Guns Used.....cont

[Blind groper]

FBM

I would say that 220,000 attempts each year versus 20,000 deaths is a pretty damn significant distinction. Most suicide attempts fail.

You have been using the faulty logic that suggest that 12,000 successful attempts using hand guns will, in the absence of hand guns, turn into 12,000 successful hangings. In fact, guns and hangings are only two of numerous possible methods, and neither are in the top two in terms of what is tried. If those 12,000 people who kill themselves each year with hand guns, cannot get hold of hand guns, then they will not all turn to hanging themselves. Most will turn to drugs, since that is 75% of all attempts. So most will not die.

[FBM]

The data show that the majority of suicides are men, by far, and that the majority of men favor hanging over self-poisoning, again by far. You boldly declare that "Most will turn to drugs..." but have no data to support that claim. Nowhere have I claimed that 100% of all potential handgun users would turn to hanging, only that the current data suggest that the majority of them would be most predisposed to do so. If you would just present data that doesn't require your biased interpretation...

[Blind groper]

FBM

75% of suicide attempts are with drugs. 220,000 attempts each year with all but 20,000 failing. 12,000 people kill themselves each year with hand guns. I have given you plenty of data to back my assertion. Why the hell would the 12,000 turn to hanging if hand guns were not available? Most people trying to kill themselves will try it with drugs. Why in hell would those 12,000, if deprived of hand guns, be any different?

The data is there, and I have presented it, many times. When you say "the majority of men favor hanging over self-poisoning", what you really are saying is that the majority of men who successfully killed themselves, in European countries other than the USA, preferred hanging. Certainly they did, because the men who preferred drugs are still alive! Your evidence is based entirely on statistics of dead men. Not the majority who tried to kill themselves and failed.

[FBM]

Deprived of handguns, the number of people who try hanging will certainly increase, and since it's almost as effective, the vast majority of those will die. Neither you nor I have the ability to predict with any degree of reliability what those numbers might eventually pan out to be. Since there's no secret about the failure rate of ingesting drugs, there is a strong argument for the conclusion that most people who try that method aren't particulary serious about succeeding in the first place. It sounds much more like a plea for help, whereas people who are serious about ending it all would go for the most successful means the first time.

This is all so much arguing about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin, anyway.

[Blind groper]

It is true we cannot nail down the numbers. But my argument is not based on exact numbers anyway. My argument is that, without hand guns, there would be a major reduction in suicide deaths. And that is almost certainly true.

[FBM]

I doubt it, especially when you throw the word "major" in there. People who are serious about killing themselves are going to choose the most effective way available, overall. I doubt that many/most of those who choose poisoning are that serious about really ending it in the first place. Not so for those who choose shooting or hanging.

[Blind groper]

FBM

I have already shown you the statistics that demonstrate a substantial increase in suicide risk in any home with a hand gun.

Why would the risk of successful suicide go up so much just because there was a hand gun there, if every would-be suicide was that determined? The short answer is that people attempting suicide do not think it through. They respond emotionally to their pain, and grab whatever is available. If what is available is a hand gun, that is a dead person. If no hand gun, but there are drugs in the cupboard, then the person will probably survive. It is just that simple.

If you re-read the basic data, you may understand.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/10/989

I quote :
"In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are gun suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide."

And I hope you also remember :

"The temporary nature and fleeting sway of many suicidal crises is evident in the fact that more than 90% of people who survive a suicide attempt, including attempts that were expected to be lethal (such as shooting oneself in the head or jumping in front of a train), do not go on to die by suicide."

And also bear in mind

"There are at least a dozen U.S. case–control studies in the peer-reviewed literature, all of which have found that a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of suicide. The increase in risk is large, typically 2 to 10 times that in homes without guns, depending on the sample population (e.g., adolescents vs. older adults) and on the way in which the firearms were stored."

I trust you will also note :

"The higher risk of suicide in homes with firearms applies not only to the gun owner but also to the gun owner's spouse and children. The presence of a gun in the home, no matter how the gun is stored, is a risk factor for completed suicide. And there is a hierarchy of suicide risk consistent with a dose–response relationship. How household guns are stored matters especially for young people — for example, one study found that adolescent suicide was four times as likely in homes with a loaded, unlocked firearm as in homes where guns were stored unloaded and locked."

I could go on. The simple reality is that hand guns are a massive increase in suicide risk. If the presence of a hand gun so massively increases risk of successful suicide, then the absence of that hand gun must reduce that risk.

Come on, FBM. I have demonstrated my case!

[FBM]

Rather than obstinately dig my heels into a biased, entrenched position, I'm willing to accept the possibility that some indeterminate number of suicides may be prevented - or at least delayed - if handguns weren't so readily available. However, I'm skeptical that that number would be as large as you seem to think.

For example, from reading what you've just written, it seems you would have us believe that the majority of people who use a handgun for suicide do so impulsively. However, your final quote includes the vague and subjective term "many" in stating its case. It also slickly juxtaposes that vague claim with a more factual one about "90% of people..." But if you read carefully, the subject has shifted from that "many" who are impulsive to all of suicide attempts, impulsive or planned, using drugs, hanging or guns or whatever. That 90% includes people who never really intended to kill themselves, but were just issuing a plea for help, therefore it's not every specifically indicative of much wrt the roles of handguns. If you consider that many/most who choose drugs aren't really intending to die, but that practically everyone who uses a gun or hanging is, well the playing field levels out a bit.

