Virginia...has more guns now....less gun crime, even with the latest shooting.

[Skylar]

Again, whose claims are you referring to?

Yours.
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.

That's in reference to States. Not your house alone.

Oh, I see.
You claim doesn't apply everywhere, just where it is convenient for you to apply it.

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house. The use of anecdotal evidence is a fallacy for a reason.

You're literally using a polling sample of ONE and insisting it reflects risk everyone, for everyone. That's ludicrious and demonstratably false.

Worse for you, we can verify gun deaths per state. You can't factually establish anything you've said. Making your polling sample of one even more worthless rationally.

You're doubling down on a fallacy of logic for a reason: your argument doesn't work. And you know it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Relationship" does not prove causation. Period.

And increase in success rates of suicide attempts from less than 5% to more than 90% when a gun is used isn't a random coincidence. Its immediately caused by the use of the gun.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

"Relationship" does not prove causation. Period.

And increase in success rates of suicide attempts from less than 5% to more than 90% when a gun is used isn't a random coincidence. Its immediately caused by the use of the gun.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

In terms of the rate of suicide within homes where guns are present its immediately relevant.

How does the fact that people are more likely to succeed in suicide with a gun in any way support the further regulation of guns for the law abiding?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yours.
I'm talking gun violence. The more guns, the more gun violence. Including the more cops likely to be shot.
Less guns, less gun violence. Including cops less likely to be shot.

That's in reference to States. Not your house alone.

Oh, I see.
You claim doesn't apply everywhere, just where it is convenient for you to apply it.

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

 

[Skylar]

And increase in success rates of suicide attempts from less than 5% to more than 90% when a gun is used isn't a random coincidence. Its immediately caused by the use of the gun.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

And increase in success rates of suicide attempts from less than 5% to more than 90% when a gun is used isn't a random coincidence. Its immediately caused by the use of the gun.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.. Committing suicide and attempting suicide aren't the same thing. You've bizarrely and awkwardly tried to argue they are. You're obviously wrong. Committing suicide is the act of killing yourself. Attempting suicide is the act of trying to kill yourself.

I've said that the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles. And I stand behind my claim. You don't even disagree with me. Instead, you've ignored my words, reimagined the meaning of the words 'committing suicide' and then condemning me as 'dishonest' based on your imaginary redefinitions.

Nope. I'll stick with the actual meanings. Your imagination I leave to you. And committing suicide speaks to the act of killing yourself. You can't get around that. And with it, your argument predictably implodes.

How does the fact that people are more likely to succeed in suicide with a gun in any way support the further regulation of guns for the law abiding?

Strawman fallacy. You're refuting arguments I'm not making.

If not for fallacies your posts would be little more than punctuation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.

It's not my fault you didn't work your claim correctly.

How does the fact that people are more likely to succeed in suicide with a gun in any way support the further regulation of guns for the law abiding?

Strawman fallacy. You're refuting arguments I'm not making.

OK then...
Why does it matter that the use of a gun increase the probability of a successful suicide attempt?

 

[Skylar]

That's in reference to States. Not your house alone.

Oh, I see.
You claim doesn't apply everywhere, just where it is convenient for you to apply it.

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.

Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh, I see.
You claim doesn't apply everywhere, just where it is convenient for you to apply it.

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.
Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Says he who cannot explain why his correlation isn't sound everywhere it is applied.

 

[Skylar]

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.

It's not my fault you didn't work your claim correctly.

Oh, my argment is fine. You've simply confused yourself with fallacies. Committing suicide isn't the same thing as attempting it. You equate them. You're obviously wrong.

And my argument remains as accurate now as it was before: if there is a gun in your home the odds of a member of your family committing suicide doubles.

Why does it matter that the use of a gun increase the probability of a successful suicide attempt?

It establishes that guns are a major risk factor in committing suicide. You may consider this irrelevant. A rational person wouldn't.

 

[Skylar]

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.
Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Says he who cannot explain why his correlation isn't sound everywhere it is applied.

Again, we're talking about odds on a State level. You do not reflect state wide odds of, well, anything. Your argument only works if you, all by yourself, are the defining representative sample for *everyone*.

And you're not. You can't get around that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.

It's not my fault you didn't work your claim correctly.

Oh, my argment is fine.

Your original statement, the one I responded to, was worded incorrectly.
You don;t have to like it, but you should at admit it - to yourself, at least

Why does it matter that the use of a gun increase the probability of a successful suicide attempt?

It establishes that guns are a major risk factor in committing suicide. You may consider this irrelevant. A rational person wouldn't.

