What's wrong with smart guns?

[M14 Shooter]

Here is a list of how succesful different types of suicdes are


Lethality of Suicide Method
Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal
Firearm fatal: 16,869 non fatal: 2,980 total attempts: 19,849 % successful: 85%
Suffocation fatal: 6,198 non fatal: 2,761 total attempts:8,959 % successful: 69%
Poisoning/overdose fatal: 5,191 non fatal: 215,814 total attempts: 221,005 % successful: 2%
Fall fatal: 651 non fatal: 1434 total attempts: 2,085 % successful: 31%
Cut/pierce fatal: 458 non-fatal: 62,817 total attempts: 63,275 % successful: 1%
Other fatal: 1,109 non fatal: 35,089 total attempts: 36,198 % successful: 3%
Unspecified fatal: 146 non fatal: 2097 total attempts: 2,243% successful: 7%

Total fatal: 30,622 non-fatal: 322,991 total attempts: 353,613 % successful:9%

Data is from 2001. And shows that successful gun suicides make up over 55% of all suicides yet only makes up less than 6% of all suicide attempts. Because guns make the attempt permanent and other forms of suicide attempts usually fail.

The above data also demonstrates that people don't usually end up choosing guns only after exhausting other methods as gun attempts do not come close to equaling other failed types of failed attempts.

Interesting.
Guns are used in 5.6% of all suicide attempts.

Yep, but they make up for than half of all suicides.

Probably because the people who use them are serious about success.
Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.

Good luck proving that.

Don't like the premise, eh?

 

[HappyJoy]

Here is a list of how succesful different types of suicdes are


Lethality of Suicide Method
Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal
Firearm fatal: 16,869 non fatal: 2,980 total attempts: 19,849 % successful: 85%
Suffocation fatal: 6,198 non fatal: 2,761 total attempts:8,959 % successful: 69%
Poisoning/overdose fatal: 5,191 non fatal: 215,814 total attempts: 221,005 % successful: 2%
Fall fatal: 651 non fatal: 1434 total attempts: 2,085 % successful: 31%
Cut/pierce fatal: 458 non-fatal: 62,817 total attempts: 63,275 % successful: 1%
Other fatal: 1,109 non fatal: 35,089 total attempts: 36,198 % successful: 3%
Unspecified fatal: 146 non fatal: 2097 total attempts: 2,243% successful: 7%

Total fatal: 30,622 non-fatal: 322,991 total attempts: 353,613 % successful:9%

Data is from 2001. And shows that successful gun suicides make up over 55% of all suicides yet only makes up less than 6% of all suicide attempts. Because guns make the attempt permanent and other forms of suicide attempts usually fail.

The above data also demonstrates that people don't usually end up choosing guns only after exhausting other methods as gun attempts do not come close to equaling other failed types of failed attempts.

Interesting.
Guns are used in 5.6% of all suicide attempts.

Yep, but they make up for than half of all suicides.

Probably because the people who use them are serious about success.
Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.

Good luck proving that.

Don't like the premise, eh?

What premise?

Why do people in gun states have higher suicide rates than those states with less guns? I already posted numbers, non-gun suicides were about equal but gun suicides put the gun states over the top by more thank 6k. Are you trying to say that lax gun law states are more serious about suicide?

If you have a point to make, provide something other than bullshit.

 

[Brain357]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

I don't care of you're fine with it

I'm not and I'm not going to bet my life if it comes to it on a piece of technology that can fail

I have a fingerprint scanner on my computer and routinely have to swipe my finger 2 or 3 times for it to work

There's no way that's acceptable on a firearm

Scanner always works on my phone. You should try to not be so scared and paranoid.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Scanner always works on my phone. You should try to not be so scared and paranoid.

Bullshit.

Your cell phone battery never goes dead?

You've never dropped it and borken it?

How old is it? So many of these damned electronic devices seemed design to break after about 5 years, why trust a battery company if Beijing to make your gun lock battery to a high standard?

 

[Brain357]

Scanner always works on my phone. You should try to not be so scared and paranoid.

Bullshit.

Your cell phone battery never goes dead?

You've never dropped it and borken it?

How old is it? So many of these damned electronic devices seemed design to break after about 5 years, why trust a battery company if Beijing to make your gun lock battery to a high standard?

It has this nice gauge that tells me how much charge is left. You must forget to load your gun...

 

[Skull Pilot]

And all of the suicides in Japan, South Korea and China are not by gun….and they have more of them…and Apparently so does Scandinavia, Poland and Hungary……..

And you would have to convince us that since 19,900 people in the United States commit suicide without guns, that the 21,175 people wouldn't just commit suicide with the other methods the other 19,900 used….

And I don't believe you answered my question……since you lefties love the idea of Doctor assisted suicide…would it be okay with you if the Dr. just shot the person they were assisting?

