Sure let's ignore something you don't want to talk about and deflect back to arguing over one link. I'll play. The difference between hanging and a gun as discussed in the link is about 6%. Not a significant difference, and subjective to the one study of about 4000 suicides. What is a significant difference is the rate and success hanging represents on a global basis, even in countries that have access to firearms. When it comes to guns used in suicide the US is an anomaly, even in countries with high gun ownership rates such as Germany and Canada. The fact is, hanging is the most successful and most chosen method of suicide in the world, despite the availability of guns. Also, you may want to re-read the link as it clearly has a column for estimated lethality of method chosen.
I'm happy to talk about anything that you like but I would like to resolve this point first .. you know .. the same point I have been making this entire thread. The same point you are dancing like crazy to avoid and have been all thread. Which one was higher though? It must suck to now be in a position to have to minimize your own citation. You have yet to demonstrate this .. the only cite you provided does not say that. No it doesn't - your first cite did (http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods) Your second cite does not - (http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/0042-9686_86_07-043489-table-T1.html) It is just the one table - Table 1. Suicide by method (% out of all suicides by country) according to the WHO mortality database (as at November 2006); countries reporting ICD-10 data
So what is it that will offer the most assurance, in this type of event, that an attack WILL NOT HAPPEN? Of course, one option is to stay home. Not acceptable to anyone not suffering agoraphobia. Another is to select a "safe" area like an inside track. Not possible for most people. Then there is safety in numbers. More people means less chance of an attack. Your best safety device is your brain. No gun will overcome the effects of stupid.
And she's jogging with 50 people and he gets some friends and they have guns and the joggers bring a police escort..... Whatever point you are trying to make it is obviated by adding more people to the mix. The only reliable safety device is the one between your ears.
And the Pulse had armed security. We're not talking about a terrorist attack here but if you want... Barricades, x-ray machines, body searches, multiple security stages. There. Your attacks is confounded by the use of my brain. Guns cannot protect from stupid.
Must suck having to deflect so much. Guns can give you close to 100% lethality, hanging can give you close to 100% lethality, jumping from a high place can give you 100% lethality, CO2 poisoning can give you 100% lethality. All are equally lethal, if used correctly. Even in countries with high gun availability, hanging is chosen as a more reliable method of suicide, demonstrably. You might be able to successfully argue that gun suicide is a cultural thing in the US, but it is certainly not more lethal than any of the major choices in a serious attempt at suicide. Even in many countries with high gun availability, clearly rope is more lethal, since it results in more deaths. Rope kills more people than guns. Face it.
No, I can't. Can't imagine it at all. My rule is if you need a gun to feel safe going somewhere, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. She had options, she chose the one that put her at the greatest risk. A gun is no substitute for a brain.
Sure. Now we just need to find the eleventy bajillion dollars to implement your idea, and the stupidity to live that way. You must be really scared living in a state where you are constantly surrounded by guns every day, most of which you don't even know are there. - - - Updated - - - Maybe you guys could invent "criminal zone" signs and hang those up for people.
Yeah I don't think rapists travel in packs of 50 outside of India and the ME. People should be able to run in a park without getting raped, and I'm pretty sure human beings don't have mutant powers that allow them to detect dangerous parks.
Please! Scared of what? That somebody driving down the street to walking around Wal Mart has a gun? You demonstrate the proof of my proposal. A gun is no substitute for a brain. Just ask Plaxico Burress.
And a gun offers ZERO protection against either the mass or the individual. A woman goes jogging alone in a wilderness area. That's stupid. And no gun will protect you from stupid.
Wouldn't that be the same case with gun owners? People who own guns tend to know how to use them safely. This may sound crude but if she wants to kill herself its her own problem. I don't see why should I give up my right for those who are irresponsible with there's.
