Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again:No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun.
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.
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…..
Again:No, places in the United States that have more guns have more suicides., mostly likely due to the finality of using a gun.
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.
Except in Japan, China, South Korea, France, Poland, Hungary and Russia, finland, belgium…where suicide is successful without guns at higher rates than in the United States with over 357 million guns in private hands….
Your point is "suicide attempts with a gun are more successful"?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.
Your point is "suicide attempts with a gun are more successful"?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.
Congrats - you've proven a point that no one really doubts.
Anything beyond that, you have nothing.
This is only true if you can prove that those people who used a gun would not have succeeded if they used something else - that is, the gun was the only reason for their success.Well, it results in more suicides.Your point is "suicide attempts with a gun are more successful"?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.
Congrats - you've proven a point that no one really doubts.
Anything beyond that, you have nothing.
So what?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.
If someone wants to kill themselves it's none of your business
The guns and suicide argument is a red herring
Suicide is not a crime it's a ch0ice and who are you to tell anyone they have to live if they don't want to?
Sure, suicide is awesome according to you. Too bad many people who off themselves do it on impulse and put very little thought into it. I'd prefer they get help in most cases, you on the other hand don't give a shit about them because you're too busy twisting up in a ball defending a gun fetish ideology.
It's OK to believe in 2nd amendment rights and realize that guns kill people suffering from depression.
My stance on suicide has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with respecting other peoples' choices
Then you're indifferent to the discussion
That:What premise?Good luck proving that.Probably because the people who use them are serious about success.
Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
Don't like the premise, eh?
-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 this do you take issue with?
I think people use what they have around them. Because what you are saying is that in states with more guns people are inclined to be more serious about their suicides since they succeed more often. And if that's true then what you are saying is that on average gun owners are more unstable and more depressed as a whole than other people.
Maybe you should think through your unproven theories before posting them.
That:What premise?Good luck proving that.Probably because the people who use them are serious about success.
Absent guns, people who are serious about success will find another way.
Don't like the premise, eh?
-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 this do you take issue with?
I think people use what they have around them. Because what you are saying is that in states with more guns people are inclined to be more serious about their suicides since they succeed more often. And if that's true then what you are saying is that on average gun owners are more unstable and more depressed as a whole than other people.
Maybe you should think through your unproven theories before posting them.
He tucked tail and ran.That:What premise?
-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 this do you take issue with?
I think people use what they have around them. Because what you are saying is that in states with more guns people are inclined to be more serious about their suicides since they succeed more often. And if that's true then what you are saying is that on average gun owners are more unstable and more depressed as a whole than other people.
Maybe you should think through your unproven theories before posting them.
You assume that every gun suicide is committed by the legal owner of the gun
you are of course wrong
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.
Problem is they are dumb guns, they don't work worth a shit...Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. 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. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
Gonna do a lot of good when the husband (owner) is gone to work and wife and kids (non owners) are home and there is no way to defend themselves. I am sure the bad guys will just wait for the owner to come home and use the gun!Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. 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. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
"A home invader" needs to be dead then...Smart guns, which will only shoot with the owner's fingerprint, would prevent children from shooting themselves and others, and thieves and criminals couldn't use them. 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. When rapid fire guns were invented no gun rights person refused to use them because they weren't muskets. Time changes everything. As for hacking a smart gun, you're more likely to have your phone or computer hacked and that doesn't stop people from using them. And they worry that the government will "track" them. So? We've been tracked for years and it hasn't made an iota of difference in our lives.
The biggest problem is they don't work. If they worked 100% of the time most here would not be against them.
BMW makes a car that doesn't even have a key. It's probably not perfect yet, but they will work out the bugs just like bugs are always worked out. You think they aren't capable of giving that same dependability to a gun?
Having a car that you can't get into is a far cry from needing to use your gun and having it not function. Especially if you are at home and a home invader has broken down your door. Don't you think?
Another false comparison.
You could need the car to get to a hospital because you're bleeding to death. A home invader is prolly just after money.
Context...You've never heard of the Honorable Artillery Company of Boston have you...... A PRIVATE artillery company that was active with artillery till WWI. Then the artillery simply became too expensive for them to maintain their batteries. The group still exists however.
Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.
Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.
"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.
Wtf? How do I need to "own" in order to "keep" OR "bear"?
Speako Englishee?
I do. Clearly you don't.
Let's check that.
keep
kēp/
verb
verb: keep; 3rd person present: keeps; past tense: kept; past participle: kept; gerund or present participle: keeping
1.
have or retain possession of.
"my father would keep the best for himself"
bear
ber/
verb
verb: bear; 3rd person present: bears; past tense: bore; gerund or present participle: bearing; past participle: borne
1.
(of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
"I come bearing gifts"
Guess what. Not a word about "ownership".
You lose, troll.
Context...Nothing in the 2A says I have to own the arms -- just "bear" them.
Therefore if Dim Dung Ill wants me to store a nuke in my back yard, I have the right.
"KEEP AND BEAR". Learn to read jack ass.
Wtf? How do I need to "own" in order to "keep" OR "bear"?
Speako Englishee?
I do. Clearly you don't.
Let's check that.
keep
kēp/
verb
verb: keep; 3rd person present: keeps; past tense: kept; past participle: kept; gerund or present participle: keeping
1.
have or retain possession of.
"my father would keep the best for himself"
bear
ber/
verb
verb: bear; 3rd person present: bears; past tense: bore; gerund or present participle: bearing; past participle: borne
1.
(of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug
"I come bearing gifts"
Guess what. Not a word about "ownership".
You lose, troll.
The libtards dont care if they are wrong, that just makes the topic a little trickier for them is all.He tucked tail and ran.That:What premise?
Don't like the premise, eh?
-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 this do you take issue with?
I think people use what they have around them. Because what you are saying is that in states with more guns people are inclined to be more serious about their suicides since they succeed more often. And if that's true then what you are saying is that on average gun owners are more unstable and more depressed as a whole than other people.
Maybe you should think through your unproven theories before posting them.
You assume that every gun suicide is committed by the legal owner of the gun
you are of course wrong
Surely, because he knows he's wrong.
Still promoting the lie that all crimes get reported?It fell far short of the millions 2a was talking about. And when the world found out it was stopped. Like I said, it won't happen again. Try again.
