Gun control debate (merged)

#8,302
#8,302
evillawyer said:
People had been claiming this was a good guy with a gun case and it was not.
Click to expand...
Ridiculous. He was in pursuit and returned fire on the individual. Your cherry picking is noted. Also there’s this from your article.

(Reuters) - The rabbi wounded in Saturday's deadly shooting at his Southern California synagogue praised an off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent who fired at the fleeing suspect.


"I had spoken to him in the past about coming to the synagogue armed because he's trained, and I want trained security as much as possible," Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein told CNN, speaking from a local hospital. "Unfortunately, we couldn't afford to have an armed security officer at every service, so whenever we had extra help, we were grateful for it."
Click to expand...
 
#8,303
#8,303
evillawyer said:
So in other words, you ain't got sh*t
Click to expand...
Literally 10 seconds in google. Enjoy!

Suicide and hospitalised self-harm in Australia: trends and analysis, Summary - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Male rates of suicide by hanging have more than doubled since the early 1980s. Female rates show a similar pattern, although at lower levels. Suicide by hanging has been the most common mechanism of suicide in Australia since 1989 for males and since 1997 for females.
Click to expand...
 
#8,304
#8,304
I’m not some brainless lazy ass who must be handed everything in order for me to believe it. I was curious, I found the data myself, and figured it out. Sometimes there isn’t a nice neat synopsis about everything in the universe. Your legal research must be astounding. I couldn’t find a Newsweek article on this case so I quit looking.
 
#8,305
#8,305
NorthDallas40 said:
Literally 10 seconds in google. Enjoy!

Suicide and hospitalised self-harm in Australia: trends and analysis, Summary - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Click to expand...

Port Arthur was 1996. The doubling in hanging suicide rate occurred since 1980, not 1996. Furthermore, the study expressly states that suicide by hanging rates were increasing prior to Port Arthur. Regardless, the overall suicide rate has decreased since port Arthur and the rate of suicide by firearm has dramatically decreased since port Arthur. So, Australia DOES NOT provide evidence that making guns more difficult to acquire simply moves those who would kill themselves by gun to other forms of suicide.
 
#8,306
#8,306
Suicides are suicides. It's an intentional act and whatever the underlying reason the method of egress is just another choice. Sneaking it into overall gun related "deaths", of which the majority are in fact suicides, is just a way to pump up the numbers. As an aside there's been some interesting studies of late that point to the huge increase in drug deaths, particularly opioids, actually containing a lot of suicides.

For the rest Evil's just wanting to Evil. Whiff of hoplophobe about him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and 82_VOL_83
#8,307
#8,307
evillawyer said:
I believe that's doubtful (The Relationship Between Firearm Availability and Suicide). Plus, by the same reasoning, brandishing/using a knife, fist, muscles, rock, baseball bat etc may have the same effect as brandishing/using a gun in self-defense in certain contexts. To make an apples to apples comparison you would have to remove those situations from the positive side of the scale for guns. It should only be where a gun--and nothing less drastic--would have been able to obtain the desired result.
Click to expand...
Wtf kinda crap standard is that? In the heat of the matter you expect someone whose family is threatened to go with the least threatening object at hand that MIGHT do the job? When they have a surefire (pun slightly intended) object they can use?

You think Crocidile Dundee is the way to go? That's not a knife. This is a knife!

Talk about blood on ones hands by removing people's ability to defend themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Tennesseefan2019
#8,308
#8,308
LouderVol said:
Wtf kinda crap standard is that? In the heat of the matter you expect someone whose family is threatened to go with the least threatening object at hand that MIGHT do the job? When they have a surefire (pun slightly intended) object they can use?

You think Crocidile Dundee is the way to go? That's not a knife. This is a knife!

Talk about blood on ones hands by removing people's ability to defend themselves.
Click to expand...

The point is conceptual. The point I was responding to is the idea that suicides by gun shouldn't really count as a negative in the gun rights argument because those people would have killed themselves by other means if they didn't have a gun. Without a doubt that is true for some gun suicides. But it is also true that in some situations where a gun was successfully and legally used for self-defense (something that counts in favor of private gun ownership), the same end could have been obtained by other means (showing a knife, fists, screaming really loud, brandishing a baseball bat, etc.). So if you're going to throw out suicides by gun where the person would have killed themselves by other means, you should, by parity of reasoning, throw out those successful self-defensive uses of guns where the end (thwarting an attacker, etc.) would have been obtained by other means. That would be necessary to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of private gun ownership and use.
 
