as of 2010, the median international gun deaths are around 1.8/100K, with the USA around 5.6/100K.

We are three times as bad as other leading nations. You are less than honest if you call that "fixed."

 

 

How did this post, which is mostly about self-murders, get into the thread about Billy Backstay registering his standard capacity magazine for his mildly mean-looking rifle?

 

Ever helpful, I moved it here to the main thread about self-murders.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your cutesy promotion of gun tragedy by suicide is noted.

You are part of the problem, Tom Ray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your cutesy use of the phrase 'gun tragedy' is.....indeed tragic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jocal is a "gun tragedy"

Just a matter of time before his gun makes him wig out and shoot somebody. Or self-murderate himself.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

 

jocal is a "gun tragedy"

Just a matter of time before his gun makes him wig out and shoot somebody. Or self-murderate himself.....

 

 

Hopefully he will get the "murder-suicide" thingy backwards like he does the rest of his schtick here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We are talking about US trends, dumbschidt. Who fucking cares what the rest of the world does or does not do? Apples and orangutans......

 

No, we are not. We are comparing the gun violence trend in the USA to other advanced countries.

You said the problem was "fixed."

 

(Jocal;) You'd say "its been fixed"? Look at Post 271 again.

It shows that as of 2010, the median international gun deaths are around 1.8/100K, with the USA around 5.6/100K.

We are three times as bad as other leading nations. You are less than honest if you call that "fixed."

 

 

How do we compare to those "leading nations" in self-murder rates?

 

Oh yeah, asked and answered...

 

 

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

Our overall suicide rates would fall below normal, meaning below international norms, if they weren't being fed by gun proliferation.

 

This matter is a rolling tragedy of immense proportion. "Self murder" is not a problem which is simply dismissed by clever banter and cutesy Tom Ray conversation.

Firearms and Suicides in US States

Suicides outnumber homicides in the United States by 3:1. (In 2010 there were 38,364 suicides and 12, 996 homicides.) Lots of studies have investigated the relationship between firearms and homicide but the potential for reverse causality makes this a difficult problem. More homicides in a region, for example, might cause an increase in gun ownership so a positive correlation between guns and homicide doesn’t tell you which is cause and which is effect. Reverse causality is less of a problem for understanding the guns to suicide link because it’s less likely that a rash of suicides would encourage gun ownership.

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?

(...) Put differently, when gun ownership decreases other methods of suicide increase. Substitution among methods is not perfect, however, so when gun ownership decreases we see a big decrease in gun-suicide and a substantial but less than fully compensating increase in non-gun suicide so a net decrease in the number of suicides.

Our econometric results are consistent with the literature on suicide which finds that suicide is often a rash and impulsive decision–most people who try but fail to commit suicide do not recommit at a later date–as a result, small increases in the cost of suicide can dissuade people long enough so that they never do commit suicide.

The results in the paper appear to be robust but the data on gun ownership is frustratingly sparse due to political considerations.

- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/firearms-and-suicides-in-us-states.html#sthash.VORfuuB1.dpuf

Guns are a great tool for suicide. So common access to guns feeds suicide, as these link titles demonstrate:

 

Six suicide links, from PA

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?showtopic=165680&p=4948543

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

So you actually fuking believe that the 22,000 depressed people a year that self-murderate themselves with guns will NOT try to off themselves in another manner?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They only did that in Australia Booze. That wouldn't happen here.

 

Funny thing too that JokeOff is only concerned with self-muurderators who use specific tools. The rest are 'normal'. Wtf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Our overall suicide rates would fall below normal, meaning below international norms, if they weren't being fed by gun proliferation.

 

...

 

So we agree that the US suicide rate is within international norms and you think we could do much better if only we adopt strict gun control to prevent self-murders.

 

OK. I don't agree because I look at places like Japan, with almost no private gun ownership and a very high suicide rate, and conclude that people inclined to self-murder will find a way to do it.

