Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:45 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
In that case, forget guns and just legalize drugs. The inventive to acquire/import guns in quantity just to use them in a crime once and discard them immediately should fall accordingly.
You are probably tongue in cheek there, but I DO actually think that legalization of drugs would have a much larger effect on crime and murders in the US than even the most fantastical dreams of the most fervent gun banning advocate out there. If deaths were REALLY the point, there are a lot of things we could do that would be more beneficial in our society to save lives than banning guns. But it's not really the point, IMHO.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #102  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:52 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You are probably tongue in cheek there, but I DO actually think that legalization of drugs would have a much larger effect on crime and murders in the US than even the most fantastical dreams of the most fervent gun banning advocate out there.
Well, not really cheek-tongued at all, actually. Legalizing drugs, starting with marijuana, is probably a much easier sell in the U.S. than banning guns. I look forward to the resullts of the ongoing Canadian experiment.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #103  
Old 10-21-2019, 04:58 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Marijuana is, to my mind, an especially stupid thing to be illegal, but basically IMHO if we legalized all drugs then it would be a lot easier to help those afflicted by drug dependencies, and it would cut down on the amount of crime associated with drug abuse and illegal drug users (or hell, even the ones that abuse legal but restricted drugs). It would help alleviate some of our judicial backlog, clear out a lot of the prisons and basically allow the police to focus on other things. It's a win/win all around IMHO.

I do think that Canadian as well as other countries (and even some states) pushing the envelop on marijuana will eventually cause this to be mostly legalized in the US, which alone should have a pretty big impact on all the things above.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #104  
Old 10-21-2019, 06:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Heck, before you could reduce the number through any measure less than a Draconian confiscation program, home 3D printing will render the issue moot.
I dont see where they can print that kind of steel or springs, etc. Not to mention ammo. Yes, a one shot disposable "zip gun" can be made, and could cause problems later.
  #105  
Old 10-22-2019, 07:46 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
However, what does stand out is this a "1968 international analysis of twenty developed countries "cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.""
You raised this in the other thread that touched on this topic. I'm sorry you still haven't read the paper. It won't take long. It's 2.5 pages, and contains three tables from two data sets. It's still a waste of your time, however, because
a) It's from 1968
b) The US data is from 1958
c) Such analysis as they squeezed in to the last two paragraphs would embarrass an undergraduate.

This is not a good or useful cite, in any way.


Quote:
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...y-suicide.html

Summary: Empirical research on the causal effects of firearm availability on the risk of suicide is consistent with the claim that firearms increase suicide risk, but this research cannot yet rule out some other explanations for observed associations between guns and suicide. There are, however, theoretical or logical arguments for believing firearms elevate suicide risk that are sufficiently compelling that individuals and policymakers might reasonably choose to assume that gun availability does increase the risk of suicide."

That is so wishy washy that it could mean anything.
Wishy-washiness is in the eye of the beholder, of course, but I don't agree. The empirical research could have rebutted the claim that firearms increase suicide risk by showing no association between the two. The fact that the data from 14 US-based studies (conducted this century, I might add) consistently shows that association exists is valuable evidence.
Similarly, the fact that there is a clear logical/theoretical model linking firearm prevalence with suicide risk really matters because it gives us good reason to reject the notion that this association is mere spurious happenstance.

In short:
We have a theory - that easy access to a quick, painless and effective method of suicide will be a contributing factor to both suicide attempts and completed suicides. We have a hypothesis: that gun availability is linked with total suicide rates. We have empirical evidence that fails to reject this hypothesis. As a basis for public policy, that is a really strong evidence base.

Quote:
[I] Other relevant international evidence i...
For someone who argues that culture is a a more important factor than firearm availability in determining suicide rates you have a notable aversion to quoting US-based studies. This is a shame as you could have quoted:

Briggs and Tabarok, 2014, which shows a 1% increase in firearms ownership leads to, depending on your measure of firearm ownership, between a 0.5 and 0.9% increase in the total suicide rate;
Miller et al, 2006, which shows a 10% decrease in firearms ownership leads to 2.5% decrease in total suicide.
Rodriguez Andrés and Hempstead, 2011, which showed that gun ownership rate was associated with increases in total suicide rate
Miller, Azrael, and Hemenway, 2004, which showed a positive correlation between firearm prevalence and total suicides among men
Miller et al, 2009 which shows a positive association between firearm ownership and total suicide
Kubrin and Wadsworth, 2009, which also shows that link, this time between men under 35 "with some suggestion that gun availability mediates the effect of structural disadvantage and suicide among black males."

Also Kposowa 2013, Smith and Kawachi, 2014, Kposowa, Hamilton, and Wang, 2016 and so on and so on.


Quote:

Available empirical research does not provide strong causal evidence for the effects of gun prevalence on suicide risk.
Indeed. The standards of epidemiological research have been set by medical studies which can control everything to the nth degree. Public health, which necessarily involves uncontrollable variables, will never reach these standards. Withholding action until that standard is achieved is a recipe for paralysis - if we had followed that strategy, John Snow would never have removed the Broad Street pump handle.

I understand that people may very well feel that the evidence available doesn't reach their particular threshold for action. I won't quibble. I would say that given the evidence we have, the certainty expressed by XT, Bear_Nenno and yourself that there cannot possibly be a link between suicide rates and gun prevalence, or that no material benefit would be gained from reduced gun prevalence is simply not justified.