#8,309
#8,309
evillawyer said:
Port Arthur was 1996. The doubling in hanging suicide rate occurred since 1980, not 1996. Furthermore, the study expressly states that suicide by hanging rates were increasing prior to Port Arthur. Regardless, the overall suicide rate has decreased since port Arthur and the rate of suicide by firearm has dramatically decreased since port Arthur. So, Australia DOES NOT provide evidence that making guns more difficult to acquire simply moves those who would kill themselves by gun to other forms of suicide.
Click to expand...
It literally said while the rate of firearm suicide went down the rates of other forms of suicide increased.
 
#8,310
#8,310
evillawyer said:
The point is conceptual. The point I was responding to is the idea that suicides by gun shouldn't really count as a negative in the gun rights argument because those people would have killed themselves by other means if they didn't have a gun. Without a doubt that is true for some gun suicides. But it is also true that in some situations where a gun was successfully and legally used for self-defense (something that counts in favor of private gun ownership), the same end could have been obtained by other means (showing a knife, fists, screaming really loud, brandishing a baseball bat, etc.). So if you're going to throw out suicides by gun where the person would have killed themselves by other means, you should, by parity of reasoning, throw out those successful self-defensive uses of guns where the end (thwarting an attacker, etc.) would have been obtained by other means. That would be necessary to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of private gun ownership and use.
Click to expand...
We routinely drop data on you lefties that show the rates of firearm homicide are decreasing overtime and you pivot to another dumb narrative to fit your agenda. Firearm owners are not buying what you’re selling and never will. If you’re afraid of guns then stay away from them. Here’s another 10 second google search that’s shows the decline. E3A08ADF-9301-45D2-9FC7-648C09A18C56.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#8,311
#8,311
NorthDallas40 said:
It literally said while the rate of firearm suicide went down the rates of other forms of suicide increased.
Click to expand...

Look at the graph on page 11 of the report you linked. The total suicide rate has gone down since Port Arthur. Ditto with guns (page 24). The suicide rate by hanging was sharply increasing long before Port Arthur. While there was a spike in suicide by hanging around the time of Port Arthur, they have since decreased (page 18).
 
#8,312
#8,312
evillawyer said:
The point is conceptual. The point I was responding to is the idea that suicides by gun shouldn't really count as a negative in the gun rights argument because those people would have killed themselves by other means if they didn't have a gun. Without a doubt that is true for some gun suicides. But it is also true that in some situations where a gun was successfully and legally used for self-defense (something that counts in favor of private gun ownership), the same end could have been obtained by other means (showing a knife, fists, screaming really loud, brandishing a baseball bat, etc.). So if you're going to throw out suicides by gun where the person would have killed themselves by other means, you should, by parity of reasoning, throw out those successful self-defensive uses of guns where the end (thwarting an attacker, etc.) would have been obtained by other means. That would be necessary to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of private gun ownership and use.
Click to expand...
So you have an apples to apples study showing where some other method would have been as effective as brandishing a gun in self defense?

I find it really hard to believe from either side, suicide or defense, that it could be proven one way or the other.
 
#8,313
#8,313
evillawyer said:
The point is conceptual. The point I was responding to is the idea that suicides by gun shouldn't really count as a negative in the gun rights argument because those people would have killed themselves by other means if they didn't have a gun. Without a doubt that is true for some gun suicides. But it is also true that in some situations where a gun was successfully and legally used for self-defense (something that counts in favor of private gun ownership), the same end could have been obtained by other means (showing a knife, fists, screaming really loud, brandishing a baseball bat, etc.). So if you're going to throw out suicides by gun where the person would have killed themselves by other means, you should, by parity of reasoning, throw out those successful self-defensive uses of guns where the end (thwarting an attacker, etc.) would have been obtained by other means. That would be necessary to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the benefits and drawbacks of private gun ownership and use.
Click to expand...
Understand your concepts, EL. But the apples to apples comparison is unnecessary. We have a constitutional right to firearms. End of story. Let me know when you want a apples to apples comparison of other constitutional rights...free speech, free press, freedom of religion...I suspect we can easily find instances where to "bad" outweighs the "good" related to those freedoms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 0nelilreb, Obsessed and 2 others
#8,315
#8,315
evillawyer said:
Look at the graph on page 11 of the report you linked. The total suicide rate has gone down since Port Arthur. Ditto with guns (page 24). The suicide rate by hanging was sharply increasing long before Port Arthur. While there was a spike in suicide by hanging around the time of Port Arthur, they have since decreased (page 18).
Click to expand...
You’re hanging your argument on that singular event. Firearm suicide rate was already in decline prior to Port Arthur. And after Port Arthur they just swapped to different means if they didn’t have access to guns.
 
#8,316
#8,316
LouderVol said:
So you have an apples to apples study showing where some other method would have been as effective as brandishing a gun in self defense?