 

At least you're talking about it in the right thread this time and admitting that we have a normal suicide rate compared to the "leading nations" you referenced earlier. That's progress!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your data is showing a decrease in gun suicide coenciding with an increase in overall suicide rates from 2006 to 2012. Obviously suicide is not tied to guns in Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, now I get it, that must be why ...

 

Firearm deaths among leading causes of death

"Gun deaths -- 33, 636 -- pale in comparison to the nation's leading killer, heart disease, which claimed 611,105 lives in 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But, as the graph shows, guns took more lives than other top causes of death, such as hypertension (30,770) and Parkinson's disease (25,196)."

 

and stuff like this happens;

 

"A three-year-old boy has killed himself while playing with his mother's handgun, according to police in Ohio.

The boy shot and fatally wounded himself in the chest after finding the gun at his home near Cincinnati."

 

 

This post that is mostly about self-murders somehow found its way into one about the topic of gun sales, so I moved it here.

 

Do you agree with jocal that we would self-murder ourselves at a lower rate than other "leading nations" if only we got rid of all those pesky guns?

 

I feel sorry for the Darwin Award winner. Usually, such people take themselves, not their offspring, out of the gene pool, but the result is the same. That one should really go in a Darwin Awards thread but I don't feel like finding one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Our overall suicide rates would fall below normal, meaning below international norms, if they weren't being fed by gun proliferation.

 

...

 

So we agree that the US suicide rate is within international norms and you think we could do much better if only we adopt strict gun control to prevent self-murders.

 

OK. I don't agree because I look at places like Japan, with almost no private gun ownership and a very high suicide rate, and conclude that people inclined to self-murder will find a way to do it.

 

At least you're talking about it in the right thread this time and admitting that we have a normal suicide rate compared to the "leading nations" you referenced earlier. That's progress!

 

 

Your international comparison is poor, and misleading. Japan has a unique tradition steeped in suicide.

They have valued suicide for centuries, but get a clue, facilitating suicide is considered ghoulish in our country.

I'll discuss total firearms violence numbers on any thread I wish. Same for posting suicide information.

Suicide Is Leading Cause Of Gun Deaths, But Largely Absent In Debate On Gun Violence

The overall suicide rate is rising so rapidly that it now outnumbers deaths from car crashes. Most recently, health officials noted a startling spike in suicides among middle-aged Americans: they have jumped by 28 percent from 1999 to 2010.Pasted from <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/guns-suicide_n_3240065.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that Dr. Kevorkian had a somewhat ghoulish appearance but I think he was a great American who was willing to help people who were suffering when others would not by facilitating their self-murders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

 

Then you should be more specific and say what you mean. It would look like this:

 

...facilitating suicide is sometimes considered ghoulish in our country.

 

I still say you own your body and your life and can self-murderate yourself when or if you wish by whatever means you choose, including your gun.

 

Did I just facilitate your suicide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Your data is showing a decrease in gun suicide coenciding with an increase in overall suicide rates from 2006 to 2012. Obviously suicide is not tied to guns in Australia.

Ahhhh from 2006 to 12? Really? You didn't like the 1996 to 2012 numbers?

 

Judge-Judy-Shake-My-Head-Gif_zps66b02891

Well from 1996 to 2000 the overall rate INCREASED substantially. Then it fell from 2000 to 2006. Something good happened between 2000 and 2006.

 

Based on the very limited data you posted one can only deduce the confiscation caused a substantial rise in the overall suicide rate and something else reversed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

 

Except for those who find the body. Usually a loved one.

46fd8e9a4a3217c29cac44f015b87aa3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Another false comparison. More dishonest propaganda.

 

Dr. Kevorkian did not propose guns for suicide. His approach did not traumatize relatives, loved ones, and cleaning crews.

You are not Dr. Kevorkian.

Personally I find hanging, jumps, poisoning to be more ghoulish. Guns seem much quicker and less traumatic.

Except for those who find the body. Usually a loved one.

46fd8e9a4a3217c29cac44f015b87aa3.jpg

Like I said - I'm more concerned with time aspect. Other means can't be very pretty either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

 

 

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I typically try to stay away from internet conversations about guns, cause it never goes anywhere, but sometimes foolish ignorance of the law, and the well documented reasons that laws were put into place pushes me over the edge.