Why not pick the UK? They have far fewer suicides than we do, you're cherry picking.

In the meantime states with lax gun laws have 6k more suicides with 1 million less people.

Lax gun law states
population: 39 million
47% of population owns guns
non-gun suicides:5,060
gun suicides: 9,749
total suicides: 14,089
suicides per million: 361.25

Stricter gun law states
population: 40 million
15% of population owns guns
non-gun suicides: 5,446
gun suicides: 2,696
total suicides: 8,142
suicides per million: 203.55

So, while states with fewer guns slightly edge out states with more guns in the number of non-gun suicides, it's insignificant compared to gun suicides.

And yes, you already have the link to the stats.

Guns do not cause suicides

Guns cause suicide about as much as a hammer causes a nail to drive into a 2x4.

Other than that, I have stats and you don't

Lies damn lies and....

Tell me how many of those people who kill themselves with guns in the US wouldn't still commit suicide if there were no guns available?

And besides suicide is not a crime and people have the right to decide whether they live or die so your suicide numbers don't count as far as I'm concerned

Well, if you look at states that have a lot of guns and states that don't you will find that gun suicides are higher while non-gun suicides are relatively even. But, you won't even comment on that.

My guess is that often times suicide is not well thought, more of an impulse and when someone does not attain immediate success (like shooting yourself often will) they give up, maybe get help, get sober, whatever the reasons obviously according to the numbers suicide is less prevalent with less guns.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing

You cannot tell me that people who can't get a gun won't kill themselves anyway

And as I said it's none of my business if a person wants to commit suicide it's their life their choice and I will not restrict my behavior because of someone else's choice and I certainly will not allow anyone else to

 

[Skull Pilot]

Here is a list of how succesful different types of suicdes are


Lethality of Suicide Method
Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal
Firearm fatal: 16,869 non fatal: 2,980 total attempts: 19,849 % successful: 85%
Suffocation fatal: 6,198 non fatal: 2,761 total attempts:8,959 % successful: 69%
Poisoning/overdose fatal: 5,191 non fatal: 215,814 total attempts: 221,005 % successful: 2%
Fall fatal: 651 non fatal: 1434 total attempts: 2,085 % successful: 31%
Cut/pierce fatal: 458 non-fatal: 62,817 total attempts: 63,275 % successful: 1%
Other fatal: 1,109 non fatal: 35,089 total attempts: 36,198 % successful: 3%
Unspecified fatal: 146 non fatal: 2097 total attempts: 2,243% successful: 7%

Total fatal: 30,622 non-fatal: 322,991 total attempts: 353,613 % successful:9%

Data is from 2001. And shows that successful gun suicides make up over 55% of all suicides yet only makes up less than 6% of all suicide attempts. Because guns make the attempt permanent and other forms of suicide attempts usually fail.

The above data also demonstrates that people don't usually end up choosing guns only after exhausting other methods as gun attempts do not come close to equaling other failed types of failed attempts.

Suicide is not a crime it's a choice so it really is not relevant to the discussion

 

[Skull Pilot]

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

I don't care of you're fine with it

I'm not and I'm not going to bet my life if it comes to it on a piece of technology that can fail

I have a fingerprint scanner on my computer and routinely have to swipe my finger 2 or 3 times for it to work

There's no way that's acceptable on a firearm

Scanner always works on my phone. You should try to not be so scared and paranoid.

You never had to swipe your finger more than once?

I highly doubt that

 

[Agit8r]

Heck. Include a chip in it that sends a ping to the nearest cell towers every time it is fired. Would save a lot of money on road signs.

 

[bucs90]

For one...using it when it's wet or the finger is wet could prevent the fingerprint to be read properly.

 

[Pogo]

Next the fucking LIB coward pussy-boys are going to demand a fucking card reader in a gun: "If you don't mind before you kick in my door I need to get my wallet and find the card to swipe for my gun to work. It will only take a minute."
There are parts of the country which could be accurately described as war zones.
Every high school student in the country should spend a couple of days in these war zones and then be asked if having a gun to protect yourself in them is a good or a bad idea.

---- but there's no way Gun Nuts are aggressive. Nope.

And who do you call when you need help? Someone with a fucking gun. You're a fool. Someone is trying to break into your house. One neighbor has an NRA sign on his lawn. Your other neighbor has a "Ban All Guns" sign on his lawn. Who are you going to run to for help asshole? Not the neighbor with the Ban All Guns sign on his lawn because whoever is kicking your door in just came from your LIB coward pussy's house and your neighbors are fucking dead.

Why I'm just gonna stomp over to that neighbor's house, kick the fuggin' door in and beat the fuckin' shit out of the queer, that's what. And then I'll have a beer and watch football while I fart into his couch. But it's gotta be a heavily-advertised footwash beer like Budslimer. When the game's over I'll take his car out and fuckin' drag race it.

