What's wrong with smart guns?

[HappyJoy]

That's all fine and good, doesn't change the fact that Alaska and Wyoming have high suicide rates than New York or California. Are you saying liberals are just happier?

Alaska and Wyoming have horrible winters, low populations, high populations of single men….that increases depression….if they didn't have guns they would use rope……..

Suicide is an intentional act and we have shown that countries without guns do it far more than we do…….

You are ridiculous. You make excuses whenever the data doesn't go your way.

No…the data has gone my way from the start……there are entire countries where you cannot get a gun as a civilian…….these countries have suicide rates higher than we do and we have 357 million guns in private hands…..according to you that isn't possible…..

Country with 357 million guns has lower suicide rate than countries with absolute gun control…….

There are entire countries where you cannot get a gun and suicide rates are lower. The US has a higer suicide rate than most countries. However, we can compare states and be more precise. We've done that, gun states are better at suicide.

Why do you not understand that correlation does not equal causation?

I think you're confused. I'm not saying guns are responsible for more suicide attempts. I'm saying there are more successful suicides because of guns. Most suicides (with the exception of guns) fail Seriously, not complicated.

 

[2aguy]

When did I say that? Oh wait -- I didn't.
Why are you being dishonest?

Let's try this again:
-Guns likely account for about half of successful suicides because the people who use them are serious about success.
-Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
What part of my premise do you take issue with, and why?

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact.

No.
Using a gun is more likely to result in a successful attempt; nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

Yes. That's the problem with the guns, they are more successful and raise the number of suicides in the U.S.. Jesus, it's not that difficult.

Apparently for you it is…...

 

[2aguy]

Alaska and Wyoming have horrible winters, low populations, high populations of single men….that increases depression….if they didn't have guns they would use rope……..

Suicide is an intentional act and we have shown that countries without guns do it far more than we do…….

You are ridiculous. You make excuses whenever the data doesn't go your way.

No…the data has gone my way from the start……there are entire countries where you cannot get a gun as a civilian…….these countries have suicide rates higher than we do and we have 357 million guns in private hands…..according to you that isn't possible…..

Country with 357 million guns has lower suicide rate than countries with absolute gun control…….

There are entire countries where you cannot get a gun and suicide rates are lower. The US has a higer suicide rate than most countries. However, we can compare states and be more precise. We've done that, gun states are better at suicide.

Why do you not understand that correlation does not equal causation?

I think you're confused. I'm not saying guns are responsible for more suicide attempts. I'm saying there are more successful suicides because of guns. Most suicides (with the exception of guns) fail Seriously, not complicated.

Except Japan, China, South Korea, Poland and Hungary and Scandinavia show you are wrong.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's all fine and good, doesn't change the fact that Alaska and Wyoming have high suicide rates than New York or California. Are you saying liberals are just happier?

Alaska and Wyoming have horrible winters, low populations, high populations of single men….that increases depression….if they didn't have guns they would use rope……..

Suicide is an intentional act and we have shown that countries without guns do it far more than we do…….

You are ridiculous. You make excuses whenever the data doesn't go your way.

No…the data has gone my way from the start……there are entire countries where you cannot get a gun as a civilian…….these countries have suicide rates higher than we do and we have 357 million guns in private hands…..according to you that isn't possible…..

Country with 357 million guns has lower suicide rate than countries with absolute gun control…….

There are entire countries where you cannot get a gun and suicide rates are lower. The US has a higer suicide rate than most countries. However, we can compare states and be more precise. We've done that, gun states are better at suicide.

And as we keep pointing out there are entire countries where you can't get any gun and they have higher suicide rates than we do with over 357 million guns in private hands…..

And lower, there is so much going on in other countries, economy, culture, civil war that it can be too abstract. So, let's look at Wyoming, why so high?

 

[2aguy]

When did I say that? Oh wait -- I didn't.
Why are you being dishonest?

Let's try this again:
-Guns likely account for about half of successful suicides because the people who use them are serious about success.
-Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
What part of my premise do you take issue with, and why?

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact. Those who try another way usually don't succeed and usually don't end up killing themselves. People with guns, not so much.

Again, you are wrong…the Japanese, Chinses and South Koreans succeed…..more than we do and we have more guns…...