 

I really don't have much else to add to the conversation, because those on the left here are clearly unable to read english. And as long as they can't read english they can continue to deny the constitution is the law, and therefore will not be able to pull their heads out of their asses to see the light

 

Also, thank you, that is my favorite self-portrait! I don't know how you found it, now you know who I am, and when you see me you can run in the other direction because you know I am a "gun nutter"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

Symphato, welcome to our boards.

However, I may read English better than you do.

About the bolded. History shows that armed citizenry is a recipe for squashing civil rights.

(Yo, Molon Labe is an expression which flaunts and threatens that dynamic.)

MILITIA MYTHS: WHY ARMED POPULATIONS DON’T PREVENT TYRANNY,

THEY OFTEN LEAD TO IT.

 

A historical analysis reveals that Militias are typically the gateway to tyranny, not the safeguard against it. A heavily armed population has little to no bearing on preventing tyranny.

 

Militias that have been successful in warding off foreign aggression overwhelmingly opposed democratic rule. A few examples are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba, Somalia, Iraq, and southern Lebanon; in none of these countries did the militias promote a free State. Add to this list countries where militias have ripped apart society in tribal states or civil war (such as Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Colombia, and the Palestinian Territories) and we can form an even clearer picture of militias.

 

An astute reader will note that all of the examples I am providing are from poor countries or societies that never had a well-established democratic tradition. And this is true. While it is typically wise to refrain from comparing countries in different socio-economic strata, there simply aren’t any wealthy, free societies that use militias for self-defense. Every democratic country, with the exception of Costa Rica, has a standing army to defend it, not militias.

For examples closer to home, we can easily see that the Klu Klux Klan, Neo-Nazi elements, and the Black Panthers (all of which are or were unregulated militias) have done little to promote a free society. Perhaps the best example in America of the influence militias have on society is “Bloody Kansas” during the 1850s. Pro-Northern and Southern settlers, armed to the teeth, streamed into Kansas in order to sway whether the state became free or slave. The constant skirmishes killed 56 settlers, out of a total population of 8,000. It is safe to conclude that the sudden explosion in the number of armed men did not contribute to a democratic process.

http://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/>

 

The constitution is open to interpretation, and is an evolving mechanism.

According to Heller, the second amendment is not a slam dunk for unlimited gun rights.

The higher courts must balance the public safety against the right to carry. I notice that many courts are saying that since the public safety is involved, intermediate scrutiny of gun restrictions is justified.

 

Symphato, gun violence is not happening in a vacuum. Innocent bystanders have a right to pursue life and liberty without guns adding danger to public spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

 

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

 

 

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

 

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

 

 

We need guns, to prevent bloody noses.

WTF?

 

Guns against fists again. Shoot the fistfighters is a song sung by the SA Gun Club Choir.

Jeff agrees. He would off a shirtless garbage chucker. The tire tosser had scary fists.

Tom Ray agrees. (The Badgeless Avenger approved the gunplay at the Burger King Gun Scramble, and at the Plebe's Revenge Shootout.)

LenP agrees: one blow can cause permanent brain damage.

 

Let's plan to shoot fistfighters. Such a progression of thought is part of the problem, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! Are you qualified to object? The medical community is very certain that even unloaded gun presence is, in effect, precipitating suicide.The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. Heller covered in your home only, I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to possibly, with some infinitessmal percentage save their own life. Defensively, lives are saved, and crime is diminished, in many ways without the use of a gun. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, STRAW MAN ALERT I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant.

 

Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it.

 

But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. The happiness of many has been ruined by guns. They have neither life nor liberty in the USA when dead, and less life and liberty if maimed.

 

How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused.

 

I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

Welcome. You must be new here. Those of us on the pro gun side have repeatedly brought that up wrt to passing background checks and then committing suicide. The idiots like joke-al ignore it as if it's never been said and the. Go on with their hand wringing about self-murder with guns. 20,000 per year is a pretty evil figure, Jeff.

