Please link to a post where I said that. A gun is not a substitute for a brain and will not protect you from stupid.
You do realize that CO has 1000 X the affinity to bond to red blood cells than Oxygen ? the treatment for CO poisoning is Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy ? There goes your low CO emission theory, POP !!!
Lets see. First sentence was a fact, second sentence was a fact. Third sentence was an either or; she either didn't feel the need for a firearm like yourself, or was not allowed to have one. Arguably she could own one and just didn't bring it, so that is also a possibility. Fourth sentence is a fact, you are blaming the victim. Looks like 3/4 of my post was entirely factual with an partial win on that third sentence. I agree that people who don't arm themselves are stupid though, but people should be able to safely run in a park without being raped and murdered. I guess the government can't protect you after all. Burress was carrying a glock that wasn't in a holster. That's a guaranteed unhappy ending. Morons hurt themselves, and always will.
Facts are not based on whims or fancy, you need causal relationships not ergo statements, For Example; A firearm kept in the home is 90% more likely to harm the residents of said home than an intruder. This is not a fact, it is an assumption, there is no proof. A Scientific peer reviewed paper containing false information, Funded and reviewed by people that wish to ban Guns, so not much contrary evidence will be forthcoming, and any evidence or proof to the contrary will be casually dismissed.
Let me ask this. In a home with people who have no history of violence, does a gun increase the risk of violence? In a home with people who have no history of suicidal tendencies, does a gun increase the risk of suicide?
I can't believe you are still not getting this ... but I'll give it one final go .. It does not increase or decrease your risk of the ATTEMPT taking place (at least that's not the case I am making) ... it only increases the risk that the ATTEMPT will be successful. Because guns are a more lethal means of killing people than other methods (on average). This is clearly demonstrated in the sources I have provided you.
No, that's not true either. Letality is determined by the person attempting suicide. If they're not serious they'll take a couple pills (counts as an attempt), or nick their wrists a little (also counts as an attempt), or simply threaten to kill themselves. Someone who is serious about committing suicide is going to use a gun, hanging, CO2 poisoning, jumping off a bridge, or any other method that is (barring some act of god) 100% lethal. The method chosen of course, will depend on availability and if they care about leaving a pretty corpse. The gun is only extremely lethal when used correctly, and the target is the head. It can easily be botched by flinching. Using a gun to try and shoot yourself in the heart actually has a much lower chance of success. Any method, applied correctly and with intent, is 100% lethal barring intervention. Incidentally, the article you linked, says that the simple presence of a firearm in the home increases the risk of homicide and suicide, so you might want to stop using it if that isn't your argument.
I don't know. I would imagine not. But that said, if either of those households had an incident the chances that the incident would be fatal is more likely.
In the case of domestic violence, all you have to do is wait until your spouse goes to sleep. Murder completed using any of 1000 items. In the case of suicide, if someone really wants to die, they can just go buy a gun if they really want to die. It doesn't have to already be there does it? People who want to die are going to plan it out and make it happen, regardless of a firearm being in the home or not.
The role and statistics involving domestic violence are vastly overblown, and they recite statistics that are true for all crimes. For example, they say things like "70% of women suffer violence from people they know", except this is true of most violent crime...guns or no. Rape, murder.....all are generally perpetrated by someone known by the victim, and firearm violence is no exception. In ALL cases of domestic violence, 4% are harmed by weapons, and 1% suffer firearms related injuries. What kind of people do you think that 4% and 1%, respectively, are like? With the high prevalence of firearms in this country what do you think the % of domestic violence is from lawful, non-violent gun owners? With the high prevalence of firearms in this country, what do you think the % of domestic violence is from illegally owned, violent people who possess guns? Who is committing this violence? http://www.jhsph.edu/research/cente...policy-and-research/publications/IPV_Guns.pdf The "12 times more likey, 50 times more likely" blather has to be taken into context. The context....is that of the 22% of people that suffer from domestic violence....is that 1% of them suffer injuries from guns. When you are dealing with such small numbers the truth becomes evident. Firearms usage in domestic violence only occurs in the most violent of people, and even then is very rare.
However, Guns are not more lethal than other methods, hanging is most effective, so is poisoning if the poison used is an effective one, Drug over doses also claim many lives, not all are intentional Suicides. Lastly and more importantly, you have no expertise in this matter, you are merely quoting sources, I have been in healthcare and specifically investigated many suicides, in various countries where guns are not common place items, and yet Suicides are prevalent and successful, Suicide by hanging being most prevalent.
That scalpel cuts both ways, banning or restricting guns and the availability of guns, in some places, guns are so expensive, when you account for people that get paid a few cents a day, they can't afford a gun, this has no bearing on what they actually do, they still commit crimes and commit Suicide.
Cesare Beccaria circa 1764 "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. " This is a true statement of fact. Add Suicide to that list, sure, Guns can be used for Suicide and to commit Crimes, however, Guns have great utility and also are used more often than not to preserve lives from Criminal attack.
Yes, guns ARE more lethal than other methods. You have been shown this many, many times ... even by your own citation! This would be an 'ad hominem'/'argument from authority'/'non-sequitur' combo. That should be triple points.
No, Guns are not more lethal than other methods of Suicide, your statement is a classic Oxymoron, how can you say one method of Suicide is superior to another method of Suicide, when both result in Death ? Besides quoting other peoples words, what is your expertise in such matters as Suicide ??? Do you have any Medical or Forensic training ??? or Police experience ? Have you ever responded to a Suicide scene ? I have examined many cadavers, COD, Suicide with intent, and death by firearm, depending on the type used, was not always more lethal than hanging, sometimes a small poorly aimed caliber resulting in a glancing non penetrating non lethal injury, a furrow across the Temporal region. No, you are merely crafting false information to suit your own Anti Gun Agenda.
First sentence was an irrelevant argument; second irrelevant supposition; third irrelevant argument; forth, irrelevant argument. If you had a 20 year old daughter would you tell her it was perfectly OK to go jogging alone in this park? View attachment 45132 The facts are that she went jogging there alone and she was attacked. No firearm would have prevented the attack. A gun is not a substitute for a brain.
No, it won't. Just ask the dead people at Pulse whether the gun at the front door protected them. A gun will not protect you, your brain will.
Not all suicide attempts result in death. This is the key bit you are missing. More ad hominem .. I am racking up the points today I don't doubt this one bit. Your operative words there are 'not always'. I am not saying that guns always cause death. I am saying that guns are more likely to cause death. I have no anti-gun agenda ... as I have already stated
Sure. I have stated it plainly many times in this thread but will repeat it here. - 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. Those are the conclusions supported by the following peer reviewed scientific paper: - Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, Linda L. Dahlberg et.al. Link
