I am not ignoring evidence. I am looking at countries with strict gun control, that have higher suicide rates than the US, and concluding "huh.... why is more important than how.". So in the US it is gun and everywhere else it is culture? Hmmmm?
You most certainly are, as demonstrated by your previous error over correlations. You're attempting to make spurious conclusion. It is darn obvious that there are many variables that impact on suicide risks. The evidence has to isolate gun effects and it is matter of fact that the 'more guns=more suicide' hypothesis cannot be rejected. The evidence isn't US specific. You again show your innocence. Its replicated in numerous other countries where gun ownership is relatively high. No one, however, has suggested that only guns impact on suicide rates.
They obviously do not play a large factor given the number of countries with low gun ownership and high suicide rates.
Again you make crass error. Gun coefficients are found to be significant and substantial in magnitude. "There's a country that has high suicide and low gun ownership, therefore I'm going to ignore the actual evidence that tests the hypothesis" just won't wash!
Of course, it is the presence of guns as to why Japan has a higher suicide rate than the United States. We all know how prevalent firearms are in Japan.
Repeating crass error isn't going to make your attempt at argument stick. You'd only have a point if we said "only guns impact on suicide". Rather than going for inane remark based on spurious attempt, try and read the evidence!
The repetition of my previous comments can usually be interpreted as an outright dismissal of another posters argument.
I have evidence, you have nothing but crass error. As I said, read up on the evidence and then get back to me.
Some of the problem goes straight back not to the lawyers but this time the advertising industry. Firearm manufacturers would have been told point blank NEVER to advertise "child safe" weapons because that would link two things in peoples minds "chidden" and "risk" and it would have killed thousands of dollars in sales to women in particular This is my real concern - that the conversation cannot even be started
Ok,... Semantics and false labels. Is that the best you can do? You argued that I omitted the adverb "here". This is semantics. You also referred to me as a "gun hater", which I can assure you is a false label. So,.... do you have anything other than simple contrariety, because I just showed you that your denial above is not persuasive.
I respect that you are one of the few moderates here, but I would like to raise a point you might not have considered. I would argue that the accidental deaths by, not only children, but family members as well to be notably significant. While the comparative numbers say otherwise, I would argue that the very purpose of the gun in the household makes the accidental death by it's misuse a significant event. There is an irony here that you seem to have missed.
No need for ad hominem fallacies, friend. What is your definition of "effectively"? You mean nobody died in the classroom? You seem to be suffering from the same dilemma that the NRA does in trying to show the verifiable effectiveness of this program. This is a long-standing program that should be able to show results.
I've engaged in NO ad hominem here And why,exactly would anyone 'die in the classroom'?....no guns arte useed in the teaching Tha accidental death rate by guns is going down,THAT shows it's effectiveness,after all,what's so wrong about a program that tells kids, when finding a firearm to 'leave it alone,don't touch!..leave the room and tell an adult?
Japan has a cultural bias toward suicide which is historical - "Hari Kari". Although it is not practices as it was the cultural undercurrent that suggests suicided is preferable to losing face does persist Therefor any argument presenting suicide statistics with Japan is a Furphy Now back to the topic - the difficulty in discussing child gun accidents within the American cultural milieu
It's easy to keep guns away from 1-5 yr olds. Basically, you just need to put them either out of sight, under lock and key, or beyond their reach. CDC stats show that in 2009, only 22 1-5 yr olds in the U.S. died of gun accidents. That is .1 per 100,000 1-5 yr olds or 1 in a million. I agree that's too high, but I would bet careful investigation would conclude some of those are murders. Especially considering that 7 of those deaths were 1-2 yr olds. http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
How is it difficult to discuss child gun accidents in the U.S.? They are very rare, and are less common than they were even 20 yrs ago. Child gun accidents, IMHO, is a non-issue in the gun ownership debate.
Wrong, its not at all difficult discussing firearm accidents. Its not even difficult proposing solutions. What seems to be difficult is you accepting the fact that we Americans don't want to handle it or view the subject in a way that you think is "acceptable".
Japan is not the only developed country with a higher suicide rate than the US. Australia has a higher rate than the US in case you didn't notice.
You'd have a point if you could refer to two countries with different suicide rates that were practically identical (including gun prevalence rates). You can't. You're simply ignoring the evidence and the correct methoology adopted: i.e. After controlling for other variables that impact on suicide rates, estimate the impact of gun prevalence
There is a bit of irony (as with anything really), however the numbers are very small. I believe the total number of fatal gun accidents are where around 800 a year. In a country of over 300 millions, with almost the same number of guns, that is a very small number. As long as you can handle a gun responsibility, they risk is almost non-existent. Anyone who has gone shooting with me knows that I can be a *total* dick with anyone handling a firearm improperly. Improper gun handling is one of the few things that I have zero tolerance or patience with.
Note: stupid kids may get ahold of guns and shoot each other or themselves. If your kids are stupid, give them up for adoption to protect your guns. And the overwhelming majority have parents who teach them about responsible gun-use. Yes, blame the guns for the suicides. If we got rid of all those guns, the kids wouldn't want to kill themselves, right? Yeah... again, you're not seeing the actual problem here. Where else would they happen? The local library? Out of a country of 300 million people, that's a shockingly low number. Gabrielle Giffords disagrees. Bingo.
You are right. I am looking at multiple countries, the only country having prolific ownership of firearms is the US. Yet other countries have higher suicide rates despite the proliferation of firearms in the United States. So obviously firearms are not much a contributing factor. So I a apologize, I am going to dismiss your argument again.
