Suicide

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:27 am

Digress

There is a clear relationship between access to guns and the number of gun suicides. This is not theory. This is hard data.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:12 am

Lance

All the article suggests about firearms is that keeping people away from lethal means is a good idea when they are suicidal. Sorry, but that is not hard data demonstrating further means of government control is a good thing.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 21, 2017 3:42 am

Digress

Mea culpa. I did not mean to suggest that was in the original article referenced. Try this one instead.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/m ... s-suicide/

This article is from Harvard University and mentions that households with guns are more likely to have a suicide, even though households with guns are less likely to have a suicide attempt.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:51 pm

Lance

I understand your argument. Your Harvard article plainly states that guns within the home increase the risk of suicide by gun (duh), but states gun owners are statistically less suicidal. Based on this, the logic is, if you make guns harder to acquire, since gun owners are not the demographic and the problem is going out to buy a gun with ease, that suicide rates will drop because it will be too hard for them to attain one.

I'm sorry it isn't obvious to you how this reasoning is flawed. This argument clearly paints a picture about a the path of least resistance being the culprit. Because guns are currently at the end of that path they are clearly sought out first. Taking away that path doesn't reason less suicide, what is reasons is that the next path will then be sought. Whatever that easier thing may be.

Many people appear to be on this crusade of suicide prevention and are declaring a war on guns as the stone-aged solution.

Try looking at Canada for instance. http://www.dyingwithdignity.ca/get_the_facts

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/18/482599089/canada-legalizes-physician-assisted-dying

If you want to die in Canada they've installed a system that allows you to submit documentation and a physician visits your home to oversee the clinically peaceful method of suicide.

We've learned from time and time again that taking away the option is never a solution to the problem. If you want to reason a humane means for addressing this problem then you can't possibly have an agenda of removing the choice. Making it harder for the person suffering is in-humane. We must instead focus on engineering a peacefully guided method of suicide by professionals that are available to anyone interested in killing themselves. This is not about guns.

As a side note -- All of this lack of insight propagated from institutions we still highly esteem in this country, such as Harvard, is alarming because I'd reason that this study goes to show a degradation of some-kind from within. Where intellectual thinkers are unable to properly assess issues despite hard work, proper research, in-depth review, and thoughtful presentation.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:12 pm

Digress

You may have missed something from earlier in the thread. Most suicide attempts are impulsive. There is a period of ten minutes to a couple of hours in which the attempt may be made, after which the impulse passes and the danger is over. If a method of suicide is readily available, such as a loaded hand gun, the impulse results in death. If a method is not readily available, the impulse passes and that person survives.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Thu Sep 21, 2017 10:24 pm

Lance

I'm on board with implementing a 2 day trial-wait before a gun may be purchased. Does that satisfy your concerns as a solution to your testimony?
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:26 pm

Digress.

There was a Harvard study that came up with a correlation between probability of suicide versus security of storage for a hand gun. If the hand gun is stored at home in a locked gun safe, the chances of suicide drop, since the people who do not own the gun cannot use it. If the law required more secure gun storage, that would help. Not a total solution, of course, but it would help.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:14 am

digress wrote:Lance

I'm on board with implementing a 2 day trial-wait before a gun may be purchased. Does that satisfy your concerns as a solution to your testimony?


Better yet - a two day waiting period to retrieve your gun from the central secure locker facility - a range or gun club. Sign it out, sign it back in. Account for the ammo by returning the spent rounds. And of course - when in posession, if not in use at the moment, locked within a secure gun safe.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:30 pm

Lance

I think keeping the weapon in locked storage is also reasonable, but I don't see how you'd be able to enforce that. I think that leans more on the general good practice of it. I also think just like how you need to pass a written test and wait to schedule a date to pass a one-on-one test before acquiring a drivers license. So too should be the case when purchasing a gun. You should have to pass a test, wait a few days and purchase the weapon with its required lock box.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Fri Sep 22, 2017 3:31 pm

TJrandom wrote:
digress wrote:Lance

I'm on board with implementing a 2 day trial-wait before a gun may be purchased. Does that satisfy your concerns as a solution to your testimony?


Better yet - a two day waiting period to retrieve your gun from the central secure locker facility - a range or gun club. Sign it out, sign it back in. Account for the ammo by returning the spent rounds. And of course - when in posession, if not in use at the moment, locked within a secure gun safe.


I disagree. This better resembles a temporary lease, not ownership.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:59 pm

TJrandom wrote:Better yet - a two day waiting period to retrieve your gun from the central secure locker facility - a range or gun club. Sign it out, sign it back in. Account for the ammo by returning the spent rounds. And of course - when in posession, if not in use at the moment, locked within a secure gun safe.


I can appreciate your sentiments. I accept that your concerns are legitimate.