Sure, Discount the U.K., Australia, and states that have a higher suicide rate than Japan. Ignoring culture, data within our own country. Why is Wyoming so high?

Show how Australia and the U.K. have higher suicide rates than Japan? LInk? And they have also confiscated guns….

 

[HappyJoy]

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact.

No.
Using a gun is more likely to result in a successful attempt; nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

Yes. That's the problem with the guns, they are more successful and raise the number of suicides in the U.S.. Jesus, it's not that difficult.

Apparently for you it is…...

No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun. You have not been able to dispute that. Explain Wyoming.

 

[2aguy]

When did I say that? Oh wait -- I didn't.
Why are you being dishonest?

Let's try this again:
-Guns likely account for about half of successful suicides because the people who use them are serious about success.
-Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
What part of my premise do you take issue with, and why?

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact. Those who try another way usually don't succeed and usually don't end up killing themselves. People with guns, not so much.

Again, you are wrong…the Japanese, Chinses and South Koreans succeed…..more than we do and we have more guns…...

Sure, Discount the U.K., Australia, and states that have a higher suicide rate than Japan. Ignoring culture, data within our own country. Why is Wyoming so high?

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[M14 Shooter]

When did I say that? Oh wait -- I didn't.
Why are you being dishonest?

Let's try this again:
-Guns likely account for about half of successful suicides because the people who use them are serious about success.
-Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
What part of my premise do you take issue with, and why?

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact.

No.
Using a gun is more likely to result in a successful attempt; nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

Yes. That's the problem with the guns, they are more successful....

And, as noted before.... nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

So, if your point is "suicide attempts with a gun are more successful", you've proven a point that no one really doubts.
Anything beyond that, you have nothing.

 

[2aguy]

They have access to a gun - why would they?
This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?
Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact.

No.
Using a gun is more likely to result in a successful attempt; nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

Yes. That's the problem with the guns, they are more successful and raise the number of suicides in the U.S.. Jesus, it's not that difficult.

Apparently for you it is…...

No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun. You have not been able to dispute that. Explain Wyoming.

Wyoming is an isolated lonely state……

You explain how countries without access to guns for civilians have country wide suicide rates higher than we do with over 357 million guns in private hands……and how about all the other states with guns available……….all of those states, according to you, would have higher suicide rates than states with strict gun control…and that isn't true either.

 

[westwall]

Brain357 Here you go buddy, this is an example of what you need to do to show us all you own a gun...

Just agree to admit you are lying and give up being a moderator. Put up or shut up.

Here are examples of your lies. And these are JUST in this thread! Now you can leave....

"No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted."

This is a lie of omission. Crimes occur every day that are not reported and you ignore those, that is a lie...

"Im sorry there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year. Making your paranoia and defense numbers look even more ridiculous."

And this is simply insane... There are well over 200 people dead in Europe from only TWO attacks. Far from "fine"..

"And again Europe is not armed and they are fine. That kills your crazy theory."

Here you lie by ignoring the Bosnian and Serb experiences of the last 20 years...or did you simply not know about them? Your intellectual capacity is pretty low so it is possible you simply are ignorant of this episode.

"How about you stick with stats for like the last two decades? Or do you prefer to be ridiculous?"

"None this year, last year, the last 40 years...

If guns are needed to stop that sort of thing why is it Europe doesn't have a problem? Most of Europe is disarmed."

You made the right decision not to put up. You would have lost.

You do need a crime in order to have a defense. If we have 100,000 crimes attempted that is the most that can possibly be defended. There being 300 million guns has nothing to do with it.

Most crimes will be reported by lawful citizens. It is the people who are themselves criminals who don't report crimes.

His theory seems to be that we need guns to defend against the government. Those weren't government attacks, they were by terrorists. Armed people really won't be able to defend against terrorists. Remember 9/11? How many in those buildings were armed? Oh right it doesn't matter.

The Bosnian/serb thing was still quite a long time ago. Even then there were not smart phones, internet, 24/7 news. You seem to have completely missed my point.

So you have proven no lies.

It was within YOUR time frame frame so............. you LIED.

Dead stop and your attempt to rationalize it only condems you. Had you simply said, "yeah i fucked up and forgot that" you would have been Ok but no, you doubled down on stupid.

