CBS: Guns are responsible for nearly ¾ of the killings of transgender people since 2017, data shows

Completely demolished it. Guns are irrelevant to suicide rates, as evidenced by the data.

Not according to the data.

 

I refuted your argument but you conveniently edited out that part out. Go find someone else to play your games with.

 

Guns laws which could reduce suicide:

"Permit-to-purchase laws (also known as handgun purchaser licensing or PTP) .....are associated with reductions in firearms suicide.....

"Waiting periods have been found to be associated with lower rates of firearm suicide.....

"Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws require that gun owners store their guns in a manner that prevents unauthorized or unsupervised access to firearms by youth or adolescents under a certain age.... States with CAP laws have rates of youth firearm suicide that are eight percent lower than states without these laws.

"Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO, sometimes referred to as ‘red flags’ laws) allow for family members or police to petition for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals.... Evaluations of ERPOs suggest that they are protective against firearm suicide."
https://americanhealth.jhu.edu/article/how-do-gun-laws-affect-suicide-rates

Which of these laws do you support?

 

I am not an expert. None of us are. Galileo presented a very informative graphic.

 

That is too much inconvenience.

I would support a high tax or a ban on motorcycles -- they have fatality rate 29 times as high as cars.

 

As every citation presented makes use of words such as "associated with" or "suggests" they admit that their presentation is guesswork. They are admitting it is possible the firearm-related restrictions in question have the potential to work as promised, but there is no hard evidence to prove conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are truly fulfilling the promises they were sold on.

Therefore there is no logical reason in supporting any of the above, in the desperate hope it may reduce the rate of firearm-related suicide attempts. Especially when individuals who truly wish to go about ending their own existence, will simply seek out alternative methods. Let them end their own existence and be done with it. Individuals are not the property of society.

 

Then do not be making claims about what will work and what will not work.

Graphics are no substitute for lack of a message or facts.

 

Thus the above is an admission on the part of yourself that not all lives have value, or are otherwise worth saving.

 

While I agree that motorcycles are much more dangerous than cars, I'm generally opposed to "Nanny State" laws and to the banning of inanimate objects to achieve public safety. People who are determined to do dumb things or commit criminal acts are rarely deterred by the laws of nature or man.

I also agree that a nationwide speed limit of 25 mph would be terribly inconvenient, it would certainly save thousands of lives, so there must be a point at which we agree that a certain number of deaths are an acceptable trade off for convenience.

If we accommodate people who like to drive over 25 mph under reasonably safe conditions, why not accommodate gun owners who like to target shoot etc under those same reasonably safe conditions?

Thanks,

 

So there's no alternative to banning guns?

 

There is no way of preventing an individual from going about ending their own existence when such is what they truly wish. The death of Jeffery Epstein proves such, as not even being placed on suicide watch could prevent him from hanging himself. So long as said individuals are allowed to remain free in society, they will go about finding a way of ending their own existence, as it is a persistent, all-consuming thought that simply will not go away. That is an absolute, indisputable fact of the real world, no different than the fact humans need to breathe oxygen to live.

The only way to truly prevent suicidal individuals from ending their own existence is for said individuals to be placed in a medically induced coma so they simply cannot do anything except go on living. But such would hardly be considered an existence worth experiencing.

 

except you didn't. the existence of a single nation with much stricter gun control having a higher suicide rate per capita destroys your narrative. Sorry.

 

none, as the data shows guns are not relevant to suicide rates.

 

which is refuted by the existence of countries with stricter gun control than the US, which have higher suicide rates per capita.

 

I disagree 100%. Most normies would not benefit from restrictions. Restrictions would save lives of tens of thousands of people with disability each year.

I am an Aspie and proud of it. Aspie means Asperger's syndrome or high functioning autism.

 

I understand as much as any layman can. But it seems obvious that some items, like guns or heavy narcotics are too dangerous.

 

It's not an "all-consuming thought" that doesn't go away. In fact, most people who survive a suicide attempt do not try to do it again.

"Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date. This has been well-established in the suicidology literature. A literature review (Owens 2002) summarized 90 studies that have followed over time people who have made suicide attempts that resulted in medical care. Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted nonfatally, and 70% had no further attempts."
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

People who attempt to commit suicide with means other than a gun are more likely to survive. So it logically follows that reducing gun availability results in fewer suicides.

 

Why would we want fewer suicides?

 

Except for the simple fact that such is simply not the case, as has been proven by the statements on the part of yourself.

"Too dangerous" as opposed to what, precisely? What are they being compared to as a unit of measure?

 

Except for the fact that it is. This is fact.

Only if their attempts result in their being in a paraplegic or otherwise vegetative state. Otherwise they will try it again.

The only individuals who do not make a second suicide attempt are those who were not truly suicidal to begin with and were merely seeking attention. That is ultimately how it works.

Why should society make any effort at attempting to prevent individuals from ending their own existence? Explain such. Justify why the interference is legitimate. What claim does society have over the lives of the individual that authorizes it to hold that they are not allowed to die?

 

I'm not sure what you are in favor of restricting but if existing restrictions do not work, adding more of them seems pointless.

You've probably heard a popular definition of insanity which is doing the same thing over again and again and expecting different results.

By calling yourself an "Aspie", it seems like you're letting your perceived disability define you which is neither healthy nor productive.
I suspect that there's much more to you than simply being an "Aspie".

 

This disabled excuse is getting old and way over used, because nobody cares.

 

All lives matter.

 

Bullcrap, there are may people who make their lives worthless and even dangerous to those around them and they need to be controlled (incarcerated) or removed from society by being killed.

 

Anyone know if the police caught any of the guns responsible yet?