This is Murka! Testosterone fuckin' rules! USA! USA! Kick ass!

 

[Pogo]

If you decided to go skydiving...Which would you trust more. A regular parachute...or a fingerprint reading, electronically controlled parachute?

False comparison.
You can't kill (or even injure) anybody by opening a parachute.

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

If only there were some kind of thing like a low battery indicator. Why can't some genius invent that.

Oh wait....

Plus if you jump out of a plane there is a 100% chance you need to use a parachute. On any given day there is about a 0% chance you will need to fire your gun.

You never need to fire a gun until you do and when that time comes to you want a dead battery on your fingerprint scanner to be the reason you wound up dead?

I am fine with that. There is basically zero chance you will need to fire a gun. And it is easy to keep the batteries charged. You probably don't forget to load your gun do you?

I don't care of you're fine with it

I'm not and I'm not going to bet my life if it comes to it on a piece of technology that can fail

I have a fingerprint scanner on my computer and routinely have to swipe my finger 2 or 3 times for it to work

There's no way that's acceptable on a firearm

Conventional guns can't fail huh? Informative.

But not as informative as watching all the Firearm Fetishists carefully dance around the point, opting to focus on the comic-book cops-and-robbers fantasy way unlikely to ever happen, and totally ignoring the five-year-old who picks up a gun in curiosity and shoots his toddler sister's face off.

Total number of accidental gun deaths in the United States for children 14 and under…… the total population of children in the U.S. in 2010 74.2 million….. 69 kids accidentally killed with guns.

Let's see….74.2 million children…. vs. 69 accidental gun deaths of children under 14 in 2013.

We aren't ignoring anything…we actually know the truth….

And it is people like you who are fighting to keep gun safety education out of schools so that even that tiny number of children killed accidentally with guns could be reduced…why is that?

Link?

Because I have no clue what in the wide world of fuck you're babbling about.
But then, apparently you don't either.

 

[Pogo]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

Wrong read the Constitution again strategic weapons belong to the Government thus why NO STATE could have a Navy since in that day and age only the navy was strategic.

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why not pick the UK? They have far fewer suicides than we do, you're cherry picking.

In the meantime states with lax gun laws have 6k more suicides with 1 million less people.

Lax gun law states
population: 39 million
47% of population owns guns
non-gun suicides:5,060
gun suicides: 9,749
total suicides: 14,089
suicides per million: 361.25

Stricter gun law states
population: 40 million
15% of population owns guns
non-gun suicides: 5,446
gun suicides: 2,696
total suicides: 8,142
suicides per million: 203.55

So, while states with fewer guns slightly edge out states with more guns in the number of non-gun suicides, it's insignificant compared to gun suicides.

And yes, you already have the link to the stats.

Guns do not cause suicides

Guns cause suicide about as much as a hammer causes a nail to drive into a 2x4.

Other than that, I have stats and you don't

Lies damn lies and....

Tell me how many of those people who kill themselves with guns in the US wouldn't still commit suicide if there were no guns available?

And besides suicide is not a crime and people have the right to decide whether they live or die so your suicide numbers don't count as far as I'm concerned

Well, if you look at states that have a lot of guns and states that don't you will find that gun suicides are higher while non-gun suicides are relatively even. But, you won't even comment on that.

My guess is that often times suicide is not well thought, more of an impulse and when someone does not attain immediate success (like shooting yourself often will) they give up, maybe get help, get sober, whatever the reasons obviously according to the numbers suicide is less prevalent with less guns.

Correlation and causation are not the same thing

You cannot tell me that people who can't get a gun won't kill themselves anyway

And as I said it's none of my business if a person wants to commit suicide it's their life their choice and I will not restrict my behavior because of someone else's choice and I certainly will not allow anyone else to

Nobody is saying people kill themselves because of guns. People only more effectively kill themselves because of guns, done with your strawman.

 

[HappyJoy]

Here is a list of how succesful different types of suicdes are


Lethality of Suicide Method
Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal
Firearm fatal: 16,869 non fatal: 2,980 total attempts: 19,849 % successful: 85%
Suffocation fatal: 6,198 non fatal: 2,761 total attempts:8,959 % successful: 69%
Poisoning/overdose fatal: 5,191 non fatal: 215,814 total attempts: 221,005 % successful: 2%
Fall fatal: 651 non fatal: 1434 total attempts: 2,085 % successful: 31%
Cut/pierce fatal: 458 non-fatal: 62,817 total attempts: 63,275 % successful: 1%
Other fatal: 1,109 non fatal: 35,089 total attempts: 36,198 % successful: 3%
Unspecified fatal: 146 non fatal: 2097 total attempts: 2,243% successful: 7%

Total fatal: 30,622 non-fatal: 322,991 total attempts: 353,613 % successful:9%

Data is from 2001. And shows that successful gun suicides make up over 55% of all suicides yet only makes up less than 6% of all suicide attempts. Because guns make the attempt permanent and other forms of suicide attempts usually fail.

