Sure. But isnt that their right to commit suicide?
That is a whole 'nother discussion. Which I can handily sidestep by pointing out that this is a thread where the straight-up banning of guns has been floated. The discussion is clearly a tussle between personal rights and the public good, and I think I can say with a certain confidence that it serves the public good if fewer people commit suicide.
We’re keeping you alive for our own good!
I am asking you to demonstrate how owning a gun causes you to commit suicide.
Once again, you were shown stats that suicide rates went down as gun ownership went up, and you responded that correlation isn’t causality. OK, show what does constitute causality.
Yes, it is. In common parlance as well as in law, the guy breaking into your house or who offers violence against you is the attacker. That’s why it is called “self-defense” and not “self-attack”.
I’m sure you do. Being wrong must be exhausting.
I wouldn’t worry about that.
Regards,
Shodan
How many fucking times am I going to say that you need to be comparing against non-gun-owning houses in the same OECD nation (and rough time period) in order to be doing something that has a chance of being a valid comparison?
I realize that you’re hellbent on using awful and disingenuous argument here, but is there ANY POINT where I can have said something enough times for it to have penetrated your awareness?
What bullshit. Yes, including the signature.
You do have a right to defend your property. In doing so, an attack on your property can turn into an attack on you. Than you have the right to defend yourself.
Real world example. When I lived on my farm we had trouble with trespassers. Kids drinking, fishing, riding atvs, or poachers hunting deer at night illegally who aren’t particular responsible about whether they are shooting towards your house or not, or people who are attempting to steal your black walnut trees (worth about 5k apiece,) or looking to steal farm equipment. When you noticed uninvited activity on the property you don’t which of the above it is. You don’t know the state or the intentions of the people involved other than that they have little respect for you or the law. You don’t know if they are armed and what they will do when confronted. I always walked down with a handgun in one pocket of a jacket and a camera in the other. I kept my hand on the gun. I never had to use it, but I always needed it.
Ask their families that they leave behind.
Seriously, do you not understand that people do have occasional bouts of depression, occasional suicidal impulses? Impulses that would be easy to overcome with just a bit of time?
Most methods of suicide require some level of planning, or at least leaving of the house. Most methods of suicide also have a much lower rate of “success”.
A gun makes a suicide easier to go from ideation to fruition with little planning or effort.
Huh? In most states you’ve got a right to defend yourself (at home, in your yard, your neighbor’s yard, or even out in public) so long as you’re not committing a crime.
Do you think that a person might expend a bit more effort to distinguish ally from foe when the stakes are higher than an internet discussion board?
And in those cases when the perpetrator is already getting away, and is no longer any threat to yourself? If a perp was never a threat to you or your property, but only to your neighbor’s?
No. I don’t.
If someone has no issues pressing them for a timely response, when they can take all the time they need to determine a friend from a foe, when there is absolutely no danger to themselves, then why would I believe that under pressure, they would perform better?
Okay, then compare non-gun-owning households in the same nation over the same time period, and show that owning a gun causes suicide.
Why is “correlation isn’t causality” an awful disingenuous argument? If it is, why did you use it? If it’s not, then why did you say it was?
Regards,
Shodan
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
You continue to have no damn clue what I’ve said.
Yeah, we call that “powerful link” a correlation.
One caused by causation, yeah. Unlike the harebrained attempt to attribute the increase in suicides entirely on a decrease in guns, or whatever the hell that was supposed to be.
*Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[50] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[51] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[52]
Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[53] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[54] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “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.”*
People just turn to anther method.
This is a claim that you have yet to provide any evidence to support. (ETA: or I missed it if you did)
The alternate view, of course, being that committing suicide causes guns to spontanously appear. Or that an alternate factor is causing people to both buy guns and commit suicide (perhaps being conservative is depressing)?
But sure. I accept that nothing I can say will establish that guns are useful when you’re considering committing suicide. No matter what.
(Also, regarding the Aussies, I’m impressed that they have a universal knowledge of how to rapidly and easily tie a hangman’s noose; I certainly couldn’t, nor could I readily find an exposed rafter to hang it from. Though honestly the question bears asking - if an Australian wanted to commit suicide, why not go stand outside for thirty seconds? Something will kill you for sure.)
The point in dispute is one of causation. I accept that there is a correlation between suicides and gun ownership, but I don’t think the former is caused by the latter.
Let me explain it this way:
Males are more likely to own guns than females. Males are also more likely to commit suicide than females.
Whites are more likely to commit suicide than minorities. White are also more likely to own guns than minorities.
Do you have any evidence that the high suicide rate found among white males is caused by their increased likelihood of owning guns, or do you accept that those two findings are merely correlated?
ETA: there’s probably a correlation between fishing gear and suicide or National Park Service annual pass ownership and suicide, but fishing and NPS annual passes aren’t causing suicide either, they’re just some other stuff white guys like to do more than other demographics, along with gun ownership.
I’m tired of this. I consider it to be accepted fact that suicide is often spontaneous. I consider it accepted fact that when a person attempts suicide and fails, they tend not to try again. I consider it accepted fact that minor reductions in the ease of committing suicide cause noticeable and proportionally significant reductions in the frequency of suicide attempts. I consider it accepted fact that it’s extremely easy to commit suicide if you have ready access to a usable handgun. (Rifles, not so much.)
If the elimination of handguns from the equation did not cause a reduction in suicide, I’d be asking why.
I actually think it would cause a (slight) reduction, especially initially (say the first 5 years after the ban), but my answer is that in many other countries that don’t have access to firearms people find ways to kill themselves despite the limitation. The US is basically today, with all the firearms we have, only in the middle of the pack of deaths per capita wrt suicides. To me, that pretty much says it all if we are not going to dig into the data more…basically, if the average Japanese suicide can figure out how to kill him or herself without a gun I’m pretty sure the average American suicide can do so as well. Sure, it’s easier to do so with a gun, but having guns hasn’t put the US at the top of the list wrt suicides, so there is more going on in all of this than just guns. JMHO of course…YMMV. Like I said, I do actually believe we’d have a bump downward initially with a ban…I just don’t think it would be that large a bump or that it would last. And this assumes we somehow magically get all those guns already here out of the publics hands first.