Did you see the word GUARANTEE? Probably? Imply? Did you? Try looking up those words then rereading the post and get back to me. "safety in numbers" is a saying for a reason.
And most frogs are green. See my response to the other irrelevant post and try the same remediation. If guns offer a guarantee of safety... Show me that guarantee on the box. Just one box wherein the manufacturer of a gun assumes any liability if something bad happens to the person carrying the gun. I'll be waiting for your next irrelevant response.
That is an interesting hypotheses. Do you have any data to back up that assertion? Because on the face of it I would guess that people who own swimming pools are less likely to drown because it would seem that those people who own pools are more likely to know how to swim. But admittedly, I have no data to back that up. Women who attempt suicide with prescription medication are far less likely to succeed than women who attempt suicide with a gun. This is because of the difference in lethality between guns and prescription medication. This was largely the point of the research I cited earlier (which I'm guessing you didn't read). If you have a point beyond this, you will need to make it more clearly.
Who said anything about a guarantee? As firearm instructors we teach folks that under the right circumstances, the firearm may help to equalize force. That's it. There are no guarantees. That said, everyday in the press, there are stories of successful defensive gun uses.
The data is pretty simple. You can't drown in your pool if you don't own one. You can't accidentally shoot yourself at home if you don't own one. Saying that there is an increased chance of being shot if you have a gun in the home doesn't take any research does it?
I don't think you are really paying attention here. YES, you can drown in a pool if you don't have one. Saying that "You can't drown in your pool.. " is a dodge and misses the point. At any rate I have no idea what this tangent has to do with the topic at hand. "Saying that there is an increased chance of being shot if you have a gun in the home" is not really the point of the research. But since you bring it up, yes, I believe that some in this very forum would make the case that having a gun in the house makes you less likely to be shot. Your argument in that case would be with them.
I teach firearm self defense and having a firearm in the home for defensive reasons makes you less likely to be shot by intruders, especially with training. Every day there are stories in the press of successful defensive gun uses.
It is true there is safety in numbers, unless the attacker had a gun. If she had a gun and knew how to use it, she would be alive if she had even a few seconds to react, in either case. Obviously the best choice would be to have a gun, and run with someone else.
The number of mass shootings supposedly occurring in the united states suggests that there is no safety in numbers to be had, as numerous people are murdered regardless of group size.
Amen to safety in numbers, can you imagine if all the joggers in the group carried concealed and we're trained?
That's great! ... I do not doubt you assertion one bit and I am willing to take what you have just said as given. It could very well be that "having a firearm in the home for defensive reasons makes you less likely to be shot by intruders, especially with training". I have no data on this either way but it certainly seems a rational conclusion to reach. However... That has nothing at all to do with my point. My point (along with the data I provided) show that - Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. - Those persons with guns in the home were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide. - The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home. - Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method. Do you agree that these are also true?
I do not agree that Suicides without firearms are less successful, out of all the Suicides I responded to, only five were not successful, four were overdoses of Narcotics and Alcohol, and one was a wrist slashing poorly done. Most suicides were by hanging.
No. Having a firearm doesn't cause you to become murderous, or suicidal. If it did, there would be a worldwide correlation between firearm ownership and homicide, or firearm ownership and suicide. There is not.
Your statement does not follow ... You say "I do not agree that Suicides without firearms are less successful", then you follow it up with anecdotal evidence showing that in fact, suicides without firearms are less successful.
Which of my 4 bullet points said "Having a firearm causes you to become murderous or suicidal"?. I'll put them here again for your reference: - Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. - Those persons with guns in the home were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide. - The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home. - Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method.
How can a firearm cause a greater risk of either, unless the firearm is responsible for the effect? There is no cause and effect between firearm ownership and homicide, or suicide. Not in the US, not anywhere.
Easily ... This is simply because guns kill people better than drugs overdoses or slitting wrists. Guns kill people better than a knife. Guns kill people better than poisoning. etc. If you attempt suicide with a method other than a gun you may or may not be successful. If you use a gun, chances are you are going to die. A gun is simply more LETHAL than any other method. If a guy freaks out and decides to kill himself and his family, they will die more reliably if there is a gun in the house. Because a gun is better at killing. If a disgruntled teen decides to get angry with his parents and there is a gun in the house. Those in the house are more likely to die. Because guns are easy to access and kill quickly. ... and they kill better than other methods. If a woman finds out a husband is cheating on her and there is a gun in the house. He is more likely to die. Because guns are more fatal than penis removal. Guns are simply more lethal than other means. Is there anything there you disagree with? (Notice - I did not say anywhere in there that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and homicide or suicide)
It depends on the poison. Cyanide is as lethal as most gun options. Some studies have rated hanging as more lethal than firearms. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods Jumping from high places, in front of trains, and hanging are in the 90th percentile of effectiveness as well. You keep saying there is no causal relationship, then give a bunch of reasons how there is a causal relationship. You ARE saying that when a gun is present, there is a higher chance of suicide and murder. That is a causal relationship I'm afraid. The problem with your argument is two fold: Before any of the events happen above, a person has to either decide to murder or decide to kill themselves. There is no evidence to suggest, in any country, that not having access to a firearm causes people who decide to murder or commit suicide to cease either action. In a country where there is no access to guns, but there is a desire to murder, that person is going to attempt to kill the other person. We have many countries with low per capita gun ownership and high murder, as well as high gun ownership and low murder. IN a country where there is no access to guns, but there is a desire to commit suicide, that person is going to use whatever method is available. We have countries with low per capita gun ownership and high suicide, as well as high gun ownership and low suicide. Your argument has no merit and is not based on fact.