HELLO LIAR!

 

[HappyJoy]

But they don't find another way.

They have access to a gun - why would they?

If they did then most suicides would be successful.

This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?

So, the only conclusion that I see you coming to given that more successful suicides happen in gun rich environments is that gun owners are suicidal.

Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact. Those who try another way usually don't succeed and usually don't end up killing themselves. People with guns, not so much.

Again, you are wrong…the Japanese, Chinses and South Koreans succeed…..more than we do and we have more guns…...

Sure, Discount the U.K., Australia, and states that have a higher suicide rate than Japan. Ignoring culture, data within our own country. Why is Wyoming so high?

Show how Australia and the U.K. have higher suicide rates than Japan? LInk? And they have also confiscated guns….

Sorry, mean to say the UK and Australia have lower suicide rates than we do. Two countries where guns have been confiscated, thank you for pointing that out though I'm against the idea.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun.

Again:
Why do you not understand that correlation does not equal causation?

 

[HappyJoy]

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact.

No.
Using a gun is more likely to result in a successful attempt; nothing about that in any way necessitates that more guns available means there will be more attempts with a gun.

Yes. That's the problem with the guns, they are more successful and raise the number of suicides in the U.S.. Jesus, it's not that difficult.

Apparently for you it is…...

No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun. You have not been able to dispute that. Explain Wyoming.

Wyoming is an isolated lonely state……

You explain how countries without access to guns for civilians have country wide suicide rates higher than we do with over 357 million guns in private hands……and how about all the other states with guns available……….all of those states, according to you, would have higher suicide rates than states with strict gun control…and that isn't true either.

I can't explain why other countries have higher or lower suicide rates than we do who have fewer guns. The US has a higher suicide rate than most other countries though, do you want to explain that?

Are you going to explain away everything as you grasp onto Japan while ignoring the UK?

Is Wyoming the most depressed state? Nope. You're making excuses.

 

[Brain357]

Brain357 Here you go buddy, this is an example of what you need to do to show us all you own a gun...

Just agree to admit you are lying and give up being a moderator. Put up or shut up.

Here are examples of your lies. And these are JUST in this thread! Now you can leave....

"No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted."

This is a lie of omission. Crimes occur every day that are not reported and you ignore those, that is a lie...

"Im sorry there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year. Making your paranoia and defense numbers look even more ridiculous."

And this is simply insane... There are well over 200 people dead in Europe from only TWO attacks. Far from "fine"..

"And again Europe is not armed and they are fine. That kills your crazy theory."

Here you lie by ignoring the Bosnian and Serb experiences of the last 20 years...or did you simply not know about them? Your intellectual capacity is pretty low so it is possible you simply are ignorant of this episode.

"How about you stick with stats for like the last two decades? Or do you prefer to be ridiculous?"

"None this year, last year, the last 40 years...

If guns are needed to stop that sort of thing why is it Europe doesn't have a problem? Most of Europe is disarmed."

You made the right decision not to put up. You would have lost.

You do need a crime in order to have a defense. If we have 100,000 crimes attempted that is the most that can possibly be defended. There being 300 million guns has nothing to do with it.

Most crimes will be reported by lawful citizens. It is the people who are themselves criminals who don't report crimes.

His theory seems to be that we need guns to defend against the government. Those weren't government attacks, they were by terrorists. Armed people really won't be able to defend against terrorists. Remember 9/11? How many in those buildings were armed? Oh right it doesn't matter.

The Bosnian/serb thing was still quite a long time ago. Even then there were not smart phones, internet, 24/7 news. You seem to have completely missed my point.

So you have proven no lies.

It was within YOUR time frame frame so............. you LIED.

Dead stop and your attempt to rationalize it only condems you. Had you simply said, "yeah i fucked up and forgot that" you would have been Ok but no, you doubled down on stupid.

HELLO LIAR!

Well how about you explain exactly what happened then? It's not exactly the civilized part of Europe. You sure it's not in Asia?

My point has been that it can't happen in a time with 24/7 news, smart phones, and the internet. Do they even have those things there now?

 

[2aguy]

They have access to a gun - why would they?
This only supports my "serious about suicide" premise.
Why use a gun unless you are serious about killing yourself and there are any number of other means available?
Non sequitur.

Guns in the environment make for more successful suicides. It's a simple fact. Those who try another way usually don't succeed and usually don't end up killing themselves. People with guns, not so much.

Again, you are wrong…the Japanese, Chinses and South Koreans succeed…..more than we do and we have more guns…...

Sure, Discount the U.K., Australia, and states that have a higher suicide rate than Japan. Ignoring culture, data within our own country. Why is Wyoming so high?

Show how Australia and the U.K. have higher suicide rates than Japan? LInk? And they have also confiscated guns….

Sorry, mean to say the UK and Australia have lower suicide rates than we do. Two countries where guns have been confiscated, thank you for pointing that out though I'm against the idea.

Why does France have a higher suicide rate than we do…..they also have extreme gun control…..as does Belgium, Finland, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine…and they all have higher suicide rates than we do…..

 

[westwall]

Brain357 Here you go buddy, this is an example of what you need to do to show us all you own a gun...

Just agree to admit you are lying and give up being a moderator. Put up or shut up.

Here are examples of your lies. And these are JUST in this thread! Now you can leave....

"No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted."

This is a lie of omission. Crimes occur every day that are not reported and you ignore those, that is a lie...

"Im sorry there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year. Making your paranoia and defense numbers look even more ridiculous."

And this is simply insane... There are well over 200 people dead in Europe from only TWO attacks. Far from "fine"..

"And again Europe is not armed and they are fine. That kills your crazy theory."

Here you lie by ignoring the Bosnian and Serb experiences of the last 20 years...or did you simply not know about them? Your intellectual capacity is pretty low so it is possible you simply are ignorant of this episode.

"How about you stick with stats for like the last two decades? Or do you prefer to be ridiculous?"

"None this year, last year, the last 40 years...

If guns are needed to stop that sort of thing why is it Europe doesn't have a problem? Most of Europe is disarmed."

You made the right decision not to put up. You would have lost.

You do need a crime in order to have a defense. If we have 100,000 crimes attempted that is the most that can possibly be defended. There being 300 million guns has nothing to do with it.

Most crimes will be reported by lawful citizens. It is the people who are themselves criminals who don't report crimes.

His theory seems to be that we need guns to defend against the government. Those weren't government attacks, they were by terrorists. Armed people really won't be able to defend against terrorists. Remember 9/11? How many in those buildings were armed? Oh right it doesn't matter.

The Bosnian/serb thing was still quite a long time ago. Even then there were not smart phones, internet, 24/7 news. You seem to have completely missed my point.

So you have proven no lies.

It was within YOUR time frame frame so............. you LIED.

Dead stop and your attempt to rationalize it only condems you. Had you simply said, "yeah i fucked up and forgot that" you would have been Ok but no, you doubled down on stupid.

HELLO LIAR!

Well how about you explain exactly what happened then? It's not exactly the civilized part of Europe. You sure it's not in Asia?

My point has been that it can't happen in a time with 24/7 news, smart phones, and the internet. Do they even have those things there now?

Fuck you. You lied. I caught you. Now you can leave. Twerp.

 

[2aguy]

Iceland….Russia…..higher suicide rates than us…...

 

[HappyJoy]

No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun.

Again:
Why do you not understand that correlation does not equal causation?

55% of all suicides are from the use of guns though they only account for less than 6% of all attempts. Most people who attempt suicide will fail and ultimately never kill themselves, with the exception of guns where there is a 85% success rate. Since the success rate of guns is so high it drives up the number of successful suicides. There is a direct causation between guns and successful suicides.

See? Use a gun in a suicide and and 85% success rate.
Don't use a gun and it's in the single digits and more often than not you don't end up killing yourself by another method.

 

[Brain357]

Just agree to admit you are lying and give up being a moderator. Put up or shut up.

Here are examples of your lies. And these are JUST in this thread! Now you can leave....

"No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted."

This is a lie of omission. Crimes occur every day that are not reported and you ignore those, that is a lie...

"Im sorry there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year. Making your paranoia and defense numbers look even more ridiculous."

And this is simply insane... There are well over 200 people dead in Europe from only TWO attacks. Far from "fine"..

"And again Europe is not armed and they are fine. That kills your crazy theory."

Here you lie by ignoring the Bosnian and Serb experiences of the last 20 years...or did you simply not know about them? Your intellectual capacity is pretty low so it is possible you simply are ignorant of this episode.

"How about you stick with stats for like the last two decades? Or do you prefer to be ridiculous?"

"None this year, last year, the last 40 years...

If guns are needed to stop that sort of thing why is it Europe doesn't have a problem? Most of Europe is disarmed."

You made the right decision not to put up. You would have lost.

You do need a crime in order to have a defense. If we have 100,000 crimes attempted that is the most that can possibly be defended. There being 300 million guns has nothing to do with it.

Most crimes will be reported by lawful citizens. It is the people who are themselves criminals who don't report crimes.

His theory seems to be that we need guns to defend against the government. Those weren't government attacks, they were by terrorists. Armed people really won't be able to defend against terrorists. Remember 9/11? How many in those buildings were armed? Oh right it doesn't matter.

The Bosnian/serb thing was still quite a long time ago. Even then there were not smart phones, internet, 24/7 news. You seem to have completely missed my point.

So you have proven no lies.

It was within YOUR time frame frame so............. you LIED.

Dead stop and your attempt to rationalize it only condems you. Had you simply said, "yeah i fucked up and forgot that" you would have been Ok but no, you doubled down on stupid.

HELLO LIAR!

Well how about you explain exactly what happened then? It's not exactly the civilized part of Europe. You sure it's not in Asia?

My point has been that it can't happen in a time with 24/7 news, smart phones, and the internet. Do they even have those things there now?

Fuck you. You lied. I caught you. Now you can leave. Twerp.

Well you can't back up what you are saying? Lets get some details. What were the circumstances? Looks like we have more people killed in murders each year than were killed in this war?

 

[Brain357]

Just agree to admit you are lying and give up being a moderator. Put up or shut up.

Here are examples of your lies. And these are JUST in this thread! Now you can leave....

"No you need a crime. The number of guns doesn't matter when there aren't enough crimes being attempted."

This is a lie of omission. Crimes occur every day that are not reported and you ignore those, that is a lie...

"Im sorry there are only about 1.2 million violent crimes each year. Making your paranoia and defense numbers look even more ridiculous."

And this is simply insane... There are well over 200 people dead in Europe from only TWO attacks. Far from "fine"..

"And again Europe is not armed and they are fine. That kills your crazy theory."

Here you lie by ignoring the Bosnian and Serb experiences of the last 20 years...or did you simply not know about them? Your intellectual capacity is pretty low so it is possible you simply are ignorant of this episode.

"How about you stick with stats for like the last two decades? Or do you prefer to be ridiculous?"

"None this year, last year, the last 40 years...

If guns are needed to stop that sort of thing why is it Europe doesn't have a problem? Most of Europe is disarmed."

You made the right decision not to put up. You would have lost.

You do need a crime in order to have a defense. If we have 100,000 crimes attempted that is the most that can possibly be defended. There being 300 million guns has nothing to do with it.

Most crimes will be reported by lawful citizens. It is the people who are themselves criminals who don't report crimes.

His theory seems to be that we need guns to defend against the government. Those weren't government attacks, they were by terrorists. Armed people really won't be able to defend against terrorists. Remember 9/11? How many in those buildings were armed? Oh right it doesn't matter.

The Bosnian/serb thing was still quite a long time ago. Even then there were not smart phones, internet, 24/7 news. You seem to have completely missed my point.

So you have proven no lies.

It was within YOUR time frame frame so............. you LIED.

Dead stop and your attempt to rationalize it only condems you. Had you simply said, "yeah i fucked up and forgot that" you would have been Ok but no, you doubled down on stupid.

HELLO LIAR!

Well how about you explain exactly what happened then? It's not exactly the civilized part of Europe. You sure it's not in Asia?

My point has been that it can't happen in a time with 24/7 news, smart phones, and the internet. Do they even have those things there now?

Fuck you. You lied. I caught you. Now you can leave. Twerp.

The Court is however not convinced, on the basis of the evidence before it, that it has been conclusively established that the massive killings of members of the protected group were committed with the specific intent (dolus specialis) on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such. The killings outlined above may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.