clearly you know how to google so you COULD have found the answers yourself - they are very easy to find http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide also here:- http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/
No, but sometimes they kill another person and then off themselves. - - - Updated - - - How many lives have you saved with your gun(s)??? I've saved 2 lives with CPR.
No one should confuse science with opinion. That is what psychologists give, opinions. Here is another psychologists opinion: Freud "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." I guess it all depends on what psychologist you listen to.....
Where does one start?? The first link was to a PEER REVIEWED PAPER from the Journal of Epidemiology The second - a University based META-ANALYSIS of literature was a common language summary of the findings published in the ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE The third - an online summary of research papers surrounding this topic and psychology IS a science - but what you are "quoting" is soft drink industry advertising Do not confuse poor journalism with good science
This depends on who you talk to. Psychologists for the most part think it is, but almost all microbiologists, chemists, and other actual scientists disagree. It is a debate on rather or not psychology is a science. Most people in an actual field of science say that psychology IS NOT a science because it cannot meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientific. Those are clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. So again, psychology is not a science. How is that for "soft drink industry advertising"?
Oh! about the same level of credibility i.e. NONE I have supplied research paper after research paper - none of which were in the field of psychology all of which showed strong rigour and validity You have offered an opinion on a different subject Nice one!
Again, based on psychology which doesn't have that great of a track record. This is why people who are said to be fit for duty in law enforcement have breakdowns, the same with the military, and people who are said to be sane go do bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy stuff. It's not a science because you can't predict the outcome through tests. It's crap. You can provide all the papers you want, places like Scientific America even says psychology isn't a science, and that's a super nice publication! Other places call it a "soft" science. You can google that stuff and find out, only psychologists call it a science, which hardly makes it true.... Here, below, real scientists put 100 experiments that were published in three high ranking psychology journals to the test. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of the results were the same. < Not good enough to be considered a real scientific field. Happy? Put water in the freezer and guess what happens. You would say "it's going to freeze", and you would be right! It freezes! Science. Put strong alcohol in the freezer and guess what happens. You would say "it doesn't freeze", and you would be right! Science! Science has very predictable outcomes through proven methods, psychology doesn't. It's not science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 ^ That is just one of dozens of real scientists proving that psychology isn't really science.
Now before anyone else asks "What the hell are you guys talking about?", I was saying that the psychologists that say a firearm in your home increases the risk of death are friggen idiots. An inanimate object doesn't raise the risk of anything as it doesn't control the human being. To which I was told that psychology is a science and is evidence through written published journals. Some of those written papers say that firearms do indeed increase your risk of death... Of course coming from a background in an actual science, I called BS, as any other person in a real scientific field would, or who is just rational and or logical. The closest psychology has ever come to becoming a real science (other than in psychologists heads), is to be called a "soft" science. Not a real science.
So true, an analogy is like death in an airplane crash. First you have to have an aircraft. If you trace it back, risk started with the first camp fire.
Owning a gun can offer risk. not owning one can be as well. Life is risk. People make decisions involving risk every day. I do high Country skiing, hang gliding, skydiving, have owned motorcycles, drive a car, and have a pilot's license all activities that carry risk and any one of which could be used to end my life and anyone of which could be potentially dangerous to others. But, I make the choice to engage in these activities knowing the risk, accepting responsibility to be safe as I can possibly be. Because 20,000 people out of 320 million, 0.00015% of the population, suffer a psychological problem and irresponsibly decide to kill themselves is not a reason to deny 130 million people their 2nd Amendment rights anymore than I would deprived people from the activities I just mentioned because someone has a intentional or unintentional car accident. If you make a choice to own a gun for sport, hunting or self defense you must also be informed of and accept the risk and the responsibility that goes with the choice the same as if you make the choice to own and drive a car. One thing about our freedoms is you can decide not to assume the risk and responsibility to own a gun and you can decide whether you will or won't defend yourself by alternate means. It's your right. But, I no more believe that the government should be someone's nanny and prevent someone from buying a 1 litre soda to prevent obesity and early death than I believe it should deprive people of any right. Too often there are those that think they know what is best for everyone else and work to remove freedom of choice. I love the old, oft used reasoning and justification for advocating gun control and infringing on the rights of others when, as Obama said introducing his executive actions, "If it saves just one life". Well, it has been proven guns save lives...two such incidents in my city in the last two days, so gun ownership meets that criteria. By that criteria, Obama should remove himself from office. The effect his legislation will have on gun deaths will be infinitesimal compare to the vast increase in sales of guns prompted by his continual attempts to inject controls and bans, well over 100-120 million since he took office. You can be sure some of those guns resulted in some deaths.