No... It establishes that the use of a gun is a "major factor" in a successful suicide attempt.
Again: Why does that matter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.
Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Says he who cannot explain why his correlation isn't sound everywhere it is applied.

Again, we're talking about odds on a State level. You do not reflect state wide odds of, well, anything. Your argument only works if you, all by yourself, are the defining representative sample for *everyone*.
And you're not. You can't get around that.

I accept your concession, that you cannot explain why a 15:1 gun ratio equates to a 1:1 level of violence.

 

[2aguy]

Okay. Suicide isn't violence. So let's scratch that from your equations.

When a gun in the house doubles the rate of suicide, no....we don't 'scratch that'.

Now the states with more guns have less violent crime and less gun violence.

Really? Alaska has one of the rights rates of gun ownership. Yet its consistently in the top 10 for violent crime. In 2014 it had 603 violent crimes per 100,000 on a national average of about 386.

South Carolina has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation. And in 2014 was number 1 for violent crime with double the national average.

Hawaii has the lowest gun ownership rate in the nation. And has one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation, at 286.

Arkansas is in the top 5 for gun ownership rates. And in the top 10 for violent crime rates, at 552

There's something wrong with your hypothesis.

Guns are not the risk factor for suicide, drug use, alcoholism and mental health problems increase the risk, not gun ownership, since close to half of all suicides in the U.S. are done without guns. Take away guns and the other half will switch methods from guns to what the other suicides use.

Blithering nonsense. Guns are an enormous risk factor for suicide. One of the single largest, in fact. If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide.....doubles.

That's a 100% increase. You can ignore these facts and these numbers. But you can't make anyone else ignore them.

No, they aren't. They are merely a tool. Remove the guns and the tool merely changes. That means they are not a risk factor. But that would be an honest appraisal, and we all know you aren't honest.

A far, far less effective tool. With suicide attempts succeeding less than 5% of the time. Guns increase that to over 90%. Without a gun you may attempt suicide, but its overwhelmingly likely you won't succeed. With a gun, its almost certain you will succeed.

Making guns an enormous risk factor for suicide, doubling the odds of committing suicide. These aren't subtle numbers.

Without using the suicide rates you guys have nothing…..the entire gun murder rate for a country of over 320 million people for 2013 was only, 8,454…….the gun accidental death rate….505….

Japan, South Korea, China…all have absolute gun control…and all have higher rates of suicide than the United states with more people owning and carrying guns than ever before.

More people own and carry guns in the United States and our gun murder rate is going down, not up.

 

[2aguy]

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

The fact that guns make suicide attempts more likely to succeed is, in terms of the regulation of guns, meaningless.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.. Committing suicide and attempting suicide aren't the same thing. You've bizarrely and awkwardly tried to argue they are. You're obviously wrong. Committing suicide is the act of killing yourself. Attempting suicide is the act of trying to kill yourself.

I've said that the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles. And I stand behind my claim. You don't even disagree with me. Instead, you've ignored my words, reimagined the meaning of the words 'committing suicide' and then condemning me as 'dishonest' based on your imaginary redefinitions.

Nope. I'll stick with the actual meanings. Your imagination I leave to you. And committing suicide speaks to the act of killing yourself. You can't get around that. And with it, your argument predictably implodes.

How does the fact that people are more likely to succeed in suicide with a gun in any way support the further regulation of guns for the law abiding?

Strawman fallacy. You're refuting arguments I'm not making.

If not for fallacies your posts would be little more than punctuation.

Sorry, mental health issues are the determinant, not guns. 19,000 people committed suicide without guns in 2013 in the United states, 21,000 with guns. Take guns away, and the 21,000 use the same methods as the 19,000 that is why suicide doesn't count……it is also why you need suicides in your totals….

Since gun murder in the United States is going down, not up while more Americans, 12.8 million are carrying guns for self defense.

 

[2aguy]

Oh, I see.
You claim doesn't apply everywhere, just where it is convenient for you to apply it.

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.

Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Could you give the link on the gun murder rates….I use the FBI table 8 which showed only 8,454 gun murders in 2013….having gone down from the years before…dittos accidental gun deaths…505.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, its quite accurate.

It would be accurate if you said If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household successfully committing suicide doubles
But you didn't. Your statement speaks to attempt, not success.

Blithering nonsense and another tired false equivalency fallacy.

It's not my fault you didn't work your claim correctly.

Oh, my argment is fine.

Your original statement, the one I responded to, was worded incorrectly.

