They call it swatting,” says grieving Wichita mother after son killed by police

[interchange]

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide

But you are implying that firearm ownership is the reason for higher suicide rate and that's simply not true. Access is the key. Yes, I will admit that having a firearm does give you access to a "simpler" way of making sure the suicide is completed but the facts don't jusify your statements.

That blog post is terrible, and so is your argument. What that data shows is that access to firearms is only one factor in suicide rate in a population. Certainly other countries with totally different cultures have vastly different rates of suicide. Gun access is certainly not the most important factor in suicide rates in a population.

And, yet, data clearly demonstrates that it is a significant factor. And data clearly demonstrates that restriction of access is a successful preventive measure. Name a more successful preventive intervention and provide evidence for it. I'll wait.

 

[woolfe9998]

"There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide

But you are implying that firearm ownership is the reason for higher suicide rate and that's simply not true. Access is the key. Yes, I will admit that having a firearm does give you access to a "simpler" way of making sure the suicide is completed but the facts don't jusify your statements.

First off, I didn't say firearm ownership is "the reason for higher suicide rate...." You inferred too much. At most, I meant that gun owernership may be a contributing factor.

The author of your article is comparing four countries. Not a very accurate methodology. His conclusions are inconsistent with many studies. Example:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

This one correlates firearm ownership with suicide rate in all 50 states.

 

[Jaskalas]

You use the word "they". I don't know anyone who would accept the risk of being shot and killed without the ability to protect themselves. Well, I guess if someone was suicidal. Police attitudes toward this are human ones. However, there is a growing disconnect between LEOs and the communities they serve. That really needs to change.

People like to talk about police shootings, as if the public being armed isn't a massive contributing factor. As if itchy trigger fingers are just a case of bad cops. It's not, as you said... they're human, they want to live too, and they're as afraid of guns as we are. That fear of guns DRIVES deaths from guns. It drives the public to carry guns.

At the end of the day we fear each other... and we (humans) kill each other. Am armed society is a big part of that.
What, we're going to "correct" police shootings by leaving them defenseless? No... they will armed so long as the public is armed.

 

[Darwin333]

No doubt, Jumping off a sky scraper is as close to 100% effective as you can get. So why don't more people do it? Because it's freaking terrifying, that's why. And also, many would rather not commit suicide in a public manner. Which makes firearms the choice for those who actually want to die painlessly, without spending 20 seconds plummeting to their death while screaming in terror, and would rather die while not in full view of the general public.

Firearms are simply the ideal method for suicide. If I wanted to go, that's what I would use.

It's also pretty damn hard to gain access to the roof of tall buildings. I guess you could park on a bridge and jump off but then you are just being a dick and causing a huge traffic jam.

 

[interchange]

People like to talk about police shootings, as if the public being armed isn't a massive contributing factor. As if itchy trigger fingers are just a case of bad cops. It's not, as you said... they're human, they want to live too, and they're as afraid of guns as we are. That fear of guns DRIVES deaths from guns. It drives the public to carry guns.

At the end of the day we fear each other... and we (humans) kill each other. Am armed society is a big part of that.
What, we're going to "correct" police shootings by leaving them defenseless? No... they will armed so long as the public is armed.

I hope I don't give the impression that I want to take firearms away from LEOs.

 

[Dangerpig]

That blog post is terrible, and so is your argument. What that data shows is that access to firearms is only one factor in suicide rate in a population. Certainly other countries with totally different cultures have vastly different rates of suicide. Gun access is certainly not the most important factor in suicide rates in a population.

And, yet, data clearly demonstrates that it is a significant factor. And data clearly demonstrates that restriction of access is a successful preventive measure. Name a more successful preventive intervention and provide evidence for it. I'll wait.

Access to mental health care.

Sent from my LG-H901 using Tapatalk

 

[interchange]

Access to mental health care.

You named neither an intervention nor provided evidence for its effectiveness.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No doubt, Jumping off a sky scraper is as close to 100% effective as you can get. So why don't more people do it? Because it's freaking terrifying, that's why. And also, many would rather not commit suicide in a public manner. Which makes firearms the choice for those who actually want to die painlessly, without spending 20 seconds plummeting to their death while screaming in terror, and would rather die while not in full view of the general public.

Firearms are simply the ideal method for suicide. If I wanted to go, that's what I would use.

Yea, I was just talking about effectiveness. Regardless, I just don't think guns should be blamed in suicides at any rate, but since they are it does make it a fairly natural comparison to alcohol and tobacco. Rights or liberties that people can make arguments about their benefit to society vs. cost to society that harm self users the most, but do harm innocents too.

 

[interchange]

Yea, I was just talking about effectiveness. Regardless, I just don't think guns should be blamed in suicides at any rate, but since they are it does make it a fairly natural comparison to alcohol and tobacco. Rights or liberties that people can make arguments about their benefit to society vs. cost to society that harm self users the most, but do harm innocents too.