This is not about excuses or the second amendment This is simply and purely about risk mitigation - I have identified the risk Tell me how it is to be mitigated
Explain how the presence of knives does not present a greater risk of suicides compared to someone who does not have access to knives.
((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))) Is no-one READING the links I have been providing?? http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/ http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/22/aje.kwt197.abstract
The links you are providing do not present answers to the questions that are asked. Nor do you make an effort to answer the questions that are presented. Your reference others to sources that are inadequate for open debate and discussion. Your first link talks of firearms being irreversible when used for suicide. What is ignored by this is the fact that hanging is also irreversible, just as is leaping from a tall structure. Use of a knife for suicide is also irreversible if the femoral or carotid artery are severed, as the loss of blood will guarantee death in a period between thirty and sixty seconds. Puncturing either kidney will yield the same results. Complicating the issue is that simply shooting oneself in the head does not guarantee death, as history has numerous examples of people who attempted such, or were shot in the head by others, and survived in varying degrees of health.
How many times do I need to remind you about your own country? After the gun confiscations in Austrailia, gun suicides went down 60%, hanging more than doubled. Your suicide rate did not change, the method did. Guns do NOT increase the likelihood of suicide. Having suicidal tendencies increases the likelihood of suicide.
How many times must I knock down your strawmen? Guns were never confiscated in Australia and I note you have NO link to source So where did you get this information - Back of a cereal box?
No - they just do not give the answers YOU want And your answer is at odds with what was written in the quote Suggestion - read it again
Yes, guns were confiscated. A mandatory turn-in of firearms, backed up with penalties for not doing so, is confiscation no matter how you want to paint it. And no, I got my data from your government. http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Suicide http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats http://www.mindframe-media.info/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/11868/Suicide-Figures-ABS-2015.pdf http://crg.aic.gov.au/reports/23-86.pdf http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458840 If you need me to retrieve any more data from your own government let me know.
Interesting re-invention of a wprd And no, I got my data from your government.[/QUOTE] Thank you for the unquoted links - I always get suspicious when people just link without a specific quote to back what they have said and I always check it out for myself http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...rliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/Suicide [/QUOTE] Interesting paper - talks of methods of suicide but no mention of the impact of the gun law reform but perhaps I missed that bit - want to quote the exact passage? This one is not from the Australian government and does not mention suicide methodology Again raw data nothing - not one thing mentioning guns versus hanging as a suicide method - however note that there is a marked reduction in male suicides after 1996 and since men are more likely to shoot themselves................ Sorry no nothing there - except that rates of hanging have varied greatly over the years and according to that paper there were FEWER hangings in 2009 than there were in 1997 and since it did not go back prior to 1997 we cannot really compare pre law reform with post law reform Did not get past "copyright 1992" and you are (*)(*)(*)(*)ting me yes? http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458840 If you need me to retrieve any more data from your own government let me know.[/QUOTE] The last paper is a copy of one of the previous papers So - no you have not "proven" your contention Meanwhile http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.short well waddya know!! Worked in Austria as well as Australia http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/191/3/253.short http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/10/5/280.short http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60521-2/abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586136/ I could go on paper after paper show that there is little substitution effect if firearm availability is restricted and it is not just Australia but world wide
EMTs and police aren't first responders. The people at whatever location stuff happens are the first responders. While police response can easily take 15-30 minutes and sometimes even longer than that you are responding to the situation as it happens.
If you are referring specifically of gun related suicide, Last year there were 41, 149 suicides out of a population of 322,762,018. That means 322,720,869 people didn't commit suicide. why? 21,175 people used a gun and 322,720,869 didn't and of those committing suicide, 19,974 people used another means. You tell me why 41, 149 people committed suicide and 322,720869 didn't and how to mitigate the 19,974 non gun suicides and I will tell you how to mitigate the rest.
