That's why I told you the two CAN be looked at individually. You personally are on record as being of the mind that the gun effect is insignificant. Those in the position of losing a loved one might not be so cavalier, however. As you know, safety should be foremost for any gun owner and if a loved one uses your gun to kill himself, then there has been a major breech in that regime. There are very few second chances when a gun is used.
Meh, I am not going to fall for emotional appealing. On the macroscopic scale, I do not believe that guns have a significant impact on accidents/suicides/homicides/or other crime. Whether it be the prevention of crime or committing crime. Too few are used to make an impact either way. On the microscopic scale, there is a difference. An insane man could purchase a firearm (VT Tech) and kill many people. Someone can purchase a firearm and stop someone who would have otherwise killed them. Someone can buy a firearm and a family member will kill themselves, another person will buy a firearm with no ill effects. As for securing your firearm, I can see your argument. The only line I would draw are regulations that would prevent the timely deployment of a firearm in an act of self-defense. Otherwise, I haven't an issue with requiring firearms to be secured, in the presence of children for example.
Your opinion isn't consistent with the evidence, neither in terms of suicides or in terms of crime effects.
The evidence is overwhelming. Sucidal depression causes sucide. Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8 )
I don't believe the evidence bears that out. Perhaps what you and I would consider "significant" are vastly different.
Something can be statistically significant yet absolutely irrelevant in the real world. This seems to be one of those cases. This case is a lot like those weight-loss pills you see on TV. They say people lost weight - which they did. They reference studies that show a statistically significant correlation between weight loss and use of the pills. But in the end, the average weight-loss was about 3 pounds. Statistically significant, but totally irrelevant to an overweight person. There may be a statically significant correlation between gun ownership and suicide, but the magnitude of the effect is so tiny that more than doubling the number of guns doesn't push one group past many of the others, so in the real-world it is irrelevant.
So how did the whole argument get hijacked into suicide? 3 year olds do not suicide A 3 year old that shoots themselves or a sibling with a gun is not even an accident - is is a heart wrenching tragedy Look I know that there are other causes for child death - heck we are talking about mandating reversing camera's for large cars here Because there are a couple of deaths with toddlers every year http://www.caradvice.com.au/94076/nhtsa-proposes-mandatory-reversing-cameras-by-2014/ That number is not all children and it is far far far lower than your death rate from guns - and actioning it will cost us more But we CARE about kids Do you?
You're wrong. The studies consider both statistical significance and size of the estiimated coefficients. Indeed, as already noted, we cannot explain trends in suicide data without reference to gun variables. We've seen on here some rather abhorrent attitudes to death. Folk have dismissed information even though we are talking about preventable deaths. The US, one can argue, has had some success in handling its accidental death 'epidemic'. However, it would be foolish to suggest it can't go further.
there is NO 'death rate' from guns... And who died and left you champion of deciding who cares about kids the most?
The car reversing camera requirement is silly. Also, with a little digging, the number of children killed in this case can be determined, and compared. The below article has the same 292 total reversing fatalities claim. It states that of those, that 228 are by light vehicles. 44% of the light vehicle fatalities are children under 5 or 100 children. The CDC's WISQARS site places the death rate of children under 5 by guns (all reasons, including murder) as 86. If we only count accidents, the death rate of children under 5 by firearms is 16. Not nearly as much of a problem as the backing up by cars. http://ddot-hso.com/ddot/hso/News/New Regulations - NHTSA - Dec 6 2010.pdf http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html
No, lets count all deaths. Including deliberate homicide by car as opposed to deliberate homicide by firearm. Lets see the stats.
Don't have any stats on reversing homicide. That is what the issue is. The basic premise of this subargument is that reversing and killing toddlers is such a big problem that we are going to require cameras. Why don't we ban guns for the same reason. I shot down the argument, because the numbers of accidental deaths of toddlers by guns are much lower than the accidental death of toddlers by reversing in an automobile. Please keep up.
Bringing up automobiles is a great idea! Its an industry characterised by substantial regulation, with 'consumers' also facing numerous controls. Well done!
Hmmmmm - don't you play poker in the US? Because you are not seeing them hiding the aces in that hand They picked an area of the childhood statistics that would show a far greater number weighted toward car deaths than gun deaths If we looked at a slightly older group - say 5 - 17 year olds what would we find? Keeping in mind that 0-5 range includes a subset of children who would be unlikely to pull the trigger on a weapon but would have the ability to crawl/toddle out behind a vehicle. Toddlers TODDLE - that is what they do and they do it very well - which is why they are in particular danger from reversing vehicles I know I have had to care for a few and it was not easy
No but I am Australian and that means I am entitled to an opinion - and entitled to state that opinion Can you not do that there?
Huh? I only chose the two because you brought it up. I didn't bring up the whole idea of reversing accidents, you did. Now you are somehow saying that I'm twisting statistics? I have raised two toddlers (now young men). They were never in danger of being hit by a car in reverse. My job was to prevent that, and honestly, it wasn't that hard. Also, despite that I have a half dozen guns in my home, they were never in danger of being shot by those guns.