These are analogous subjects. I believe an accurate understanding of the risks of benefits of guns is what is needed for a community to decide on what their laws ought to be. There is no objectively right answer because certain benefits and certain risks are going to be weighed differently by different people. What is wrong, though, are gross distortions and deflections away from the evidence. As far as blaming goes, that really is a problem with how we perceive arguments. Saying something is important doesn't imply it's the only important thing.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yea, I was just talking about effectiveness. Regardless, I just don't think guns should be blamed in suicides at any rate, but since they are it does make it a fairly natural comparison to alcohol and tobacco. Rights or liberties that people can make arguments about their benefit to society vs. cost to society that harm self users the most, but do harm innocents too.

We've been over this, but here we go again. Alcohol and tobacco can only be used to harm others in a couple of ways (DUI and second hand smoke) and both are already banned, DUI at all times and second hand smoke almost everywhere now outside your car or home.

I'm not for banning guns BTW. I just think your smoking analogy is silly.

 

[interchange]

We've been over this, but here we go again. Alcohol and tobacco can only be used to harm others in a couple of ways (DUI and second hand smoke) and both are already banned, DUI at all times and second hand smoke almost everywhere now outside your car or home.

I'm not for banning guns BTW. I just think your smoking analogy is silly.

I'm pretty sure intentionally shooting someone (not in self-defense) is already banned, too. As is carrying guns in certain areas like airports. Etc. You have a pretty high standard for an analogy here. I say throw @SlowSpyder a bone when he's earned one. They don't come often.

Edit: after posting this I remember cigarettes and alcohol were used in past gun debates as whataboutism. That's not the same as using an analogy to illustrate a point.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm pretty sure intentionally shooting someone (not in self-defense) is already banned, too. As is carrying guns in certain areas like airports. Etc. You have a pretty high standard for an analogy here. I say throw @SlowSpyder a bone when he's earned one. They don't come often.

Edit: after posting this I remember cigarettes and alcohol were used in past gun debates as whataboutism. That's not the same as using an analogy to illustrate a point.

He's trying to say that we obsess over banning guns but somehow are less interested in doing anything about cigarettes and alcohol. Given how much we tax and regulate cigs and alcohol, it's not a very logical point.

 

[Paladin3]

Actually the most common thing to use a gun for is committing a crime. Defensive gun use may come in after that but a very important note on 'defensive gun use' is that the things people describe as defensive gun use are often crimes in and of themselves.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730664/

Defensive gun use is mostly bullshit.

I agree that self-defense is claimed often when someone uses a gun in anger offensively. But I'm pretty sure guns are used for sport, target shooting and hunting far more than they are used for crime.

Edit: sorry, guess this was already pointed out.

 

[pmv]

He's trying to say that we obsess over banning guns but somehow are less interested in doing anything about cigarettes and alcohol. Given how much we tax and regulate cigs and alcohol, it's not a very logical point.

In my opinion, suicide-by-firearm is the _one_ respect in which that comparison has a bit of validity. There is _no_ comparison between the effect of firearms on others and second-hand-smoking for reasons that have been given multiple times (though Spyder seems to only have Read Only Memory on that).

But I think there is a little bit of similarity in the moral argument about how society responds to self-harm of all kinds, whether drug use, alcohol, smoking, gambling or shooting yourself. Its not a simple question to decide how much 'paternalism' is appropriate. The dilemma arises for individuals who know people in such situations as well as for the state.

But its still not exactly the same sort of problem, because unlike smoking or drinking, the self-harm due to a firearm is all-or-nothing, and the presence of one in the home can make an irreversible difference when someone comes to a crisis point.

 

[woolfe9998]

In my opinion, suicide-by-firearm is the _one_ respect in which that comparison has a bit of validity. There is _no_ comparison between the effect of firearms on others and second-hand-smoking for reasons that have been given multiple times (though Spyder seems to only have Read Only Memory on that).

But I think there is a little bit of similarity in the moral argument about how society responds to self-harm of all kinds, whether drug use, alcohol, smoking, gambling or shooting yourself. Its not a simple question to decide how much 'paternalism' is appropriate. The dilemma arises for individuals who know people in such situations as well as for the state.

But its still not exactly the same sort of problem, because unlike smoking or drinking, the self-harm due to a firearm is all-or-nothing, and the presence of one in the home can make an irreversible difference when someone comes to a crisis point.

I have no issue if people want to commit suicide if they've made a decision after a period of reflection. What I think is worth preventing is people doing it on impulse. This is the problem of firearms in the home. Then again, I don't want to ban owning firearms so it's irrelevant. I just think his analogy is not a good one because these other things don't kill instantly and on impulse, and for several other reasons given.