The above data also demonstrates that people don't usually end up choosing guns only after exhausting other methods as gun attempts do not come close to equaling other failed types of failed attempts.

Suicide is not a crime it's a choice so it really is not relevant to the discussion

Then why are you trying to demonstrate that there is no relation between guns and suicide? If you don't care and it doesn't matter then move along.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gun rights advocates will say they are a form of gun control and a violation of the second amendment rights. I say abide by the second amendment by owning a musket.

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

Wrong read the Constitution again strategic weapons belong to the Government thus why NO STATE could have a Navy since in that day and age only the navy was strategic.

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

Let me explain it to you as I would a fucking moron, OK? In 1789 the only strategic military force was the NAVY. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY limits armed naval forces to the Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment does not allow individual citizens to own Strategic weapons of war. Such as Nuclear weapons and long range bombers. One might be able to argue that fighters are not strategic but the federal Government has a monopoly on armed aircraft

 

[Pogo]

Very good point. When the Second Amendment was written, "arms" meant a very different thing than it does now. At that time not even the Minié Ball had been invented. To read the Amendment literally, I should be allowed to bear a fighter jet or a nuclear missile if I want to.

Wrong read the Constitution again strategic weapons belong to the Government thus why NO STATE could have a Navy since in that day and age only the navy was strategic.

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

Let me explain it to you as I would a fucking moron, OK? In 1789 the only strategic military force was the NAVY. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY limits armed naval forces to the Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment does not allow individual citizens to own Strategic weapons of war. Such as Nuclear weapons and long range bombers. One might be able to argue that fighters are not strategic but the federal Government has a monopoly on armed aircraft

I didn't fucking ASK or MAKE A POINT about the FUCKING NAVY, moron.

Go learn how to fucking READ, shit-for-brains.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong read the Constitution again strategic weapons belong to the Government thus why NO STATE could have a Navy since in that day and age only the navy was strategic.

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

Let me explain it to you as I would a fucking moron, OK? In 1789 the only strategic military force was the NAVY. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY limits armed naval forces to the Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment does not allow individual citizens to own Strategic weapons of war. Such as Nuclear weapons and long range bombers. One might be able to argue that fighters are not strategic but the federal Government has a monopoly on armed aircraft

I didn't fucking ASK or MAKE A POINT about the FUCKING NAVY, moron.

Go learn how to fucking READ, shit-for-brains.

You claimed that using the 2nd you could have a nuke, it is not covered and IS not covered because of the Constitution. NO ONE but the Federal Government can own a Nuke, the 2nd does not grant that authority you MORON.

 

[Pogo]

And where does the COTUS mention "strategic arms"?

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

Let me explain it to you as I would a fucking moron, OK? In 1789 the only strategic military force was the NAVY. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY limits armed naval forces to the Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment does not allow individual citizens to own Strategic weapons of war. Such as Nuclear weapons and long range bombers. One might be able to argue that fighters are not strategic but the federal Government has a monopoly on armed aircraft

I didn't fucking ASK or MAKE A POINT about the FUCKING NAVY, moron.

Go learn how to fucking READ, shit-for-brains.

You claimed that using the 2nd you could have a nuke, it is not covered and IS not covered because of the Constitution. NO ONE but the Federal Government can own a Nuke, the 2nd does not grant that authority you MORON.

And WHERE does the 2A mention "nukes", Moron?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution says that ONLY the federal Government may have an Armed navy. Perhaps if you were not so fucking stupid you would understand simple concepts.

That wasn't my question, was it? Where did I ever mention a "navy" at all?

Read much, stupid?

Wassamatta stupid? Afraid to handle the question as is? Poor baby.

Let me explain it to you as I would a fucking moron, OK? In 1789 the only strategic military force was the NAVY. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY limits armed naval forces to the Federal Government. The 2nd Amendment does not allow individual citizens to own Strategic weapons of war. Such as Nuclear weapons and long range bombers. One might be able to argue that fighters are not strategic but the federal Government has a monopoly on armed aircraft

I didn't fucking ASK or MAKE A POINT about the FUCKING NAVY, moron.

Go learn how to fucking READ, shit-for-brains.

You claimed that using the 2nd you could have a nuke, it is not covered and IS not covered because of the Constitution. NO ONE but the Federal Government can own a Nuke, the 2nd does not grant that authority you MORON.

And WHERE does the 2A mention "nukes", Moron?

The only Moron here is you.The 2nd does not mention Nukes and it does not need to, the Constitution gives to the federal Government the sole power to control strategic military assets. The 2nd does not supersede that.