And in the spirit of the thread, I'd suggest that the recommendation from the above cite that
Quote:
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or another federal agency resume routine collection of voluntarily provided survey data on gun ownership and use.
is a good one, not least because it gives us the best chance of getting the robust analysis that improve the evidence for or against the causal link.
  #106  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:17 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
It’s always strange to see people championing gun laws who are so ignorant of what the current laws actually are.
If they actually understood guns and gun violence, they wouldn't be so focused on things like assault weapons bans.

They wouldn't keep insisting that guns are not well regulated.

They wouldn't focus so much on mass shootings.

There's a lot of things they wouldn't do if they weren't so ignorant.

But in response to the OP's question:

Constitutional right or not, regulations are just as permissible for guns as they are for speech. I think that a regime of licensing and registration would make a difference over the long term.
  #107  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:18 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
From this I gather you favor laws that take place after a crime has been committed, and oppose laws that might help prevent the crime from being committed in the first place?
edited to add: "Harm/Imposition" is a strange phrase to use. "Imposition" has to go a long ways to turn into actual "harm".
I think Hurricane Ditka is saying that deterrence is an example of something that only affects potential criminals. I don't think that it is appropriate to insist that regulation impose no burden on gun owners. It is clearly constitutional to place some regulatory burden on gun owners.
  #108  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:27 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Here is a state-by-state listing of laws stating weapons restrictions when it comes to the mentally ill. If you look at states like Alabama it is easy to note the extreme vagueness(How unsound a mind, and who makes the determination) and compare it places like The District of Columbia , then note the dozens of variations among the rest: it is a hodgepodge of little-understood laws, that need to be consolidated, clarified and enforced.
I agree, the federal government should "occupy the field," invalidating all state and local gun regulations. We should have a single standard for guns across the country in most respects regarding concealed carry and who can own a gun however I would say that a small carve out is permissible to the occupation of the field to take into account the differences between downtown San Francisco and the rural areas in Idaho.
  #109  
Old 10-22-2019, 09:35 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus
For someone who argues that culture is a a more important factor than firearm availability in determining suicide rates you have a notable aversion to quoting US-based studies. This is a shame as you could have quoted:

Briggs and Tabarok, 2014, which shows a 1% increase in firearms ownership leads to, depending on your measure of firearm ownership, between a 0.5 and 0.9% increase in the total suicide rate;
Miller et al, 2006, which shows a 10% decrease in firearms ownership leads to 2.5% decrease in total suicide.
Interesting. In the US, we are currently at a 14% decrease in firearms ownership per household. So, according to your stats here, we should be seeing a substantial decline in suicides. I have to ask you...are we? Because according to what I'm seeing, suicide rate is actually up.

How does that match up with the predictions here? A quick Google search shows a decline in household gun ownership from 1990-2014 of nearly 20%, while the suicide rate has increased by 24% during that same time frame. Why?

Quote:
I understand that people may very well feel that the evidence available doesn't reach their particular threshold for action. I won't quibble. I would say that given the evidence we have, the certainty expressed by XT, Bear_Nenno and yourself that there cannot possibly be a link between suicide rates and gun prevalence, or that no material benefit would be gained from reduced gun prevalence is simply not justified.
I don't think there is a direct, causal link between guns and suicide, no, and I've yet to see any evidence there is one. I've seen and looked at the studies you posted, and others before, but I haven't found any of them compelling because they don't seem to address the main sticking point for me, which is why do countries that often have very restrictive gun access also have higher suicide rates than the US, where guns are...well, not ubiquitous, but certainly very numerous? The US, according to what you have presented, should have one of the if not the highest suicide rate on the planet with our access to guns. Look at what just the part I quoted says: "1% increase in firearms ownership leads to, depending on your measure of firearm ownership, between a 0.5 and 0.9% increase in the total suicide rate". Firearms ownership rose nearly 4% in 1990, yet the suicide rate (admittedly high compared to today) was flat and after 1990 started a slow trend downward until the late around 2007 when it started up again. Yet it started up again as gun ownership per household was falling in the US (with a few brief spikes, but not getting back to the point it had previously been).

To me, the data is too nebulous to put pin this on firearms. There are a lot of other things in play. Addressing a method to commit suicide doesn't address the causes of suicide, and I don't think taking a method, any method out of play is going to have more than a short term effect. Eventually, people will find other ways because you haven't addressed WHY they are wanting to commit suicide, just taking a method out of play. But methods of suicide change for societies over time anyway, as some things come into or go out of favor. In just about each culture there are aversions to some kinds of suicide methods, and some that are in favor or used more. With firearms, I think what we see is that in many countries they aren't favored, while in the US, especially apparently for older men, they are.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #110  
Old 10-22-2019, 10:45 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
... Constitutional right or not, regulations are just as permissible for guns as they are for speech. I think that a regime of licensing and registration would make a difference over the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think Hurricane Ditka is saying that deterrence is an example of something that only affects potential criminals. I don't think that it is appropriate to insist that regulation impose no burden on gun owners. It is clearly constitutional to place some regulatory burden on gun owners.
This thread isn't intended as a debate about what would be Constitutional or not. k9bfriender had said: "If it is made just a tiny bit harder to get a gun, then it is the outlaws who will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding." It occurred to me that if he's right, if there is indeed some gun control policy where "it is the outlaws that will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding", that this would represent some 'low-hanging fruit' that both sides of the RKBA debate might readily agree to.
  #111  
Old 10-22-2019, 10:49 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Interesting. In the US, we are currently at a 14% decrease in firearms ownership per household. So, according to your stats here, we should be seeing a substantial decline in suicides. I have to ask you...are we? Because according to what I'm seeing, suicide rate is actually up.

How does that match up with the predictions here? A quick Google search shows a decline in household gun ownership from 1990-2014 of nearly 20%, while the suicide rate has increased by 24% during that same time frame. Why?
You know, when I listed those studies I nearly put in a note to the effect that they controlled for various confounding factors such as health, age, race, relative measures of poverty, alcohol use, drug use, etc. I didn't, because I thought it was kind of obvious that there would be other factors than gun prevalence that affect suicide rates. That was my mistake, because you seem to be taking it as read that I think the only reason suicide rates might vary is because more or fewer people have access to guns. What a fucking idiot you must have thought me.

Having cleared that up, I note that closer examination of your 1990-2014 time frame shows that the increase in suicide rates has happened post 2006, and is driven by big increases in the suicide rate for white men, those aged 15-64 and those living in more rural areas. You will know better than me what issues are affecting that group, but I would have thought that a great recession, slow recovery, the collapse of industries such as coal-mining, and a massive opioid epidemic might be likely to have an effect. Although I can't right now find direct stats on the proportion of firearm to non-firearm suicides, I'd note that this group (rural white men) are more likely than average to own guns, so I think we have to consider that a national decline in access to firearms doesn't imply a decline in such access among the group that sadly appears to be most likely to kill themselves.

Quote:
I don't think there is a direct, causal link between guns and suicide, no, and I've yet to see any evidence there is one. I've seen and looked at the studies you posted, and others before, but I haven't found any of them compelling because they don't seem to address the main sticking point for me, which is why do countries that often have very restrictive gun access also have higher suicide rates than the US, where guns are...well, not ubiquitous, but certainly very numerous?
This is a complete red herring though. It may very well be that when comparing the suicide rates of Finns and Americans, the critical factor is Finnish culture rather than gun ownership. But what's proposed is American-specific gun control. The culture can be taken as a given - at which point the access to guns looms much larger as a contributing factor. The question has to be: "What would happen to suicides rates in America if Americans had less access to guns?". What is driving other countries suicide rates is utterly beside the point.

Quote:
The US, according to what you have presented, should have one of the if not the highest suicide rate on the planet with our access to guns. Look at what just the part I quoted says: "1% increase in firearms ownership leads to, depending on your measure of firearm ownership, between a 0.5 and 0.9% increase in the total suicide rate". Firearms ownership rose nearly 4% in 1990, yet the suicide rate (admittedly high compared to today) was flat and after 1990 started a slow trend downward until the late around 2007 when it started up again. Yet it started up again as gun ownership per household was falling in the US (with a few brief spikes, but not getting back to the point it had previously been).
Again - firstly, there are other factors for which epidemiological papers can control and real life cannot and secondly, it may not in fact be a coincidence that suicide rates have risen fastest among those with access to guns, and not risen or risen more slowly among those who have become less likely to own guns.

Quote:
To me, the data is too nebulous to put pin this on firearms. There are a lot of other things in play. Addressing a method to commit suicide doesn't address the causes of suicide, and I don't think taking a method, any method out of play is going to have more than a short term effect. Eventually, people will find other ways because you haven't addressed WHY they are wanting to commit suicide, just taking a method out of play.
"Eventually" is doing a lot of work here. The various coal gas in the UK/ pesticides in South Pacific studies show that at worst the suicide rate slowly returns to where it was. If people were going to "eventually" kill themselves n years later then suicide rates would have shot up higher than the long-term rate due to e.g. everyone who would have killed themselves in 1968 doing so plus everyone who didn't put their head in an oven in 1965 finally realising that bridges exist. That's not what happened. Either those people who didn't kill themselves in 1965 just didn't kill themselves ever or the people who would have used an oven in 1968 couldn't find an alternative. In any case, the net effect was to save lives.

Also, it would be OK to work towards a short-term goal of taking away a quick, painless, effective means of committing suicde AND to improve e.g. mental health services for the long-term! These are not either-or options.
  #112  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:02 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
... Also, it would be OK to work towards a short-term goal of taking away a quick, painless, effective means of committing suicde AND to improve e.g. mental health services for the long-term! These are not either-or options.
It's fine if that's the goal you want to work towards, but it's not really on point for this thread because "taking away" law abiding citizens' guns imposes a substantial burden on them rather than minimizing it.
  #113  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:16 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus
You know, when I listed those studies I nearly put in a note to the effect that they controlled for various confounding factors such as health, age, race, relative measures of poverty, alcohol use, drug use, etc. I didn't, because I thought it was kind of obvious that there would be other factors than gun prevalence that affect suicide rates. That was my mistake, because you seem to be taking it as read that I think the only reason suicide rates might vary is because more or fewer people have access to guns. What a fucking idiot you must have thought me.
Well, I thought it was pretty obvious too, which is why I don't directly correlate gun ownership or even access to suicide rate. I never said there was no link (how fucking stupid you must think I am on this, right?)...I just don't think there is a causal link. Certainly there are a lot of factors in play with respect to suicide. My point is that I don't think taking away guns, even magically (i.e. positing unrealistic ban methods) will have anything like a 1 for 1 correlation. If we removed ALL the guns then we wouldn't, magically, save those 19K people who die by committing suicide by firearm on average. We'd save, maybe, a percentage of them, for maybe a few years or maybe a decade. Eventually, IMHO, the numbers would rebalance back to something like what they were, just the methods would be different.

In reality, since we can't just magic the guns away, I think that even that is sketchy. There are, literally, more guns in the US than there are people. Even though the number of households having a gun is down, it's still close to 50% of US households that have one, which means that they will still be widely available for things like suicide, regardless. Someone planning on committing suicide is probably not going to worry overly much if the thing they are planning to use is banned or illegal, after all.

Quote:
Having cleared that up, I note that closer examination of your 1990-2014 time frame shows that the increase in suicide rates has happened post 2006, and is driven by big increases in the suicide rate for white men, those aged 15-64 and those living in more rural areas. You will know better than me what issues are affecting that group, but I would have thought that a great recession, slow recovery, the collapse of industries such as coal-mining, and a massive opioid epidemic might be likely to have an effect. Although I can't right now find direct stats on the proportion of firearm to non-firearm suicides, I'd note that this group (rural white men) are more likely than average to own guns, so I think we have to consider that a national decline in access to firearms doesn't imply a decline in such access among the group that sadly appears to be most likely to kill themselves.
Absolutely. And all those factors DO have causal links to suicide. You are talking about one method used in a country that favors that method culturally. The things you mention here are actual factors that could be addressed.

Quote:
This is a complete red herring though. It may very well be that when comparing the suicide rates of Finns and Americans, the critical factor is Finnish culture rather than gun ownership. But what's proposed is American-specific gun control. The culture can be taken as a given - at which point the access to guns looms much larger as a contributing factor. The question has to be: "What would happen to suicides rates in America if Americans had less access to guns?". What is driving other countries suicide rates is utterly beside the point.
I don't think it's a red herring at all. I think it demonstrates something important about suicide and decouples it from the method. Finn's culturally use other methods to commit suicide that, presumably, don't generally involve guns. The US, with our 'gun culture' does. The method, to me, does't make suicide more or less prevalent on the macro scale...countries, especially large and modern countries are going to have a certain level of suicide per 100K regardless of the method preferred, culturally, by their citizens. Taking away a method might, in the short term, change that, but eventually things will rebalance to the norm.

Sorry you don't see it that way, but I'm used to people who on one had love to compare the US to other countries when it suits them but can't see why we would compare it on others. Generally, I'm more in the don't compare camp, but I think suicide is a basic human condition, but that different cultures and societies think about it differently, especially with respect to the method.

Quote:
Again - firstly, there are other factors for which epidemiological papers can control and real life cannot and secondly, it may not in fact be a coincidence that suicide rates have risen fastest among those with access to guns, and not risen or risen more slowly among those who have become less likely to own guns.
Or it may be a coincidence, or there may be other factors (such as white males feeling increasingly under pressure due to the economy or various other things, blue collar manufacturing collapse wrt workers, or myriad other factors). I haven't seen any compelling evidence presented showing a direct link. What I've seen is some data that MIGHT show such a link, contradicted by other data that doesn't or shows the opposite. Granted, I haven't looked deeply into this in a while. If you feel you have something compelling, feel free to show it. Apparently hijacking this thread on this tangent is ok, even though this doesn't have much to do with the OP.

Quote:
"Eventually" is doing a lot of work here. The various coal gas in the UK/ pesticides in South Pacific studies show that at worst the suicide rate slowly returns to where it was. If people were going to "eventually" kill themselves n years later then suicide rates would have shot up higher than the long-term rate due to e.g. everyone who would have killed themselves in 1968 doing so plus everyone who didn't put their head in an oven in 1965 finally realising that bridges exist. That's not what happened. Either those people who didn't kill themselves in 1965 just didn't kill themselves ever or the people who would have used an oven in 1968 couldn't find an alternative. In any case, the net effect was to save lives.

Also, it would be OK to work towards a short-term goal of taking away a quick, painless, effective means of committing suicde AND to improve e.g. mental health services for the long-term! These are not either-or options.
Sure, in theory and depending on a good cost to benefit. Let's say you are right, and there is more than a weak link. Guns are a major factor in US suicide. Eliminating guns would reduce, on a 1 for 1 basis, suicides by firearm. Great. But we are talking about only 19,000 people, roughly, a year. That SOUNDS like a lot, but really it isn't. But every life is precious, right? So, that's the benefit. What's the cost though? The American people are divided on this issue. Many on this board are more on the gun ban or heavy restriction side, but this board is not representative of the majority view in the country. So, to do it would take first the political will, then some fairly draconian measures if you REALLY wanted to get those guns out of people's hands. We are talking a lot of guns.

