# The gun violence debate we're not having **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2017, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937 "2017-11-07T03:07:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/61 "2017-11-09T05:29:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not prevaricating. > > The assertion I was challenging is that a gun makes you more safe than not having a gun. > > **Bone** and you are dismissing a data point that strongly suggests having a gun in your home puts you at more risk (statistically) than not having a gun in the home. You are slicing and dicing the stats in an effort to suggest the danger is only in specific cases. > > Which misses the point. You (general “you”) do not know when you might be terribly depressed and make a bad choice. You do not know when you might get in an argument with your SO or whoever that gets out of hand. You do not know if a visiting child might find the gun and shoot themself or someone else. > > It does not matter if you have had a gun for twenty years with no issue. Past results do not indicate future results. > > That is the thing about stats. People seem to think it applies to everyone else. THEY are a good driver, it is everyone else that sucks. THEY are a responsible gun owner, it is everyone else that is cavalier with guns. > > And it may be true that YOU are a great driver and rock solid gun owner. It does not matter. When deciding public policy we look at the whole and need to base our decisions on the statistics and the statistics here are quite clear. > > Possessing a gun increases your risk of violent death by gun than not having a gun. So a question here, should one also avoid possessing the following in your home? Hanging: rope, sheets, belts. Drug / Alcohol Overdose: pain medication, booze, sleeping pills. Poisoning: cleaning products, etc. Carbon Monoxide Inhalation: cars, grills, gas ovens, lawn mowers. Suffocation: plastic bags, plastic sheeting. Do you own a TV or a couch/comfy chair? Because that is what is most likely to kill any of us via low fitness. Gun owners often think of firearms as tools for hobbies etc…or want to use them for protection (which is a wash BTW). This line is never going to convince them to care about the 0.0126% per year risk (for all causes) of suicide. The other problem is that there really isn’t a correlation between gun ownership and the suicide rate, consider Japan which is highly restrictive yet has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US. Maybe if there was some way to show that owning firearms were the _cause_ of suicide attempts some could be convinced, but it is a hard sell for those who aren’t currently pro-gun control. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/62 "2017-11-09T07:06:57Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > The other problem is that there really isn’t a correlation between gun ownership and the suicide rate, consider Japan which is highly restrictive yet has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US. In the interest of avoiding the spread misinformation I am going to retract that statement, even if the numbers would tend in my favor. While the numbers in the US for suicide are under-reported, it appears that the issues with Japans numbers rise to the level of absurdity. Apparently they get their insanely high murder conviction rate (98-99%) and low crime rate because police won’t even investigate a murder unless there is a known assailant and a guarantee of conviction. It appears that only around 1 in 10 suspicious deaths ever reach a medical examiner. While every country has challenges with these needs it appears that for Japan they show that it is probably fairly easy to get away with murder. I am not claiming that is the case, just that Japans numbers seem to be completely useless for any form of comparison. [ > [@](#): > > Only 6.3% of the unnatural deaths in Aichi are investigated by a medical examiner, a minuscule rate even by nationwide standards in Japan, where an autopsy is performed in 11.2% of cases. ]([Japan's police see no evil](http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/world/fg-autopsy9)) Edited to add that _unnatural death_ could be accident, drugs, homicide, suicide etc… I can’t find reliable information that tries to categorize it further in Japan. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/63 "2017-11-09T08:48:25Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > To be clear, I’m not actually claiming the study says anything, just that Whack’s assertion isn’t supported by his cite. Not even close. And thanks for doing yeoman’s work on this. Correction noted, and thanks in turn. > [@rat avatar](#): > > The other problem is that there really isn’t a correlation between gun ownership and the suicide rate, consider Japan which is highly restrictive yet has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US. I suspect **Whack-a-Mole** is on more solid ground with suicides than with homicides. Even if we assume that having a firearm in the house does not make you more likely to attempt suicide, it is certainly the case that guns are a really, really good way of _succeeding_ in suicide attempts. For instance, in [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446422/pdf/11111261.pdf), 6% of suicide attempts used firearms, but 54% of successful suicide attempts did so. Of the methods the study record, suicide attempts by firearm were the most frequently successful. Since suicide by gun is so successful, reducing gun ownership would presumably decrease the frequency of successful suicide attempts. If every suicide attempt with a firearm in this study were replaced by one via hanging (another frequently successful method, apparently), then successful suicides would decrease by about 15%. That’s a laudable goal. But I’m not convinced that it’s terribly relevant in a debate notionally centered on “are we in general agreement that people who commit crimes with guns or unlawfully carry guns shoud be dealt with harshly?” ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/64 "2017-11-09T10:28:27Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Correction noted, and thanks in turn. > I suspect **Whack-a-Mole** is on more solid ground with suicides than with homicides. Even if we assume that having a firearm in the house does not make you more likely to attempt suicide, it is certainly the case that guns are a really, really good way of _succeeding_ in suicide attempts. > > For instance, in [this study](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446422/pdf/11111261.pdf), 6% of suicide attempts used firearms, but 54% of successful suicide attempts did so. Of the methods the study record, suicide attempts by firearm were the most frequently successful. Since suicide by gun is so successful, reducing gun ownership would presumably decrease the frequency of successful suicide attempts. If every suicide attempt with a firearm in this study were replaced by one via hanging (another frequently successful method, apparently), then successful suicides would decrease by about 15%. > > That’s a laudable goal. But I’m not convinced that it’s terribly relevant in a debate notionally centered on “are we in general agreement that people who commit crimes with guns or unlawfully carry guns shoud be dealt with harshly?” Are you sure you linked to the study you intended to? > [@](#): > > “ **This study is purely descriptive, and therefore no causal inferences can be made**. Instead, the results inform needs assessments, prevention programming, and evaluation” > > “We found that groups most at risk of suicide (men and the elderly) are also more likely to choose the most lethal methods. > According to the “perception of fatalness” factor in Beck’s Suicide Intent Scale, choosing a more lethal method may reflect a greater intent to die” > > “Men were more likely than women to choose the 3 most lethal methods (24% vs 4%), > while women were more likely to choose the 2 least lethal methods (93% vs 68%).” > > “Suicide acts among the elderly were more likely to involve a highly lethal method.” > > “Research suggests that suicide deaths may be underestimated by 10% to 50%” > > ## Method - Case Fatality Rate % > > Firearm - 82.5 > Drowning - 65.9 > Suffocation/hanging - 61.4 > Poison by gas - 41.5 > Jump - 34.5 _Note that I am paying attention to the bolded part in those excerpts._ First of all, can you explain the gender gap relating to the “perception of fatalness” despite similar access? Second if the case is being made to expend political capitol due to a moral decision to help prevent suicides. If we aren’t going to make significant efforts to address the causes of suicide is it really _moral_ to ban firearms. If a person has _a greater intent to die_ couldn’t it be possible that they chose firearms due to the speed and potentially less traumatic experience? Is it really _moral_ to force them to use a slower and more traumatic method for what could only prevent completion of 1 out of 5 of these serious attempts? I am pretty sure that the Republican party won’t increase funding for mental health services or work on social programs to destigmatizing it. And just as the pre-Southern strategy Republicans paid the price for the civil rights act so will the Democrats. To move forward just for the hope that it will “force attempters to switch to means that typically are less lethal” seems to only have empathy for the numbers, and not for the poor soles who are at a point where suicide becomes thinkable. We all have different world views but for me, if this is the suggested way that this argument is being frame framed, it is about the most immoral direction that we could take. If I am missing something here please let me know, because from my side the argument seems to be _“Make them try to drown themselves in their tub, hang themselves from the door frame, or duct tape a garbage bag to their head”_ just so firearm death numbers go down? The efforts aren’t directed at addressing the overwhelming feelings of sadness and hopelessness that must be hell to experience. I expect that it is probably just a datapoint that people use to try and justify what they find important, and the actual suicide attempters are dehumanized as a side effect. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/65 "2017-11-09T16:29:11Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > If I am missing something here please let me know, because from my side the argument seems to be _“Make them try to drown themselves in their tub, hang themselves from the door frame, or duct tape a garbage bag to their head”_ just so firearm death numbers go down? The efforts aren’t directed at addressing the overwhelming feelings of sadness and hopelessness that must be hell to experience. I expect that it is probably just a datapoint that people use to try and justify what they find important, and the actual suicide attempters are dehumanized as a side effect. There is extremely strong evidence that people won’t just switch to another method to commit suicide. The means of committing suicide matter enormously to the number. In places where guns are less prevalent, there are fewer suicides. This is also true of other specific suicide methods such as certain popular bridges. Blocking people from one popular method does not just make them go with another method. It actually reduces the number of suicides. Lots of people committed suicide with coal gas in the UK until they stopped having coal gas available and the rate of suicide went down sharply. This makes sense. Many suicides, like many homicides, are impulsive acts and the ease and attractiveness of taking the action is important. _Make them try to drown themselves in their tubs because they most likely won’t._ ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/66 "2017-11-09T17:44:18Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > … pretty sure that it is a distraction from finding effective ways to deal with the underlying problems no matter how much comfort the efforts provide for the population as a whole.… Well, that is a can of worms. Good thing nobody noticed, lest this become some kind of _gun violence debate we’re not having_. Better close that can back up right quick. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/67 "2017-11-09T17:50:49Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > There is extremely strong evidence that people won’t just switch to another method to commit suicide. The means of committing suicide matter enormously to the number. In places where guns are less prevalent, there are fewer suicides. This is also true of other specific suicide methods such as certain popular bridges. Blocking people from one popular method does not just make them go with another method. It actually reduces the number of suicides. Lots of people committed suicide with coal gas in the UK until they stopped having coal gas available and the rate of suicide went down sharply. > > This makes sense. Many suicides, like many homicides, are impulsive acts and the ease and attractiveness of taking the action is important. > > _Make them try to drown themselves in their tubs because they most likely won’t._ Can you provide any cites _besides_ the coal gas case, because I am not finding that information, particularly ones that correct for a high intensity of intent. Almost all of the cites I can which do state that means reduction is useful as part of a suicide-prevention strategy, but access to services is far more effective. > [@](#): > > Suicide prevention is possible because up to 83% of suicides have had contact with a primary care physician within a year before their death and up to 66% within a month. Thus, a key prevention strategy is improved screening of depressed patients by primary care physicians and better treatment of major depression > **[Do local landmark bridges increase the suicide rate? An alternative test of...](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21320739/)** > > A number of recent studies have examined the effect of installing physical barriers or otherwise restricting access to public sites that are frequently used for suicides by jumping. While these studies demonstrate that barriers lead to a reduction in... To be clear, if there was no political fall out I would have zero problems with a complete gun ban, but this is not an isolated topic. Gun control is a wedge issue, and the party that sees it as a wedge issue also takes active steps to reduce access to services. Much of the correlation between firearm ownership and suicide rates also maps to rural and poverty demographics. The rural poor tend to have less access to medical interventions. The moral problem I referenced is completely related to the choice to target firearms legislation (with little chance of reduce of access) at the expense of other critical aspects of an effective suicide-prevention strategy. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/68 "2017-11-09T17:54:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > There is extremely strong evidence that people won’t just switch to another method to commit suicide. The means of committing suicide matter enormously to the number. In places where guns are less prevalent, there are fewer suicides. Not in Japan, Belgium, Finland, Sweden, etc. And in Australia, after the gun ban, the suicide rate didnt go down. They did turn to alternate methods. In any case, IMHO suicide is a basic human right. It has nothing at all to do with “gun crimes” or the homicide or violent crime rate. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/69 "2017-11-09T17:56:50Z")
I genuinely don’t know. Does anyone have good info on Australia’s suicide rates, before and after their big gun buyback? I’m looking for something like yearly rates going back several decades. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/70 "2017-11-09T17:58:14Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Can you provide any cites _besides_ the coal gas case, because I am not finding that information, particularly ones that correct for a high intensity of intent. > > Almost all of the cites I can which do state that means reduction is useful as part of a suicide-prevention strategy, but access to services is far more effective. Can you be more specific? Cites for what, exactly? And why are we excluding the coal gas results? ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/71 "2017-11-09T18:10:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And in Australia, after the gun ban, the suicide rate didnt go down. They did turn to alternate methods. How do you figure? The suicide rate in Australia dropped steeply after the 1996 law. ([http://www.suicidepreventionfnq.org.au/statistics.html](http://www.suicidepreventionfnq.org.au/statistics.html)) It’s been trending back up recently but it’s still below its mid-90s high. ([http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats](http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats)) ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/72 "2017-11-09T18:14:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And in Australia, after the gun ban, the suicide rate didnt go down. They did turn to alternate methods. I’d also like to point out that if people use guns to commit suicide rather than alternative methods they’re doing it for a reason, and by removing that possibility we raise the cost of suicide (in terms of potential for pain and suffering, say). When you raise the cost of something you discourage it – that’s econ 101. There’s also research showing that taxes on alcohol reduces consumption. Oh, but they can just smuggle it from elsewhere, or make their own, etc, and sure, that’s true … but you’re changing the incentive structure and that has a real impact. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/73 "2017-11-09T18:15:09Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Can you be more specific? Cites for what, exactly? And why are we excluding the coal gas results? Actually, to avoid being part of a thread on a debate I find pointless (I should never have posted because my interest is essentially nonexistent), I’ll just drop in two links then leave. Since I won’t be here to follow up, feel free to ignore. I did not make a lot of effort in the link finding, so take them with a grain of salt. > **[Suicide](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/)** > > 1-2. Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide (literature reviews) We performed reviews of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on suicide rates.  The preponderance of cu… > **[Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? - PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19623078/)** > > Implementing means reduction at both the population and individual levels poses many challenges, particularly when political issues arise during regulation of firearms or pesticides. Nevertheless, evidence strongly suggests that means reduction is... ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/74 "2017-11-09T18:16:14Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > How do you figure? The suicide rate in Australia dropped steeply after the 1996 law. ([http://www.suicidepreventionfnq.org.au/statistics.html](http://www.suicidepreventionfnq.org.au/statistics.html)) It’s been trending back up recently but it’s still below its mid-90s high. ([http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats](http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats)) To make that broad of a correlation, explain how the number of firearms doubled in the us from ~1970-2010, yet our rate stayed consistent. (note these numbers are age adjusted) > **[Suicide in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg)** > > Suicide is a major national public health issue in the United States. The country has one of the highest suicide rates among wealthy nations. In 2020, there were 45,799 recorded suicides, up from 42,773 in 2014, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). On average, adjusted for age, the annual U.S. suicide rate increased 30% between 2000 and 2020, from 10.4 to 13.5 suicides per 100,000 people. In 2018, 14.2 people per 100,000 died by suicide, the highe In 2015, suici... ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/75 "2017-11-09T18:29:59Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Can you be more specific? Cites for what, exactly? And why are we excluding the coal gas results? Two reasons, 1. A hypothesis needs to be replicated to be valid. 2. Coal gas was a fairly unique method, as it was highly lethal, less violent, and irreversible. Basically with firearms, hanging or jumping you can stop the attempt at any time up to the very last moment. If one started an attempt via CO poisoning symptoms from a source like Coal Gas take time to manifest at save levels. So if a person didn’t have a high “intent” level they would still die. As an example, at 1,600 ppm (0.16%) it takes about 20min for the symptoms to show up, but stopping at that point still means you will be dead in a few hours. It is lower bar on action to be fatal. And those impulsive suicides are very different from the way under-reported elder suicides as an example, which often are very much planned out. A cooling off purchase law for new gun owners may help with the impulsive action, but it will not help with the high intent cases. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/76 "2017-11-09T18:45:18Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > To make that broad of a correlation, explain how the number of firearms doubled in the us from ~1970-2010, yet our rate stayed consistent. Well, I don’t necessarily need to here; in that post I was responding to a pretty stark claim about suicide rates in Australia. Unless I’ve located incorrect data, then that claim is false. More broadly … if firearm supply is saturated enough then additional firearms might not have much if any impact. If I can already easily find a gun to kill myself with, having my choice of two or three won’t really move the needle. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/77 "2017-11-09T19:40:03Z")
> [@g8rguy](#): > > Frankly, it’s not clear to me that engaging with you at all is worthwhile, because you’ve somehow managed to not only misunderstand my argument but misunderstand its topic. Ordinarily I assume that if someone doesn’t understand what I have written, it is because I have been unclear. Given that you also misunderstood what your citation actually said, I assume that in this case the problem is that your reading comprehension is inadequate. I understand what my cite said just fine. **Bone** made a low effort post so I responded with low effort. You picked up the mantle seemingly with the goal of winning some imaginary message board internet points by repeatedly telling me “I’m wrong…admit it” instead of engaging in discussion of the topic at hand. The issue is whether or not guns make you safer. You said my cite did not prove anything of the sort. Maybe it is ice cream ownership at work. You were seeking to discredit the person and the study without actually engaging the substance of what is being said as regards the debate at hand. Nice debate tactic. It is clear that there is a strong correlation there. I offered to bet you and you (wisely) evaded it because my original cite it not the only study on this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/78 "2017-11-09T19:42:39Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > So a question here, should one also avoid possessing the following in your home? > > Hanging: rope, sheets, belts. > Drug / Alcohol Overdose: pain medication, booze, sleeping pills. > Poisoning: cleaning products, etc. > Carbon Monoxide Inhalation: cars, grills, gas ovens, lawn mowers. > Suffocation: plastic bags, plastic sheeting. If you want to make a case for outlawing those things go for it. Each has nothing to do with the other. E.G. Arguing pet tiger ownership should be outlawed because tigers are dangerous has nothing to do with whether we should also outlaw pet dog ownership because they can be dangerous too. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/79 "2017-11-09T19:43:47Z")
> [@Paranoid\_Randroid](#): > > Well, I don’t necessarily need to here; in that post I was responding to a pretty stark claim about suicide rates in Australia. Unless I’ve located incorrect data, then that claim is false. > > More broadly … if firearm supply is saturated enough then additional firearms might not have much if any impact. If I can already easily find a gun to kill myself with, having my choice of two or three won’t really move the needle. Then what would new legislation, that will only restrict new sales (only practical option right now) do outside of ensure that the Left loses power for a while? This directly fits with my world view, where the situation is crappy, but there isn’t much that we can do within the political realities of the current political situation without sacrificing all of our other goals for this one, which is unlikely to have a large impact. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937/80 "2017-11-09T20:21:15Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes it is supported by my cite. In an attempt to avoid the normal back and forth circle. “associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.” The critical term there is ‘associated’ which is a weaker term than correlation which also doesn’t imply cause. “correlation” applies strictly to linear relationships between variates, whereas the word “association” applies broadly to any type of relationship. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-gun-violence-debate-were-not-having/800937.md?page=5)