In the US, however, your proposal would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. ;)

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:25 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Better yet - a two day waiting period to retrieve your gun from the central secure locker facility - a range or gun club. Sign it out, sign it back in. Account for the ammo by returning the spent rounds. And of course - when in posession, if not in use at the moment, locked within a secure gun safe.


I can appreciate your sentiments. I accept that your concerns are legitimate.

In the US, however, your proposal would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. ;)


Not at all - ownership still exists, no restrictions there - just sound protection of your investment and prevention of unauthorised use.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:51 pm

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Better yet - a two day waiting period to retrieve your gun from the central secure locker facility - a range or gun club. Sign it out, sign it back in. Account for the ammo by returning the spent rounds. And of course - when in posession, if not in use at the moment, locked within a secure gun safe.


I can appreciate your sentiments. I accept that your concerns are legitimate.

In the US, however, your proposal would be a clear violation of the Second Amendment. ;)


Not at all - ownership still exists, no restrictions there - just sound protection of your investment and prevention of unauthorised use.


Ownership is only half of it. The Second Amendment also protects the right to carry. Requiring a two day advance notice to carry is clearly an infringement. The requirement to keep the gun somewhere else besides your own home is also an infringement.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:53 pm

Actually, as stated, the second amendment does not carry the right to carry, or any other specific rights. It says that in order to permit an effective militia the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Things like the right to carry are modern, and produced by politicians acting out the wishes of the gun makers who bribed them.

Nor is the second amendment some kind of inviolate gospel. It can be and should be wiped from the constitution. Since a militia is no longer needed, nor is the second amendment. The British once had a similar clause and got rid of it. Time for the USA to get civilised also.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Fri Sep 22, 2017 10:45 pm

TJrandom wrote:Not at all - ownership still exists, no restrictions there - just sound protection of your investment and prevention of unauthorised use.


Get real. Providing a place to store and account for weapons with a round-the-clock staff. Someone has to pay for the property lease, electricity and make sure Jimmy at the counter is making a decent wage. Also, let's not forget about missing inventory. Something every business has to account for. Who pays for all of this? The gun "owner"? Again, this is a service better resembling a lease than ownership.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:02 pm

digress wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Not at all - ownership still exists, no restrictions there - just sound protection of your investment and prevention of unauthorised use.


Get real. Providing a place to store and account for weapons with a round-the-clock staff. Someone has to pay for the property lease, electricity and make sure Jimmy at the counter is making a decent wage. Also, let's not forget about missing inventory. Something every business has to account for. Who pays for all of this? The gun "owner"? Again, this is a service better resembling a lease than ownership.


When guns are primarily used for hunting and target practice, a two-day prior notice alleviates the need for 24x7 access - and the equivalence of bank safety deposit box storage mostly eliminates staffing, though some remain. Here these facilities are within police stations (tax supported) or are within gun ranges, where minimal storage fees contribute to range income and actually increase range usage. Guns do not go missing on their own - and theft is a very serious crime. I have never heard of a stored gun going missing. Our system works.

Our suicide by gun are mostly armed policemen and the occasional hunter who has just accidentally shot a fellow friendly hunter – all fewer than 20 a year. Here it is illegal for anyone, other than a policeman in the line of duty, to shoot at another person, even in self defence. Our system works well. Far fewer gun suicides and murders.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:53 pm

TJ

I think that all thinking people will realise that Japan has the best and most civilised gun laws. The way Japan does it is not an issue, since that is close to the perfect system,. The way it is done in the USA is much more of a problem.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:12 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, as stated, the second amendment does not carry the right to carry, or any other specific rights. It says that in order to permit an effective militia the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Things like the right to carry are modern, and produced by politicians acting out the wishes of the gun makers who bribed them.


The US Supreme Court does not agree with your mistaken interpretations. Nor do most historians.

We have had this conversation before. Your only rebuttal was to make the libelous accusation that the justices must be corrupt. Well, sorry, but your opinion on the matter is pure BS.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:30 am

It would not be the first time the US supreme court made very, very dubious decisions.

The justices are political appointees, and it is not a seriously horrible suggestion that they might veer towards the opinions of their political masters.

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Sat Sep 23, 2017 2:09 am

TJrandom wrote:
digress wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Not at all - ownership still exists, no restrictions there - just sound protection of your investment and prevention of unauthorised use.


Get real. Providing a place to store and account for weapons with a round-the-clock staff. Someone has to pay for the property lease, electricity and make sure Jimmy at the counter is making a decent wage. Also, let's not forget about missing inventory. Something every business has to account for. Who pays for all of this? The gun "owner"? Again, this is a service better resembling a lease than ownership.