Wow .. you are quite the knee-jerk reactionary on anyone even slightly criticizing guns. To the point where you cannot even acknowledge the painfully obvious. This entire section is just retarded. Guns do not have to be more lethal than EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE method of suicide to be more likely to cause death than all other methods used combined. Sarin is a deadly nerve gas hundreds of times more toxic than cyanide. Botulinum is several orders of magnitude deadlier than sarin. This has absolutely zero bearing on whether or not guns are more lethal in actual suicides. Jumping in front of trains or from high places does not usually happen in the home. If you seriously cannot get this distinction then I can't help you. To be clear here - what is being said is that there is a relationship between the presence of a gun in the house and the LETHALITY of those actions. What is NOT being asserted is that the mere presence of those guns is causing any of those actions. I though I was quite clear on that.[/QUOTE] Sure there is. I already provided it to you. I am betting that you still haven't looked at it. Do you have any counter evidence for your assertion? I agree. There are many factors that figure into murder and suicide. This doesn't change the fact that if a gun is in the home, these acts are more likely to be lethal. If you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears saying 'la la la la' ... I can see how you would think this.
You argued that guns are "more lethal", I clearly showed you with a link that that's not really true. There are many options that are 90%+ effective at suicide, guns are simply one of them. In every example you gave of domestic violence, poisoning and/or a machete would be just as effective as a gun when it comes to homicide. A gun would be LESS effective if you planned on getting away with such a murder. A decision to commit murder, or suicide, precedes the search for a method. There's plenty of evidence that shows those who want to murder or commit suicide will substitute methods to achieve the desired result. A gun is not inherently more lethal than an axe, cyanide, hanging, jumping off your roof or anything else if you are truly bent on murder or suicide. Sure there is. I already provided it to you. I am betting that you still haven't looked at it. Do you have any counter evidence for your assertion?
*Sigh* - This is really getting tiresome. Your cite is really not what you think it is ... lets take a look at it. This chart was developed by a poll of "10 forensic pathologists [who] rated the lethality, time, and agony for 28 methods of suicide for 4,117 cases of completed suicide in Los Angeles County in the period 1988-1991." It does not speak to how often these methods are chosen. Only the perceived lethality is considered. It is also not based on any actual survival data, only the opinions of these 10 people" A much better cite for this data can be found here: Suicide acts in 8 states: incidence and case fatality rates by demographics and method. - Spicer and Miller (pdf) From the abstract - "The authors analyzed data on 10,892 suicides and 57,439 attempted suicides among hospital-admitted individuals in 8 states, along with 6219 attempted suicides among individuals released from emergency departments in 2 states. Poisoning and firearm were the most common methods used among those attempting suicide and those completing suicide acts, respectively. The most lethal method was firearm." What Governs Lethality? A number of factors are theorized to influence the lethality of a given method. The first is inherent deadliness. For example, car exhaust with a high CO level will be more deadly than car exhaust with a low CO level. The second is ease of use. A method that requires technical knowledge is less accessible than one that does not.The third isaccessibility. Given the brief duration of some suicidal crises, a lethal dose of pills in the nightstand poses a greater danger than a prescription that must be hoarded over months to accumulate a lethal dose. Similarly, a gun in the closet poses a greater risk than a very high bridge five miles away, even if both methods have equal lethality if used.The fourth is ability to abort mid-attempt. More people start an attempt and abort it than carry it through; therefore, methods that can be interrupted without harm mid-attempt such as overdose, cutting, CO poisoning, and hanging/suffocation offer a window of opportunity for rescue or change of heart that guns and jumps do not. The fifth factor is acceptability to the attempter. Although fire, for example, is universally accessible, it is rarely used in the U.S. for suicide. But lets make this even simpler ... from your site, can you tell me which method of suicide is more effective ... firearm (the most common means of attempted suicide) or hanging/suffocation (The second most common means)?
Forensic pathologists would be the ones who know. The only thing your article proves is that the likelihood of a successful suicide is how determined the person is to go through with the act. This is clearly seen in the fact that less than 9% of suicide attempts are successful, and that the higher success rates are in those over 65 years old. Even with the availability of guns in the US, they only account for slightly more than half of all suicides. If it's the "most lethal" and least painful why isn't it closer to 90%? Why would a male choose any other option? The deciding factor in lethality is how determined the individual is to die, simple as that. Again, the countries with the highest successful suicide rates don't even have access to guns. Go ahead and explain that one.
You didn't answer the question - I'll repeat it : from your site, can you tell me which method of suicide is more effective ... firearm (the most common means of attempted suicide) or hanging/suffocation (The second most common means)?
Assuming you ensure a good rope/wire that won't break, use sufficient height, and tie your hands.....very close to 100%. If you want to successfully hang yourself, you will, as evidenced by countries with high rates of successful hangings. Hanging is, after all, the #1 most effective form of suicide globally. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/0042-9686_86_07-043489-table-T1.html
lol - no dude .... from the cite you already provided .. you know, the thing we have been talking about ... Here is a link (to your cite) http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods BTW - your new cite says absolutely nothing about the lethality of suicide methods .. it only has the % of deaths by type. Do you even read your own cites?