My orginal statement was fine, citing committing suicide. Says who? Says you.

Then your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles is, at best, misleading, and at worst, dishonest.

M14

There it is. "Committing suicide". Which you laughably and inaccurately morphed into attempting suicide. Which was just a comic blunder on your part. Committing suicide and attempting suicide aren't the same thing.

Yet you mistakenly equated them. You lose again.

No... It establishes that the use of a gun is a "major factor" in a successful suicide attempt.
Again: Why does that matter?

This is where we run into your problem of irrationality. To a rational person, an obvious risk factor that doubled the odds of a member of my household dying would matter.

To you, it doesn't. That's irrational.

 

[2aguy]

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

The dramatic increase in the success rate of a suicide from less than 5% to more than 90% establishes your causation. The gun makes suicide attempts orders of magnitude more lethal. Where without a gun, well in excess of 95% of suicide attempts don't succeed.
The relationship between gun ownership and higher suicide rates is immediate and verifiable: guns increase the lethality of suicide attempts.
Flushing your 'fallacy' claim.

"Relationship" does not prove causation. Period.

And increase in success rates of suicide attempts from less than 5% to more than 90% when a gun is used isn't a random coincidence. Its immediately caused by the use of the gun.

Not sure how any of that in any way supports your claim that If you have a gun in the house, the odds of someone in your household committing suicide doubles
How does having a gun make it 100% more likely that someone in my house will commit suicide?

I've already explained that to you repeatedly. Go back and read any of the half dozen posts related to how guns make suicide attempts more lethal. And you have your answer.

Guns don't increase the rate of suicide attempts. Instead, it dramatically increases the rates of succeeding at the attempt.

How do guns make suicides in Japan more lethal when they don't have any guns….they have 2 times the suicide rate that we do…that means 2 times the success rate without any guns…dittos China, South Korea, and Poland and Hungary have stricter gun control laws than we do and higher suicide rates.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.

Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Could you give the link on the gun murder rates….I use the FBI table 8 which showed only 8,454 gun murders in 2013….having gone down from the years before…dittos accidental gun deaths…505.

Were there more guns in 2013 than in 2012?
If so, then if more guns = more gun related murders, the number of murders from 2013 must be higher than in 2012.
Unless, of course, more guns = more gun related murders doesn't apply at the national level.

 

[2aguy]

This article looks at suicide and guns…how getting rid of guns does nothing for the suicide rate…

Gun Control & Suicide Rates: Ezra Klein's False Claim of a Causal Relationship | National Review Online

Gun-control is not a causal factor in reducing suicide rates. According to the data compiled by the World Health Organization, the story is much the same elsewhere: Developed Western nations such as Hungary, Poland, France, Belgium, and Austria all have higher suicide rates than the United States — and all have stricter gun-control regimes.

 

[Skylar]

Read the OP. We're discussing states. Not your house.

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.

Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Could you give the link on the gun murder rates….I use the FBI table 8 which showed only 8,454 gun murders in 2013….having gone down from the years before…dittos accidental gun deaths…505.

So you recognize that gun deaths are going down.....everywhere?

Then you just conceded my point, affirming my very first post in the thread:

And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Skylar
Post 2

Thank you.

 

[2aguy]

In other words, you cannot explain why your claimed correlation does not actually apply everywhere. Thank you.

In otherwords, we're discussing States. Not your house.

If your correlation is true, then it applies everywhere.
You're arguing that it does not apply everywhere.. If not B, the not A.

Again, the anecdotal evidence fallacy. A polling sample of one doesn't offer us any particular insight into national or state wide violence rates.

Worse, you can't back anything you've said. Where I can objectively verify State gun violence rates. Your logic is simply atrocious.

Could you give the link on the gun murder rates….I use the FBI table 8 which showed only 8,454 gun murders in 2013….having gone down from the years before…dittos accidental gun deaths…505.

So you recognize that gun deaths are going down.....everywhere?

Then you just conceded my point, affirming my very first post in the thread:

And for at least the 20th time, murder rates have been dropping everywhere. In places with massive gun sale increases. And places without it. When your 'effect' exists regardless of the presence of your 'cause', your 'cause' isn't.

Skylar
Post 2

Thank you.

I am pointing out that more Americans than ever before now own and carry guns for self defense…..and the gun murder rate is going down. That means that more gun ownership does not lead to more gun murder……the gun murder rate is going down as the gun ownership rate goes up. You guys can't say that more guns in the hands of more law abiding people means there will be more gun murders.

Of course then you move on to suicides where you are also wrong.