And yes, they actually call it "self murder". Silly innit?

 

 

Have a heart, Jeff. The death rate (not just the suicide rate), is skewed directly at the gun-owning demographic. Older white guys.

 

 

Death Rates Rising for Middle-Aged White Americans Dr. Deaton noticed in national data sets that middle-aged whites were committing suicide at an unprecedented rate and that the all-cause mortality in this group was rising. But suicides alone, he and Dr. Case realized, were not enough to push up overall death rates, so they began looking at other causes of death. That led them to the discovery that deaths from drug and alcohol poisoning also increased in this group. (...) They concluded that taken together, suicides, drugs and alcohol explained the overall increase in deaths. The effect was largely confined to people with a high school education or less. In that group, death rates rose by 22 percent while they actually fell for those with a college education.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html#story-continues-4>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you qualified to object? The medical community is very certain that even unloaded gun presence is, in effect, precipitating suicide.

 

I AM PART OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, JOKEAWF. WE ARE CERTAIN OF NO SUCH THING. AND YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am pro gun in case there is a question. So what some here believe is that we should impose gun control to reduce suicide rates, but how many people that commit suicide would fail their background check to buy a gun? I can only guess at the answer, but likely most would pass their background check, so I can only conclude that you support banning guns, and confiscating them in an effort to prevent people from taking their own life. I OBJECT! The U.S. of A. is/was a republic, with a constitution, that says you cannot do that. I also fail to understand how any individual, or group can tell any given law abiding individual that they are not allowed to save their own life. Essentially you are saying that if someone wants to kill me for the 50 in my wallet, I have to just let them do it, might as well get on my knees and beg before they SHOOT me(criminals will continue to posess firearms). brilliant. Unalienable rights and all that, if you don't like the 2nd ammendment, thats fine, if you think it only applies to the national guard, so be it. But the constitution clearly outlines the unalienable right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness. How exactly do you propose to maintain your right to life? tell the bad man he is a bad man, and shouldn't do what he is going to do? or perhaps you believe that your right to life is superceded by anothers desire to end your life? I am confused. I think those of you who believe that gun control is the future of the USA ought to read your history books

So there we have it all from the new guy. Condensed, for all to see.

 

If you put this rant together, clearly there is no freedom in the USA, it is an illusion, only held together by the threat of death to the other guy. No surprise, that's the message the gun nuts want, but it does not have to be that way. Countries where the politicians still have at least some say in what happens, have done something to stop the slaughter.

 

The US has been under the control of corporations since 1915, probably from the start. They know what to feed to the sheeple to maximise sales, and the sheeple love it, even if it kills them. As demonstrated here.

 

What a cunt of a place where 'rights' are only assured to those with a gun.

Slight correction - we're a cunt of a place because we retain our rights, gun or not.

 

The underlying premise of our constitution, and our way of life is that legal behaviors that even the majority find distasteful are protected. The other side of that is that the legal exercise of those behaviors stipulates that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". Most of us accept and like it like that.

 

There are indeed those who refuse to accept responsibility for their behaviors, and the crux of this argument isn't that one side wants to see someone else get their nose poked, it's disagreement over the best way to prevent that.

 

You and many other optimistically mistaken individuals think that outlawing swinging fists would spell the end of bloody noses, and the pragmatic individuals know that that's simply not the case.

We need guns, to prevent bloody noses.

WTF?

 

Guns against fists again. Shoot the fistfighters is a song sung by the SA Gun Club Choir.

Jeff agrees. He would off a shirtless garbage chucker. The tire tosser had scary fists.

Tom Ray agrees. (The Badgeless Avenger approved the gunplay at the Burger King Gun Scramble, and at the Plebe's Revenge Shootout.)

LenP agrees: one blow can cause permanent brain damage.

 

Let's plan to shoot fistfighters. Such a progression of thought is part of the problem, IMO.

What method do you use when someone is pummeling your face with his fists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites