zeriel, I thought you had integrity, so I was disappointed that you couldn’t give a straight answer to the question about whether DA has supported his claim or not. That’s too bad.
Yeah, I did. Facts are evidence even without a Harvard study. Why does a confiscationi of guns in year one result in a gradual decline in gun suicides over a period of ten years but no real effect in the years immediately following the confsication.
You’re correct it wasn’t all the guns but it was a confiscation. The buyback was not like gun buybacks here in the states, it was not voluntary. A mandatory gun buyback is correctly characterized as a confiscation. Anyway it doesn’t matter, the point is that the effect of the reductuion in guns shoudl have led to an immediate reduction in suicides but it didn’t. it took palce over several years.
It only seems that way to youbecause after losing over and over again, youa re desperate to be right about something. Anything. Look at 1996, 1997 and 1998. The suicide level is relatively flat. Why do we give a shit what happens ten years out, what does a drop in the suicide rate in 2003 have to do with the effect of a gun confiscation in 1996/1997?
Really because its not apparent from the numbers you posted.
Explain how that works. Why is it that if I take some guns away from a population today and it takes several years for the reduction in suicides to manifest itself. Did the suicides share guns after they were confiscated?
So tell me again, how many defensive gun uses there are every year.
Tell me again if having a gun in the house causes you to be three times more likely to be killed by a gun.
On the facts your position is simply not as watertight as you pretend it is. Just calling your opposition stupid for not agreeing with you when you haven’t proven your position is not doing anything to convince the people that have left your camp (of indiscriminate gun grabbiness) to come back.
I disagree with Zeriel’s position on liability for gun owners but I think he generally goes where the facts lead him given his perspective. You do not. And your main argument is to question the integrity, honesty and penis size of the people you argue against.
There may be some topics on which you still have some credibility but you are obviously too emotionally invested in this issue to have a conversation about this anywhere outside of the pit.
To be honest, I tossed off a response when I was tired. Ain’t exactly great debates here. I could dig through my history and actually find the studies if you want to be that way, though.
2003 study abstract suggesting that hanging rates were rising as gun rates were falling, against a background of generally falling suicide rates–and basically suggesting it’s all a muddle of data that doesn’t have a lot of clear trends. (PubMed paywall: Trends in hanging and firearm suicide rates in Australia: substitution of method? - PubMed)
2010 meta-study that describes a drastically falling suicide rate that is only marred by a rising hanging suicide rate, and suggests that reducing the availability of lethal methods is a probable causative factor for the declining death rate. Suicide in Australia: meta-analysis of rates and methods of suicide between 1988 and 2007 | The Medical Journal of Australia
Aussie news article on gun ownership rates Cause for alarm? Australia has more guns, but they're less dangerous but its link to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is currently dead.
To be honest, I was responding to a different question than you were asking–I thought I’d made it fairly clear in my response that I didn’t think much of ***any ***of the statistics presented–in particular, your post of suicide data 1997-2006 was pretty disingenuous (how could we differentiate between a generally falling rate and one falling MORE drastically post-gun-law-change without pre-ban data?) Not that Damuri’s presented any particularly good evidence either.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16606490&postcount=2811
I cited exactly what you’re claiming is needed. An empirical peer reviewed paper on the trends. Nonfirearm suicides were increasing at a 2.3% rate per ban, and started falling at a rate of 4.1% after the ban. This discontinuity was statistically significant.
I then also provided a source for the raw numbers of suicides that happened to go back to 1997 to counter a specific claim from DA that suicides increaesd after the gun buy back.
Furthermore, I generally have not advanced an argument. I’m largely pointing out that the specific claims damuri makes are essentially all fiction. That there is no evidence behind them, or that there is in fact specific contradictory evidence.
If the remotely reasonable gun advocate can’t or won’t bother to understand this stuff, there’s little point to continuing. DA is like elucidator’s pigeon playing chess: no matter how great you play, he’ll just knock over the pieces, poop on the board and then strut about like he has won anyway.
I didn’t actually bother hunting back further than a page when you asked my opinion, as I’d been basically tuning both you and Damuri out since I don’t really consider the question of suicide too relevant (which is entirely based on my own experiences with severe depression).
I gotta say, though, I don’t really agree with the analysis of those trendlines. It seems like nonfirearm suicide hit a local maxima in 1996, and then turned down. Meanwhile, firearm suicides (already decreasing before 1996) turned downward harder. To ME it indicates that the trend in suicide in toto swamped the effects of the firearm ban, unless we’re positing a causal relationship between the firearm ban and non-firearm suicides?
I’ll read through it again later when I have fewer beers in me.
FYI I got to here and didn’t bother clicking through since I was assuming you were going to not fudge the numbers and post the data you felt was important. =P
Hahahahahahaha! Suck it some more you gun grabbing douchebags!
Obama won the election 332 electoral votes to 206 electoral votes. A lot of them were won by very slim margins. If he had run on the sort of gun control platform that he has been focusing on since Newtown, he would probably still have won but he would probably have lost Florida, Ohio and Virginia (which would have made the electoral count 272 to 266).
If he lost Colorado or Pennsylvania as well, then Syria would be President Romney’s problem right now.
This is a horrible issue for Democrats politically but the left wingnuts are pushing this as a partisan issue and pretending the issue was largely was cut and dried like it was global warming or evolution.
That’s too bad. I don’t really care about the gun laws, but I’ll bet my house that the new Reps go nuts with anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and anti-voting rights laws, too.
Which is pretty much the line the anti-recall people went with. They didn’t even try to defend the gun restrictions.
Its too bad that Democrats are turning gun rights into a partisan issue when it is largely a regional issue (or urban versus rural issue).
I think that’s what the dems keep missing out on. That people who like guns, like them a lot more than anti-gunners hate them. Like them enough that they’ll compromise on all the above just so their second amendment rights are not further infringed. I think by leaving guns alone for years the dems really had a good thing going, but all the latest gun control talk did was scare a lot of folks into voting republican again, and of course helped (in a big way) make the AR15 the most popular rifle in America.
Always entirely the other guys’ fault, never your own fucking responsibility, right? :rolleyes:
Who’s making this a partisan issue? Are you looking at the same sources that tell you the stifling of Manchin-Toomey was Feinstein’s fault, nor yours? The sources you won’t bother to actually link for us?
To repeat, since it’s necessary: Grow the fuck up.
So, just to prove gunnies aren’t all people killing assault rifle fetishists, they’ll make a military personnel killing assault rifle the number won most popular gun in America. Got it.
I’m so intimidated I’m going to go right out and vote for even whackier gun rights!
I agree with your main point, but to be fair, it wasn’t the IMO very modest control measures that scared people. It was the batshit crazy characterization of those proposals, along with complete fictions, from right wing propagandists. Obama wants to disarm you, Obama is stockpiling ammo for the new federal (or maybe UN) police force that will take over the country, Obama is purging the military of generals who will refuse to fire on American citizens, etc.
I find it likely that whoever’s gun it was should be prosecuted for murder as though he/she pulled the trigger. I cannot think of an circumstance where this would be excusable–and the only times I ever carry a handgun are when I’m hiking in bear country.
Hey, a glimmer of sanity.
“Senators voted 22-12 for the veto override, coming up just shy of the required two-thirds majority. Senate President Pro Tem Tom Dempsey and Majority Leader Ron Richard split from the rest of the GOP caucus that they lead to instead sustain the veto of Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.”
The law would have made it a crime to enforce federal gun laws in MO.
The worst part about this from a gun owner’s POV is that there’s nothing about the civvie version of the AR-15 that’s particularly “assault rifle” aside from the form factor–I hunt deer with a significantly more deadly rifle than the “standard” .223/5.56NATO AR-15 that the tacticlol people fetishize.
Incidentally, I have no problem with either of the listed restrictions passed on Colorado (15-rd mag limit, expanded background checks)–in fact, I would support more than both on a national level.