I have not tried to deflect at all. I am trying to keep the conversation on topic. My point, from my very first post has been: - 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. I have provided very clear, scientific, peer-reviewed data to back up that assertion. You have provided cites that you eventually had to try to discredit to maintain your position. <shrug> You use a lot of weasel-words here (I bolded/underlined them for you). Your weasel words make your statement 'kinda' true but totally dodges what I am saying. To prove this lets put this section back up with the weasel words removed. You tell me if you still stand behind the statements with those words removed. "Guns give you 100% lethality, hanging give(s) you 100% lethality, jumping from a high place give(s) you 100% lethality, CO2 poisoning give(s) you 100% lethality. All are equally lethal. You might be able to successfully argue that gun suicide is a cultural thing in the US, but it is certainly not more lethal than any of the major choices" Your own citation proves the above to be false. Your statement about "Even in countries with high gun availability, hanging is chosen as a more reliable method of suicide, demonstrably." has yet to be demonstrated by you and, at any rate, does not refute any of my claims. This statement also has yet to be demonstrated by you. And, at any rate, even if it did result in more deaths would not mean that it is a 'more lethal' means of suicide. Lets try an example to demonstrate why: If we (hypothetically) had 20 people who attempt suicide. 19 of them chose hanging and 1 person choses firearm. Of those 20 hanging attempts 1 person survives. The firearm chooser dies. This means that, in this 20 person sample, attempted hanging was 94.7% lethal. The firearm was 100% lethal. Therefore: in this sample in can be said that firearms are a more lethal method for suicide despite the fact that hanging has killed more people.
Why be so Obtuse, is it intentional ? Dead is dead, no matter the cause, you are fixated on banning firearms and wish to use Suicide as a pretext, truth is there are any very effective means of Suicide other than firearms, Suicide predates firearms, a recent invention Historically, in perspective, your fallacious arguments fall flat because firearms account for a very small percentage of suicides. Most people that research Suicide, much like yourself, have an Agenda to ban firearms and skew statistics and numbers in order to prove that a Gun Ban will reduce Suicides and this is just not true. People committed Suicide before there were Guns, and if all Guns simply vanished, Suicides would not decrease at all, or do you think Suicidal People wait for a Gun, in order to commit Suicide ?
Firearms are not more lethal than other methods of Suicide, hanging only requires a rope or wire, you are fixated on firearms, you have no facts to prove otherwise, lots of people die from Auto Erotic Asphyxia, not an intentional Suicide, people commit Suicide in prisons and other forms of custody, and no firearms are used. Are you from the U.K. ?? That would explain much. .................................................
This is a good question. The study I cited (Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study), touches on this issue a little bit. They were trying to determine whether ..."having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home." I would imagine that the 'storage practices' would reflect directly on gun training and safety. What they found was that... "regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home." So it would seem that training has little bearing on risk of death. Which makes sense. Because if someone is intent on killing themselves or others, it hardly matters if they have been safety trained or not. I agree. But, that doesn't change any of the facts I have presented. Whether those facts constitute a untenable risk is for others to argue.
You mean the moron who was illegally carrying a gun in an establishment, the gun in question was a glock, and said glock was not in a holster? He should have just went ahead and posed with it pointing at his head. Again, refer back to my example of the kind of people who shoot themselves.
The woman was in a park, in a major city, not deep in the Andes. By all estimates the woman was extremely intelligent, had a masters degree, and was successful. She was either a liberal and felt the way you do, or was not allowed to own a firearm as per NYC laws. It's sad that you can, even in the most obvious case where a firearm could have saved a life, blame the victim.
You present an argument absent of a single fact. Here's two facts... She always went jogging with her father; On the night in question she went alone. Cause and effect. She made a stupid decision. A gun will not protect you from your own stupidity. See the Plaxico Burress reference.
Ok. How does a gun in the home increase your risk of homicide or suicide then. Please explain your reasoning. Again, what you're saying, is that an object in the home increases a risk. Yet, you continue to say that there is no causal relationship. You can't have it both ways. Unarguably, more people successfully hang themselves than shoot themselves, even in countries where guns are available. WHO data clearly shows this in the number of successful suicides by method. As for your original premise that guns cause more suicide and homicide......all you have to do is look at the statistics for legal CCW carriers. Their incident rate of illegal firearm usage is exponentially lower than that of the general populace among CCWs. The only determinant when it comes to gun violence in the home is either A) how violent the people living there are and B) how suicidal the people living there are. The simple presence of a firearm DOES NOT increase either.
That is merely a bromide, not a fact, you have no proof that a Gun is no protection in any given situation.
This is a classic ad hominem. My personal feeling re: guns has nothing to do with the factuality of my statements. I have very little information about my personal feelings on this issue and you have never asked. I agree.