How many people who were just trying to get help would do so by putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger? How many who weren't really sure that they wanted to die would choose that method?

It seems most likely to me that the suicide rates of any country are more largely dependent on factors other than the presence or absence of handguns. The fact that so many no-handgun countries have higher suicide rates seems to support the probability that people who really intend to kill themselves will.

Edit: You edited while I was writing so that "final quote" is no longer the final one. I'm sure you'll be able to piece it together.

[Blind groper]

The fact that so many no-handgun countries have higher suicide rates seems to support the probability that people who really intend to kill themselves will.

The reference said those who were truly determined to kill themselves were a minority. Of course, that could be 49%, since the level of 'minority' was unspecified. I think it will be a lot less, though, since 220,000 attempts translates into 20,000 real.

However, the sole point I wanted to make was that a lack of hand guns would cause a significant and substantial reduction in suicides. Whether we define 'significant and substantial' as 10% or 50% is difficult to be at all definite about. However, human lives, IMHO, in small or large numbers, are worth saving.

[FBM]

The fact that so many no-handgun countries have higher suicide rates seems to support the probability that people who really intend to kill themselves will.

The reference said those who were truly determined to kill themselves were a minority. Of course, that could be 49%, since the level of 'minority' was unspecified. I think it will be a lot less, though, since 220,000 attempts translates into 20,000 real.

However, the sole point I wanted to make was that a lack of hand guns would cause a significant and substantial reduction in suicides. Whether we define 'significant and substantial' as 10% or 50% is difficult to be at all definite about. However, human lives, IMHO, in small or large numbers, are worth saving.

Perhaps, if the attempt to seize the extant handguns from the US population would not result in so much newly created bloodshed of its own, with the number of lives sacrificed likely to at least rival the number potentially saved. For in order to remove those handguns from the hands of private citizens, the gummit would have to abandon all pretence at being a constitutional democracy. There would be much bloodshed for a variety of reasons, only one of which would be the handgun ownership issue.

[Blind groper]

It has already happened in a number of other western nations. Admittedly, those other nations did not quite have a population so strongly emotionally bonded to firearms. However, I refuse to admit that nothing can be done.

As I said before, a beginning could be a law making all firearms childproof. This is so obviously sensible that I really cannot see why even American gun lovers could object.

Stage 2 would be a law requiring police approved safes to store guns in, when kept at home. This is also enormously sensible, though I know the most extreme gun lovers would not be happy about it. But secure storage would, by itself, save thousands of lives.

[JimC]

It has already happened in a number of other western nations. Admittedly, those other nations did not quite have a population so strongly emotionally bonded to firearms. However, I refuse to admit that nothing can be done.

As I said before, a beginning could be a law making all firearms childproof. This is so obviously sensible that I really cannot see why even American gun lovers could object.

Stage 2 would be a law requiring police approved safes to store guns in, when kept at home. This is also enormously sensible, though I know the most extreme gun lovers would not be happy about it. But secure storage would, by itself, save thousands of lives.

Seth quoted approvingly in some post a bedside pistol safe that released the weapon quickly upon tapping in a 4 digit security code, giving people plenty of time to gun down an evil intruder...

Oops, that was my drunken nephew. Never mind...

[FBM]

It has already happened in a number of other western nations...

List, please. I'm assuming these countries were democracies? Otherwise, that'd be like comparing apples to oranges again, and we've already been through that.

[mozg]

It has already happened in a number of other western nations. Admittedly, those other nations did not quite have a population so strongly emotionally bonded to firearms. However, I refuse to admit that nothing can be done.

As I said before, a beginning could be a law making all firearms childproof. This is so obviously sensible that I really cannot see why even American gun lovers could object.

Tell me how you make them 'childproof'.

Be very specific.

[/quote]Stage 2 would be a law requiring police approved safes to store guns in, when kept at home. This is also enormously sensible, though I know the most extreme gun lovers would not be happy about it. But secure storage would, by itself, save thousands of lives.[/quote]

What evidence do you have that a law requiring keeping guns in a safe would save 'thousands of lives' as you claim? California and Massachusetts have these laws already, and can't demonstrate any type of causal link between these laws and a lower rate of violent crime, homicide, and suicide.

If you could actually prove that the restrictions you want to place on lawful firearm owners are both effective and necessary, you might get some support. Right now though all you're doing is making suppositions that involve infringing upon my rights and not affecting criminals at all.

[amused]

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/11/30/cbs- ... y-gunfire/

Shots ring out as someone opens fire on a Dallas office building, and a window belonging to NewsRadio 1080 KRLD is hit.

The bullets went through the outside panes of glass on two floors of the 12-story CBS Radio building off Central Expressway at Fitzhugh Avenue.

tl;dr - Texas gun nut attacks freedom of the press.

I say we round them all up and apply thumb screws until they talk.