I don't see the cost to benefit, to be honest. Even if we could save all 19,000 people, which, frankly, is fantasy, the cost would be very high to our society to try and do it at this time. Impossible, really. You need a sea change in public opinion on this, with a large majority supporting heavy restrictions or outright bans, probably supporting a change to our 2nd Amendment to really make it happen. Here's the thing though...if you got that you would already most likely have started to alleviate the suicide by gun issue, at least according to your own logic. People who are good with the government banning or restricting their guns probably aren't going to have guns in their house anyway. If the vast majority of citizens did change on this, you'd almost certainly already have the situation where fewer and fewer households have guns (we see this trend happening already, in fact).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #114  
Old 10-22-2019, 11:40 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,099
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's fine if that's the goal you want to work towards, but it's not really on point for this thread because "taking away" law abiding citizens' guns imposes a substantial burden on them rather than minimizing it.
Sure, which is why my suggestion for this thread was to follow the recommendation the CDC be allowed to collect voluntary data on firearm prevalence and use. A very small impact (indeed, none at all if you don't care to volunteer info) with the potential to at least ground some aspects of this debate in actual data. Who could object to that?
  #115  
Old 10-22-2019, 12:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
.. I would say that given the evidence we have, the certainty expressed by XT, Bear_Nenno and yourself that there cannot possibly be a link between suicide rates and gun prevalence, or that no material benefit would be gained from reduced gun prevalence is simply not justified. .
No one has made the claim that "
there cannot possibly be a link between suicide rates and gun prevalence" There can be, and likely is. It's just that it's clear that cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. And I want to point out that posting that people have made a statement that they havent is setting a up a strawman- not to mention other issues, and is definitely poor debating and rude.

Nor has anyone claimed that "no material benefit would be gained from reduced gun prevalence ". Of course, when we give up our rights, we can get some small measure of "benefit". We could reduce crime materially by taking away 5th ad rights also. We could reduce terrorism, suicide and mass shootings by taking away the 1st Ad. Of course, the gun grabbers, as they hate and fear guns, will happily trade other citizens rights to guns away to make the gun grabbers feel safer.


As Ben said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Last edited by DrDeth; 10-22-2019 at 12:32 PM.
  #116  
Old 10-22-2019, 12:42 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
..

This is a complete red herring though. It may very well be that when comparing the suicide rates of Finns and Americans, the critical factor is Finnish culture rather than gun ownership. But what's proposed is American-specific gun control. The culture can be taken as a given - at which point the access to guns looms much larger as a contributing factor. The question has to be: "What would happen to suicides rates in America if Americans had less access to guns?". What is driving other countries suicide rates is utterly beside the point.


Again - firstly, there are other factors for which epidemiological papers can control and real life cannot and secondly, it may not in fact be a coincidence that suicide rates have risen fastest among those with access to guns, and not risen or risen more slowly among those who have become less likely to own guns. ...
Oddly, we have continually made the same point, that just because Gun Control seems to work in small Western European nations, those who have never had a higher murder rate or high gun ownership, it doesnt mean it will work in the USA.

And anyone who thinks that a correlation means a causation doesnt understand science or logic.
  #117  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Sure, which is why my suggestion for this thread was to follow the recommendation the CDC be allowed to collect voluntary data on firearm prevalence and use. A very small impact (indeed, none at all if you don't care to volunteer info) with the potential to at least ground some aspects of this debate in actual data. Who could object to that?
They are allowed to. It is totally false that the CDC cant do firearm studies. They certainly can. However, after the backed a couple of biased studies, whose results were designed ahead of time, and used a incorrect method study, the CDC has been banned from "advocating or promoting gun control." Before that classic, biased and flawed study, CDC official and research head Patrick O’Carroll openly stated "“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” That is the opposite of how science is supposed to work. You dont start with the conclusion.


In fact the CDC has done quite a few studies about gun violence recently.


Next, you mention epidemiological studies several times. Guns and suicides are social and/or criminal issues, not epidemic issues. No germs are involved. The use of epidemiological studies for gun control is a red herring and has been condemned by the actual experts- criminologists.
  #118  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:21 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,609
It seems like the number of suicides would be pretty much the same regardless of whether there were guns or not. Not having a gun nearby would probably reduce the number of "spur of the moment" attempts, where something happens in the moment that makes someone so despondent they commit suicide (e.g catching their spouse in bed having an affair). But I would guess that's just a small amount of cases. For anyone who is deeply suicidal, it doesn't seem like lack of access to a gun would really change the outcome all that much. One other place that lack of guns would help would be in suicides where someone wants to make a public statement. There was a case recently of a student who brought a shotgun to school to commit suicide. Without guns, I don't think the person would try in public. They might do it in a more private way, or not do it at all. But these are probably just a very small amount as well. When considering the huge amount of effort it would take to ensure guns couldn't be used for suicide, a much better use of that effort would be to help people not consider suicide in the first place.
  #119  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:45 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont see where they can print that kind of steel or springs, etc. Not to mention ammo. Yes, a one shot disposable "zip gun" can be made, and could cause problems later.
If there are small metal parts that can't be made at home (and I'm not talking about home 3D printing currently, but what might be available a decade from now, long before the half-billion guns already in the U.S. could be significantly reduced by any legally plausible means), I'm confident internet entrepreneurs will be happy to supply them with wink-wink warnings that say "don't use this for this purpose."
  #120  
Old 10-22-2019, 01:49 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Pass laws that make law abiding gun owners into felons. Then you don't have to worry about inconveniencing them.
  #121  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:01 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
... One other place that lack of guns would help would be in suicides where someone wants to make a public statement. There was a case recently of a student who brought a shotgun to school to commit suicide. Without guns, I don't think the person would try in public. ...
It's possible, but guns aren't the only easy method of public suicide. People jump off tall structures regularly, and while not very common, self-immolation is another easily-accessible method of public suicide.
  #122  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmore View Post
... One other place that lack of guns would help would be in suicides where someone wants to make a public statement. There was a case recently of a student who brought a shotgun to school to commit suicide. Without guns, I don't think the person would try in public. ....
Jump off the Golden Gate. Stand in front of a train. Drive into oncoming traffic. Many ways of getting attention while also killing yourself.

At least, usually with guns they are the only victim.
  #123  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
If there are small metal parts that can't be made at home (and I'm not talking about home 3D printing currently, but what might be available a decade from now, long before the half-billion guns already in the U.S. could be significantly reduced by any legally plausible means), I'm confident internet entrepreneurs will be happy to supply them with wink-wink warnings that say "don't use this for this purpose."
The ATF doesn't care what the stated purpose of an item is. If you've got a DIAS, you are in possession of a machine gun (and, in most cases, in violation of federal laws). Whatever nonsense someone might have scribbled on the package about "don't use this for this purpose" will not help you at trial.

It remains to be seen if they'll try to bust people in possession of coat hangers and wire snips with constructive possession.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-22-2019 at 02:10 PM.
  #124  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:16 PM
filmore is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,609
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's possible, but guns aren't the only easy method of public suicide. People jump off tall structures regularly, and while not very common, self-immolation is another easily-accessible method of public suicide.
Right. There are technically many ways to suicide in public, but my feeling is that many of the non-gun ways involve the potential for more pain, complications, or not deliver the same message, and therefore would not be done. If someone wants to kill themselves in front of their class, in a press conference (Budd Dwyer), or conference room (Apple employee) in a in a quick and pain-free way, there aren't too many plausible ways other than with a gun. If someone jumps off a bridge, hits a car, or gets hit by a train, they won't have delivered their message in front of the intended audience.

But also part of my point was that these kinds of "suicide in front of an intended audience" are pretty rare. If they didn't happen, it wouldn't really make much a difference in the suicide stats.
  #125  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:17 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's possible, but guns aren't the only easy method of public suicide. People jump off tall structures regularly, and while not very common, self-immolation is another easily-accessible method of public suicide.
If someon's killing themselves to make a public statement, doing so by jumping of a tall structure (a) limits the number of sites available to one for making the statement, and (b) limits one's ability to make a verbal statement to one's audience, pre-suicide, since one must be several stories above the ground and away from one's prospective audience before jumping.

And however effective self-immolation might be in terms of statement-making, burning to death is one of the more painful ways to die, and while many people are willing to die for a cause, most of us have limits on how much pain we're willing to endure for it.
  #126  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:31 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Pass laws that make law abiding gun owners into felons. Then you don't have to worry about inconveniencing them.
This is the kind of crazy shit that gets a pass here.
  #127  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:40 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They are allowed to. It is totally false that the CDC cant do firearm studies.
Let me know when they are funded to do so.
  #128  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:45 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
This is the kind of crazy shit that gets a pass here.
Yup. OP asks for gun control proposals that won't have substantial negative effects on law-abiding gun owners, and the response is "turn them into felons". WT actual F?!?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-22-2019 at 02:46 PM.
  #129  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:49 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yup. OP asks for gun control proposals that won't have substantial negative effects on law-abiding gun owners, and the response is "turn them into felons". WT actual F?!?
Sorry, I guess the sarcasm wasn't coming through.
  #130  
Old 10-22-2019, 02:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashtura View Post
Sorry, I guess the sarcasm wasn't coming through.
I think the larger problem is that what was intended as sarcasm can be so easily mistaken for what passes as a serious proposal here on the SDMB.
  #131  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:15 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Of course, the gun grabbers, as they hate and fear guns, will happily trade other citizens rights to guns away to make the gun grabbers feel safer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think the larger problem is that what was intended as sarcasm can be so easily mistaken for what passes as a serious proposal here on the SDMB.
/thread

So much for a productive or respectful discussion.

I didn't think it would go well, but I gave it a try.
  #132  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:28 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
/thread

So much for a productive or respectful discussion.

I didn't think it would go well, but I gave it a try.
FWIW, I really appreciated your lengthy initial post. I don't know if I'm quite convinced about all your proposals, but it seemed like a very worthwhile effort.
  #133  
Old 10-22-2019, 03:30 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
/thread

So much for a productive or respectful discussion.

I didn't think it would go well, but I gave it a try.
Same here, especially after that "gun grabbers" crap.
  #134  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:52 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's a common sentiment among gun owners, or at least activists for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that many gun control proposals are intentionally crafted to harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. In this thread, I'd like to discuss gun control proposals that do NOT harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. I suspect adhering to that guideline in an absolute sense would be difficult, so let's focus on proposals that maximize effectively reducing gun crime while minimizing the harm / imposition on law-abiding gun owners.
This is the general idea of laws aimed at taking guns from people deemed likely to commit crimes. Usually for mental health related reasons. The 'red flag' idea. Which is often politically marketed as 'not gun control'. And the marketing also de-emphasizes that it is, actually, taking people's guns away. But in a way that does not 'harass, inconvenience etc' 'law abiding gun owners'.

I think there's some real scope for that. The problem in practice is reaching a consensus on balance between Type I and II errors, ie cases of guns taken away that seem unfair to at least a lot of people (questionable cases pretty much inevitable) v whose gun isn't taken away but then commits a mental illness related* gun crime, which is 100% inevitable. As others mentioned, pre-existing clear evidence of mental illness applies to much less than 100% of 'psycho type' gun crimes. Although OTOH it's not fair to write off any given measure because it's not 100% effective. 'More robust background checks' wouldn't be 100% effective, banning 'assault weapons' wouldn't be. No single thing would eliminate gun crimes except eliminating guns, which just isn't going to happen in the US, anything close to it isn't going to.

Anyway pretty much by definition, the only measures which don't put lower threat gun owners to more trouble relative to the threat they pose than they do higher threat gun owners are measures which seek to differentiate among gun owners. Measures which differentiate among guns might or might not be very effective, might or might not be politically possible, depending on the details. But they pretty much automatically present more of a burden relative to the threat on people who are less of a threat.

*people might or might not accept that mass shooting, family annihilation, etc. is always the result of mental illness, but people don't generally think that shooting people in robberies, bar fights etc. *is* mental illness, though obviously it can be.

Last edited by Corry El; 10-22-2019 at 05:55 PM.
  #135  
Old 10-22-2019, 05:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
This is the general idea of laws aimed at taking guns from people deemed likely to commit crimes. Usually for mental health related reasons. The 'red flag' idea. Which is often politically marketed as 'not gun control'. And the marketing also de-emphasizes that it is, actually, taking people's guns away. But in a way that does not 'harass, inconvenience etc' 'law abiding gun owners'.

....
I have a simple way of knowing whether a Red Flag law is good or oppressive. Does the ACLU say it has proper Due Process? If the ACLU sez "NO", then it is bad and oppressive law, really aimed at gun grabbing, not helping people.

E.G. California's current Red Flag Law.
  #136  
Old 10-22-2019, 08:36 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The ATF doesn't care what the stated purpose of an item is. If you've got a DIAS, you are in possession of a machine gun (and, in most cases, in violation of federal laws). Whatever nonsense someone might have scribbled on the package about "don't use this for this purpose" will not help you at trial.

It remains to be seen if they'll try to bust people in possession of coat hangers and wire snips with constructive possession.
That's great and all, but has no relevance to my point as best I can tell.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #137  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:38 PM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think the larger problem is that what was intended as sarcasm can be so easily mistaken for what passes as a serious proposal here on the SDMB.
Yeah, but the thing is, in all seriousness, this could easily happen. I use the bump stock ban as an example. That went through with Trump's help even and fairly bipartisan. Anybody out there that still has a bumpstock is now a criminal. Probably millions of people.

Now, few people are complaining about that because it makes a gun almost like a machine gun, an evil sumbitch used it to kill a lot of people, and we've already gotten used to the idea that civilians shouldn't have machine guns. Small price to pay I guess.

But they could do the same thing to any number of gun accessories. What's stopping them? How many felons will there be if they ban 30 round mags, for example, something which many lawmakers want banned, and which many people won't give up because they will consider it an infringement of their rights? Another 10 million? More? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
  #138  
Old 10-25-2019, 01:11 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
This thread isn't intended as a debate about what would be Constitutional or not. k9bfriender had said: "If it is made just a tiny bit harder to get a gun, then it is the outlaws who will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding." It occurred to me that if he's right, if there is indeed some gun control policy where "it is the outlaws that will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding", that this would represent some 'low-hanging fruit' that both sides of the RKBA debate might readily agree to.
Well, I suppose a $1,000 bounty for proof of illegal possession of a firearm that leads to a conviction and a $10,000 bounty for proof of gun dealing that leads to a conviction would place the burden on mostly criminals. It would also make illegal guns a LOT more expensive.
  #139  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Well, I suppose a $1,000 bounty for proof of illegal possession of a firearm that leads to a conviction and a $10,000 bounty for proof of gun dealing that leads to a conviction would place the burden on mostly criminals. It would also make illegal guns a LOT more expensive.
Well, I like where you are going but in CA, they did a nasty trick with "assault weapons"- they required you to register them. Ok, sure. But then several sheriffs dept ran out of the forms, and said without the form, you could not register. BUT they said, they would give you a extension until they got the forms back in. Fair. But then SURPRISE!! they then said that wrong. So, many gun owners couldn't legally register their guns.

The second part is good.

How about starting it as $1000 bounty for a tip leading to a conviction of a felon with a gun?
  #140  
Old 10-25-2019, 02:48 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How about starting it as $1000 bounty for a tip leading to a conviction of a felon with a gun?
I like the way it originally was, since the topic is gun control, not felon control(your localized glitch notwithstanding). The people who illegally possess a firearm cannot be considered "law-abiding citizens" so I think Damuri Ajashi's suggestion certainly qualifies.
  #141  
Old 10-25-2019, 06:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I like the way it originally was, since the topic is gun control, not felon control(your localized glitch notwithstanding). The people who illegally possess a firearm cannot be considered "law-abiding citizens" so I think Damuri Ajashi's suggestion certainly qualifies.
No, it's not the topic is Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding.

I mean, you can say it's about all gun control since if you make a law that makes otherwise law abiding citizens criminals overnite, then they are criminals in a way. But that is certainly not the intent of the OP.

As the Op stated "It's a common sentiment among gun owners, or at least activists for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that many gun control proposals are intentionally crafted to harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. In this thread, I'd like to discuss gun control proposals that do NOT harass / inconvenience / make life harder for law-abiding gun owners. I suspect adhering to that guideline in an absolute sense would be difficult, so let's focus on proposals that maximize effectively reducing gun crime while minimizing the harm / imposition on law-abiding gun owners." and as Miller stated
... the point of gun control is to reduce the amount of gun violence in society, not to just be a dick to people who like guns.

Oddly, you tend to go ballistic whenever posters wont keep one of your Ops on what you consider the true topic as stated by you.
  #142  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:33 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post

How about starting it as $1000 bounty for a tip leading to a conviction of a felon with a gun?
Hope the tipster spends his money fast, before getting shot by the felon's buddies. Who have guns because any kind of check to show that they shouldn't be able to buy a gun would be gun grabbing in your book. And it would of course inconvenience the law abiding. Like the law abiding guy who bought many assault rifles before shooting up the country music concert - when he suddenly turned non-law abiding.
  #143  
Old 10-25-2019, 07:59 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it's not the topic is Gun control proposals for which the burden falls on criminals and not the law-abiding.

I mean, you can say it's about all gun control since if you make a law that makes otherwise law abiding citizens criminals overnite, then they are criminals in a way. But that is certainly not the intent of the OP.
And such a move wasn't even hinted at in that proposal, so I have no idea why you have artificially inserted it. As far as what "I can say" goes, why don't we just stick to what I(and others) do say. Now, what are your objections to the proposal Damuri Ajashi actually made?

Last edited by Czarcasm; 10-25-2019 at 08:00 PM.
  #144  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Hope the tipster spends his money fast, before getting shot by the felon's buddies. Who have guns because any kind of check to show that they shouldn't be able to buy a gun would be gun grabbing in your book. And it would of course inconvenience the law abiding. Like the law abiding guy who bought many assault rifles before shooting up the country music concert - when he suddenly turned non-law abiding.


I have supported better background checks repeatedly on this board, not to mention this very thread.

And yes, there are no background checks that would stop guys like the Las vegas shooter.

and, how would they know he tipped them off?

Finally what has this to do with the OP?

Last edited by DrDeth; 10-25-2019 at 10:20 PM.
  #145  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And such a move wasn't even hinted at in that proposal, so I have no idea why you have artificially inserted it. As far as what "I can say" goes, why don't we just stick to what I(and others) do say. Now, what are your objections to the proposal Damuri Ajashi actually made?
I have no idea at all of what this post means.

You didnt read my response to Damuri Ajashi?

Can we get back to the Op and away from your little hijack?
  #146  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:53 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Because it does nothing to address the reasons WHY people commit suicide, only addresses a method used. Hard to believe that anyone, you included could think such a thing was possible, as it seems a fairly unbelievable idea to me. Turning it around, why would it? Just taking a method away, but not doing anything at all to address the causation, why WOULD it have such a dramatic effect, taking us from the middle of the pack wrt industrialized nations and suicides to the bottom of the list? Americans really strike you as stress free and well adjusted without underlying issues affecting, say, the French people?
(emphasis mine)
Where did I say anything of the sort ? I simply said that making the guns go *poof* could only have a strictly positive effect on suicide rates by removing a method that is fairly common (and VERY effective) when you look at people who suddenly decide to kill themselves. At which point would-be suicides have to look into methods that require more effort, more time, more travel, more planning, which might fail hilariously (like my ex-brother in law, who tried to hang himself from a tree, broke the branch which then hit him on the head and KOd him for 40 minutes at which point he drove himself to hospital and counseling. Which is a tragic story really but come on, you gotta laugh)... all of which is time than can be used, by them to think about other options besides suicide or simply have their untenable emotions disappear, and by others to hopefully notice, help, talk, be there.

"But if they want to kill themselves they'll just do it anyway", to my mind, has just as much validity as "but if they want to murder people they'll do it with knives and hammers and cars !", that is to say not overly much at all.

Quote:
And it's only, or even mostly guns and gun access that is keeping us from being at the very bottom of the list??
[/QUOTE]

Didn't say that either, because that's not really something that can be empirically quantified.

Last edited by Kobal2; 10-25-2019 at 10:54 PM.
  #147  
Old 10-25-2019, 10:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
(emphasis mine)
Where did I say anything of the sort ? I simply said that making the guns go *poof* could only have a strictly positive effect on suicide rates by removing a method that is fairly common (and VERY effective) when you look at people who suddenly decide to kill themselves. ...
What has this to do with the OP?
  #148  
Old 10-26-2019, 02:59 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,885
You can reconceptualize the 2nd Amendment to understand that "the people" refers to the individual members of the preceding-mentioned "militias", then buy-back all the guns owned by Americans currently not in any militias.
  #149  
Old 10-26-2019, 03:45 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What has this to do with the OP?
You tell me, you're the one who started the suicide tangent.
  #150  
Old 10-26-2019, 01:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
You tell me, you're the one who started the suicide tangent.
Post 55 by k9bfriender, I replied to him and Cheesesteak post 58.

So, you are wrong there, now, perhaps we can get back to the OP?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017