When guns are primarily used for hunting and target practice, a two-day prior notice alleviates the need for 24x7 access - and the equivalence of bank safety deposit box storage mostly eliminates staffing, though some remain. Here these facilities are within police stations (tax supported) or are within gun ranges, where minimal storage fees contribute to range income and actually increase range usage. Guns do not go missing on their own - and theft is a very serious crime. I have never heard of a stored gun going missing. Our system works.

Our suicide by gun are mostly armed policemen and the occasional hunter who has just accidentally shot a fellow friendly hunter – all fewer than 20 a year. Here it is illegal for anyone, other than a policeman in the line of duty, to shoot at another person, even in self defence. Our system works well. Far fewer gun suicides and murders.


I have no context. Where do you live?
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It would not be the first time the US supreme court made very, very dubious decisions.

The justices are political appointees, and it is not a seriously horrible suggestion that they might veer towards the opinions of their political masters.


That's not evidence of corruption in the current court. That's mere innuendo.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 4:31 am

Some decisions, Xouper, are clearly idiocy.
I have a principle to help me understand weird decisions. It goes like this.

If there is no clear good reason for a decision, then look for a bad one.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:13 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Some decisions, Xouper, are clearly idiocy.
I have a principle to help me understand weird decisions. It goes like this.

If there is no clear good reason for a decision, then look for a bad one.


I will accept that as a general principle.

However, in the two recent US Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment, there were many well documented and very good clear reasons for their decisions.

I get that you don't like their decisions, but it is factually incorrect to say they did not have sufficient, good, and clear legal justification for those decisions.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:16 am

We have had this conversation before, Lance. You have said nothing of any value beyond your personal opinion. You can rant all you want, but the US Supreme Court does not care what you think.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:40 am

I am well aware of that.
The American administration in general does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and treats every one else with contempt. Especially the United Nations, which is a very big part of why a potentially very great force for good is largely impotent.

I am very pleased, though, that most of the American people are much better than their government. Most Americans I have met were decent humans.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:49 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:The American administration in general does not care what the rest of the world thinks, and treats every one else with contempt. Especially the United Nations, which is a very big part of why a potentially very great force for good is largely impotent.


You are entitled to your opinion.

And I am entitled to disagree with your opinion.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:01 am

@digress - I live in Japan...

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Suicide

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:It would not be the first time the US supreme court made very, very dubious decisions.

The justices are political appointees, and it is not a seriously horrible suggestion that they might veer towards the opinions of their political masters.

LMFTFY: The right wing nut pro-gun position of the SCOTUS is not a corrupt decision of the supremes, nor are they "veering" towards their political masters. You OBVIOUSLY do not yet understand what bias/outlook/viewpoint/school of thought the SELECTION AND CONFIRMATION process is all about: selecting Supremes who all on their own are idiotically pro-gun..... pro-life..... pro-property.... anti-tax...pro laissez faire/anti-regulation...and the whole gamut of what is clawing at the guts of american society: Supremes who are selected for their bias. Supremes who are approved by extremes of philosophy and who do not get the recommendation of their professional peers.

aka: Politics. How Roberts voted to support Obamacare is simply astounding. All leading to Single Payer....eventually as it "must." Guns..... next.

EVERY pro gun decision by the SCOTUS has long minority dissenting opinions: aka: the future majority position once the pendulum swings. Like Global Warming.........eventually the carnage will be recognized, and change will come.

........................................... all nice and legal.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby digress » Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:33 pm

TJrandom wrote:@digress - I live in Japan...


I must say though that even if Japan is as you say it is, and if this were a solution that would work in USA, I still read about ridiculously high suicide rates in Japan which is the subject of this thread. If banning guns did help to reduce suicide rates and Japan were your example of a country ahead of the curve I can't help but think this is wishful thinking on your part. And only helps to reiterate what I originally stated. That this is not an issue with guns, but an issue with people taking the path of least resistance (guns being that path in USA). And the minute you take that path away a new one will take its place; ie, like taking a long walk deep into the forest and not returning, ie; Japan.

However, feel free to source new statistics showing Japan's rates have decreased as a result of gun control. I'm curious to see how this has impacted Japan in a positive way.
  God is an idea.  

"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Sat Sep 23, 2017 6:53 pm

Interesting rebuttal. Japan has a high suicide rate as a cultural phenomenon – `do not impose` on society, your group (company, family, etc.) is taught – as is self-sacrifice honored. Suicide solves all, except the personal pain of immediate relatives. Plus we never have had guns (or a right to do anything we want as individualists) – so gun control isn`t really accurate. Instead we have permission to own guns, under what we believe are reasonable restrictions – much as we have permission to drive cars under reasonable restrictions (education, licenses, inspections, registered parking place, etc.).

