Guns in the US,an alternative view..

[DoomYoshi]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

Like eggs?

Click image to enlarge.

[smegal69]

guns are good by smegal69, on Flickr

[mrswdk]

If a person is willing enough to murder, they're going to be willing to break a comparatively minor law of obtaining a gun illegally. That's not society's fault - it's the individual's choice.

It might be comforting to say 'there's nothing I can do about it' and blame the individual, but if society doesn't allow companies to mass-produce murderous weapons for public consumption then it makes it quite a lot harder for the wack jobs to rack up much of a body count when they finally go full retard.

[thegreekdog]

As I understand it, there are some saying most Americans should own guns,and carry gums with them. or have easy access to guns. pretty well 24/7 You should have a gun handy at home, at work, at play, at school, in bars and in Starbucks at church, temple or mosque, A reasonable assumption is that in any "conflict" between two or more people, a shouting match over spilled beer in a bar, neighbours complaints over noise, spouses arguing about sleeping around, negative performance reviews or lay-offs by an employer, IRS audits , one or more people has access to a gun and may use it.

Doesn't make much sense to me.

No, but that's what usually happens in the United States, right? I mean, I'm sitting here at work and one of my co-workers and I had this fight about a varmint and he done shot me. You do know that we don't live in the wild west anymore right? It's hard to tell with some non-U.S. folks what they think happens here with the guns. Let's break it down - most gun homicides are committed by people living in the inner city killing other people living in the inner city, usually involving drugs. Most of those guns are obtained illegally. People don't really get killed at church or at work, which is why you hear about them - because it's so rare.

All that being said, If I didn't live here, I'd love to see a country invade to clean up our violence problems.

[Symmetry]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

[demonfork]

If a person is willing enough to murder, they're going to be willing to break a comparatively minor law of obtaining a gun illegally. That's not society's fault - it's the individual's choice.

It might be comforting to say 'there's nothing I can do about it' and blame the individual, but if society doesn't allow companies to mass-produce murderous weapons for public consumption then it makes it quite a lot harder for the wack jobs to rack up much of a body count when they finally go full retard.

Like Timothy McVeigh? Oh wait, he used cow manure to kill 168 people and injure 800 when he went retarded.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

I never said studies have not been conducted on this.

So, what's the success rate of preventing 1st attempt 'suiciders' in communities where firearms aren't 'prevalent' (whatever that means exactly) compared to success rates in communities where firearms are prevalent?

If the difference is negligible, then focusing on the variable of firearms won't lead to the relevant solution.

[Symmetry]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

I never said studies have not been conducted on this.

So, what's the success rate of preventing 1st attempt 'suiciders' in communities where firearms aren't 'prevalent' (whatever that means exactly) compared to success rates in communities where firearms are prevalent?

If the difference is negligible, then focusing on the variable of firearms won't lead to the relevant solution.

The difference isn't negligible for other methods of suicide, and isn't negligible for firearms suicide either. If you have some research disproving the research on suicides that fits your view, lay it out.

[Night Strike]

So the government should be banning guns to prevent people from harming themselves while causing them to risk being harmed or killed by others? That logic doesn't make sense.

[Symmetry]

So the government should be banning guns to prevent people from harming themselves while causing them to risk being harmed or killed by others? That logic doesn't make sense.

Is there any kind of arms that you think should be banned in any kind of circumstance?

[Night Strike]

So the government should be banning guns to prevent people from harming themselves while causing them to risk being harmed or killed by others? That logic doesn't make sense.

Is there any kind of arms that you think should be banned in any kind of circumstance?

I don't think individuals need tanks, fighter jets, or RPGs.

[The Weird One]

I must say that I'm rather surprised to not have seen one argument come up from the Americans in either of the two gun control threads I've read here...Let's, for a moment, ignore the whole spiel about protection from criminals, shall we? It's always been my understanding that the second amendment was there less for citizens to be safe from other citizens and more for them to be safe from the government. That's one reason why so many people get so rabid about gun control laws. The whole deal of the government taking away the right that was initially made clear to stop oppressive regimes bit is a sensitive subject with some people. Anyway, back to the topic of America getting policed by other nations...That was quite the entertaining article.

[To be fair, we sure as Hell would have it coming, after the past century.]

[Night Strike]

I must say that I'm rather surprised to not have seen one argument come up from the Americans in either of the two gun control threads I've read here...Let's, for a moment, ignore the whole spiel about protection from criminals, shall we? It's always been my understanding that the second amendment was there less for citizens to be safe from other citizens and more for them to be safe from the government. That's one reason why so many people get so rabid about gun control laws. The whole deal of the government taking away the right that was initially made clear to stop oppressive regimes bit is a sensitive subject with some people. Anyway, back to the topic of America getting policed by other nations...That was quite the entertaining article.

[To be fair, we sure as Hell would have it coming, after the past century.]

Because the only response from the gun-grabbers is that the government already has weapons that are more powerful than the citizens' weapons, which in their rationale means that the citizens should have even those guns taken away since they won't make a difference against the government. It's a stupid argument that they always use to waste our time, so why not go straight to the argument that's personally relevant to each individual?

[The Weird One]

I must say that I'm rather surprised to not have seen one argument come up from the Americans in either of the two gun control threads I've read here...Let's, for a moment, ignore the whole spiel about protection from criminals, shall we? It's always been my understanding that the second amendment was there less for citizens to be safe from other citizens and more for them to be safe from the government. That's one reason why so many people get so rabid about gun control laws. The whole deal of the government taking away the right that was initially made clear to stop oppressive regimes bit is a sensitive subject with some people. Anyway, back to the topic of America getting policed by other nations...That was quite the entertaining article.

[To be fair, we sure as Hell would have it coming, after the past century.]

Because the only response from the gun-grabbers is that the government already has weapons that are more powerful than the citizens' weapons, which in their rationale means that the citizens should have even those guns taken away since they won't make a difference against the government. It's a stupid argument that they always use to waste our time, so why not go straight to the argument that's personally relevant to each individual?

Well, you've answered my wondering. I was just commenting on my surprise at not seeing that argument, here.

[Symmetry]

So the government should be banning guns to prevent people from harming themselves while causing them to risk being harmed or killed by others? That logic doesn't make sense.

Not really, I've worked with a lot of mentally ill people. They're mostly a danger to themselves. Either way, throwing instant death into the mix is a bad idea.

[john9blue]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

I never said studies have not been conducted on this.

So, what's the success rate of preventing 1st attempt 'suiciders' in communities where firearms aren't 'prevalent' (whatever that means exactly) compared to success rates in communities where firearms are prevalent?

it seems like you're ignoring sym's evidence for no reason. he gave you studies and statistics to support his point, now it's your turn to do the same.

[Phatscotty]

♥ foreigners obsessing over American domestic policy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

I never said studies have not been conducted on this.

So, what's the success rate of preventing 1st attempt 'suiciders' in communities where firearms aren't 'prevalent' (whatever that means exactly) compared to success rates in communities where firearms are prevalent?

If the difference is negligible, then focusing on the variable of firearms won't lead to the relevant solution.

The difference isn't negligible for other methods of suicide, and isn't negligible for firearms suicide either. If you have some research disproving the research on suicides that fits your view, lay it out.

Since the empirical evidence for the underlined is lacking, then the dispute remains unresolved.

[BigBallinStalin]

Quick! Ban anything which can be used to commit suicide!

While I know you're being ridiculous, there's a point here. I even managed to persuade Scotty on this.

The classic argument- that people who want to commit suicide will find another way is mostly BS. Mostly, of course, because there will always be a hard core of people who will find a way. They are the minority of people who feel suicidal.

The majority, they can be saved. Take the UK example. Coal gas used to be used in ovens. It was lethal, and a favoured way to commit suicide. Head, oven, death. The UK switched to natural gas, none lethal. The suicide rate plummeted, but more importantly stayed there.

Suicides tend to fixate on an easy way out. Stuff that makes it more difficult, even keeping guns unloaded if you're really into the gun stuff, will help.

Looks like an empirical matter which has yet to be resolved.

Not really dude, studies have been done on this. Ease of access to a suicide method is a key factor in suicide rates. And against common sense, when those methods are removed, a suicidal person does not usually simply go for something else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all

“We’re always going to have suicide,” Hemenway said, “and there’s probably not that much to be done for the ones who are determined, who succeed on their 4th or 5th or 25th try. The ones we have a good chance of saving are those who, right now, succeed on their first attempt because of the lethal methods they’ve chosen.”

Inevitably, this approach means focusing on the most common method of suicide in the United States: firearms. Even though guns account for less than 1 percent of all American suicide attempts, their extreme fatality rate — anywhere from 85 percent and 92 percent, depending on how the statistics are compiled — means that they account for 54 percent of all completions. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, that translated into about 17,000 deaths. Public-health officials like Hemenway can point to a mountain of research going back 40 years that shows that the incidence of firearm suicide runs in close parallel with the prevalence of firearms in a community.

I never said studies have not been conducted on this.

So, what's the success rate of preventing 1st attempt 'suiciders' in communities where firearms aren't 'prevalent' (whatever that means exactly) compared to success rates in communities where firearms are prevalent?

it seems like you're ignoring sym's evidence for no reason. he gave you studies and statistics to support his point, now it's your turn to do the same.

So I can't ask questions about his evidence?
(Note: his source doesn't support his point; it only partially does so; therefore, I asked my question).

I'll reserve judgments until I see the empirical data (which didn't answer my question upon a brief perusal).

[Phatscotty]

Symm, You didn't convince me, I only granted you credit for having somewhat of a point in the area of agreeing that yes if all guns were banned, there would be less suicides. It can be a tremendously impulsive act and knowing that it's painless might push someone over the edge. I'm sure I also said that if all automobiles were banned, there would be less deaths traveling. And if going outside were banned, there would be less skin cancer.

I do not agree that suicide by firearm is "gun violence" or should even be counted as such. Suicides are suicides.

And another things, guns or weapons in general will never be totally banned, so it's a pipe dream in the first place. Evil people don't care about rules or laws or bans. They are going to find a way, and all banning guns will do is guarantee evil will rule the day.

[Lootifer]

all banning guns will do is guarantee evil will rule the day.

Many western countries which have more restrictive gun laws are ruled by evil..?

Learn something new every day...

[chang50]

♥ foreigners obsessing over American domestic policy.

Americans obsessing about the domestic policy of (since ww2) Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Chile,Guatemela,Grenada,Somalia,and countless others.Is your country so special in your eyes that it can intervene at will for whatever reason anywhwere but no foreigner is entitled to an OPINION about the US.The hypocrisy of that view stinks.

[mrswdk]

Like Timothy McVeigh? Oh wait, he used cow manure to kill 168 people and injure 800 when he went retarded.

Anyone can use a gun to shoot someone but not many people know how to make a bomb out of manure. Besides, manure has many practical applications and is not produced for the sole purpose of killing/maiming.

[Frigidus]

[Phatscotty]

♥ foreigners obsessing over American domestic policy.

Americans obsessing about the domestic policy of (since ww2) Korea,Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Chile,Guatemela,Grenada,Somalia,and countless others.Is your country so special in your eyes that it can intervene at will for whatever reason anywhwere but no foreigner is entitled to an OPINION about the US.The hypocrisy of that view stinks.

Really? Is that what you think I support?

What if I agree America should have nothing to do with the domestic policy of those countries? Is it still hypocrisy?