I find it really hard to believe from either side, suicide or defense, that it could be proven one way or the other.
Click to expand...

You can show, for example, that having access to a gun is correlated with a greater risk of suicide, especially suicide by gunshot (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/). So yes, we do know that gun owners (or people living in gun owning households) are at greater risk for suicide, especially suicide by gunshot.

I don't know how we'd measure whether something less severe than gun use would repel an attack, but we know it happens all the time because many non-gun owners use various means to repel an attack or protect themselves. For example, the San Diego shooter retreated when someone charged at him.
 
#8,317
#8,317
evillawyer said:
You can show, for example, that having access to a gun is correlated with a greater risk of suicide, especially suicide by gunshot (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/). So yes, we do know that gun owners (or people living in gun owning households) are at greater risk for suicide, especially suicide by gunshot.

I don't know how we'd measure whether something less severe than gun use would repel an attack, but we know it happens all the time because many non-gun owners use various means to repel an attack or protect themselves. For example, the San Diego shooter retreated when someone charged at him.
Click to expand...
Or we could just stick with a solid proven method and shoot the MF-er where he stands. The fact that you’re pushing this ridiculous narrative is indicative of the desperation from the left on the topic.
 
#8,318
#8,318
NorthDallas40 said:
Or we could just stick with a solid proven method and shoot the MF-er where he stands. The fact that you’re pushing this ridiculous narrative is indicative of the desperation from the left on the topic.
Click to expand...

Yes, we could, but we also know that facilitating such a method by making gun ownership prevalent and very easy has negative effects that far outweigh the positive effects. Increased suicide rates, accidental deaths, mass murders, murder suicides, etc. This is not even including the increased societal costs of medical spending on gun shot victims.
 
#8,319
#8,319
#8,320
#8,320
evillawyer said:
Yes, we could, but we also know that facilitating such a method by making gun ownership prevalent and very easy has negative effects that far outweigh the positive effects. Increased suicide rates, accidental deaths, mass murders, murder suicides, etc. This is not even including the increased societal costs of medical spending on gun shot victims.
Click to expand...
Nope. That’s your narrative. You be you if you’re afraid of guns don’t be around them. I nor my guns are zero threat to you so you respect me any my rights and I’ll do the same for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#8,321
#8,321
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope. That’s your narrative. You be you if you’re afraid of guns don’t be around them. I nor my guns are zero threat to you so you respect me any my rights and I’ll do the same for you.
Click to expand...

Some narratives are true and some are false. My narrative seems to have a sh*t ton more factual support.
 
#8,322
#8,322
evillawyer said:
Did you read this article I linked and the jama study it was about?

https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/t...ed-since-the-gun-buyback-20160622-gpp4wp.html
Click to expand...
I did. And I also found another article pointing to firearm suicide rates were already in decline prior to 1996 and how it’s a cherry picked statistic.

You will undoubtedly find web info to support your narrative by like minded individuals just like I will mine. And as we’ve stated multiple times you are not at liberty to just impose the Australia model in the US, regardless of the debate on the Australia data narrative. We don’t even agree on aggregate interpretation of the data and reject the cherry picking. Just like in the US, firearm homicide rate was in decline before FAWB 1998 and that ban had negligible impact on results. Thus it isn’t coming back.
 
#8,324
#8,324
McDad said:
Understand your concepts, EL. But the apples to apples comparison is unnecessary. We have a constitutional right to firearms. End of story. Let me know when you want a apples to apples comparison of other constitutional rights...free speech, free press, freedom of religion...I suspect we can easily find instances where to "bad" outweighs the "good" related to those freedoms.
Click to expand...
Welcome back sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, nuclearjunky and McDad
#8,325
#8,325
evillawyer said:
You can show, for example, that having access to a gun is correlated with a greater risk of suicide, especially suicide by gunshot (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/). So yes, we do know that gun owners (or people living in gun owning households) are at greater risk for suicide, especially suicide by gunshot.

I don't know how we'd measure whether something less severe than gun use would repel an attack, but we know it happens all the time because many non-gun owners use various means to repel an attack or protect themselves. For example, the San Diego shooter retreated when someone charged at him.
Click to expand...
Its higher with guns because you have people who dont handle a weapon correctly and they "accidentally" shoot themselves. It's a slanted metric framed in a way to increase the number of suicides.

I bet if you looked at houses with access to rope vs those without it you would find a higher number of hanging suicides. Same with bleach, drugs, both legal and not, and whatever other things people do to kill themselves

You are adding another set of data points without adjusting the whole study to a similar level. It's no wonder you get higher ratios.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top