So I would say that if guns were owned and kept at home by 22% of the population (similar to the US), our suicide rate would soar since immediate impulsive satisfaction would become possible for even trivial societal transgressions.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 7:46 pm

Suicide rates are also influenced by other fwctors including culture. As TJ points out, Japan has always has a somewhat pro-suicide culture. The biggest influence on number of suicide ATTEMPTS is how much depression exists in that society. But access to an effective method is required to convert attempts to deaths. For example, Hong Kong has not too many attempts, but a lot of attempts lead to death due to the large number of high rise buildings. Guess how many of those suicides happen ?

In western countries, woman attempt suicide 3 times as often as men, but men die in suicide four times as often as women. Women normally try the drug overdose method, which works only 1 in 50 times. A lot of men are more violent against themselves, and make the attempt work.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sat Sep 23, 2017 9:35 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . For example, Hong Kong has not too many attempts, but a lot of attempts lead to death due to the large number of high rise buildings.


Ban high rise buildings. Problem solved.

Just kidding. Perhaps I shouldn't poke fun at Lance's logic in a serious thread about suicides.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 23, 2017 11:09 pm

Banning things can be an effective strategy, but the ban should not carry major problems in itself. Banning high rise buildings was, of course, a facetious suggestion, but will serve as an example. Obviously, if Hong Kong banned them, there would be a catastrophe relating to housing. When it comes to guns, things are different. An effective ban on hand guns would cause no social problems at all, but would reduce both suicides and homicides. We know that for homicides by looking for comparison at places where there are few or no hand guns. We know it for suicides due to the high "success " rate of suicide attempts where hand guns are available.

In other threads, pro gun debaters have suggested that if you can ban guns then why not ban cars, which also kill lots of people. Obviously banning cars would cause enormous social problems, out of proportion to any benefit, just like banning high rises in Hong Kong.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:An effective ban on hand guns would cause no social problems at all, . . .


A huge number of Americans disagree with your opinion.

And by "huge" I mean many millions. Even if you only counted concealed carry permits, that's over 16 million, more than twice the total population of New Zealand. Taking all those permits away would create a huge social problem.


Lance Kennedy wrote: but would reduce both suicides and homicides.


That claim remains to be proven.

And by "proven" I mean sufficiently supported by credible evidence, which by your standards would be a journal paper.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:08 am

Actually, there have been several journal papers to that effect, such as from Harvard University, and which I have told you about previously and you refuse to accept.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:48 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Actually, there have been several journal papers to that effect, such as from Harvard University, and which I have told you about previously and you refuse to accept.


Those papers do not provide any actual evidence that banning guns would reduce both suicides and homicides.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7371
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby TJrandom » Sun Sep 24, 2017 2:44 am

xouper wrote:... Taking all those permits away would create a huge social problem. ...


That social problem would only be angst. Far less of a social problem than is the impact of the murders and suicides, year after year, by gun.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:25 am

TJrandom wrote:
xouper wrote:... Taking all those permits away would create a huge social problem. ...


That social problem would only be angst.


Not so. Self defense with a handgun is a very real thing and has saved many lives and prevented many assaults.

Not to mention, people with a concealed carry permit are convicted of gun crimes at a rate far less than law enforcement officers. In other words, concealed carriers are not the problem. Not even close.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Suicide

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 24, 2017 4:47 am

Xouper

Unless you wish to practice hypocrisy, you cannot say self defense with a gun has saved many lives. You demand a standard of evidence that is not met here. Rather, self defense with a gun is CLAIMED by many people. How accurate those claims are is seriously debatable.

I have pointed out to you a little math. Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. If all those hundreds of thousands of people have their lives saved by their guns, then the people with no guns must have died. But they did not.

In fact, western countries where there are very few guns, like Japan, have very, very low death rates from assaults. It appears that, contrary to your statement, fewer guns mean fewer people suffering death or injury, not more.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Suicide

Postby xouper » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:25 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

Unless you wish to practice hypocrisy, you cannot say self defense with a gun has saved many lives. You demand a standard of evidence that is not met here.


Not so.

We have this conversation before, Lance, where I have presented the evidence. So you cannot claim to have not seen it.

There are peer reviewed papers in credible journals that say guns have saved many lives and prevented (or mitigated) many assaults. There is also the US government report commissioned by President Obama that also says that. There is also official US government data that shows that armed victims of assault fair better than unarmed victims. All those things more than meets the required standard of evidence.


Lance Kennedy wrote:I have pointed out to you a little math. Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun. If all those hundreds of thousands of people have their lives saved by their guns, then the people with no guns must have died. But they did not.


You might have a point except for one problem. No one has said there were hundreds of thousands of lives saved. Perhaps you are misinterpreting "defensive uses" to mean "lives saved". They are not synonymous.


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest