• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can we talk civilly about guns?

RF667799

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
12,299
Reaction score
10,529
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm fully aware of that report and the various criticisms of the methodology (which were utter crap). A better estimate (with more reliable reporting data) is that there are about 50,000/ year - or nearly equivalence with illegal use of a firearm. But your point is accepted - threatening use of a gun can be effective, I've done it myself. Your assertion, however,

is utter nonsense, and statistically false. Were it true, the level of crime in non-gun-obsessed societies would be astronomical. In fact, the opposite is true. Indeed, statistically, there is a high correlation between generalized firearm possession and murder rates, both in country by country comparisons, and state by state comparisons.

I don't know what fantasy world you draw your information from, but it's not the real one. I prefer discussions based on facts than conjecture.

Suicide by firearms has a success rate of 85%. Suicide by other methods 3%. I posted that earlier. A little simple math would give you the answer, but a reasonable estimate would be, more than 30,000/year.

A safer and more prosperous society?

I can't find the firearm possession rate in the "state by state" link you posted. Can you direct me to it?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Our host has pointed out that this isn’t the topic of this thread and I will respect that and drop this line of discussion. Suffice to say that there isn’t a single word you wrote that I agree with. If you like we can continue this discussion elsewhere.
My apology I forgot that americans are kind of prudish. I take it you think a simple expletive is uncivil.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They, not me. I live in a nice, middle class, blue collar kinda neighborhood. We keep tabs on each other.
It does not surprise me that you do. The insistence on trying to create a scenario of needing a gun seems to based on how much they can paint a picture of a violent careless about anyone type of america.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here, I completely disagree, and again, based upon facts, not conjecture. If you think you have sources to disprove my assertions, please provide them. I've worked with professionals in the field, and to a person they have opined that an attempted suicide could have been thwarted if only the victim had not had access to a gun. 85% vs 3% is a pretty profound disparity.

Your statement, "A person wanting to kill themselves will regardless of method." Is mostly untrue.
It is not your sources or what you are saying that I disagree with.

What I disagree with is that the subject matter of guns used for suicide should be an argument on how we deal with suicide not how we deal with guns. I am not even sure if any comparisons have been done but I would not be surprised to find that in countries that do have tighter guns laws than america making a gun to be not first choice. Then the number of suicides that might have been thwarted would be roughly the same. Although you are correct in pointing out that america has a particular problem with guns and suicide any suggestion that regulating guns will help prevent or even make suicide harder is questionable.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is not your sources or what you are saying that I disagree with.

What I disagree with is that the subject matter of guns used for suicide should be an argument on how we deal with suicide not how we deal with guns. I am not even sure if any comparisons have been done but I would not be surprised to find that in countries that do have tighter guns laws than america making a gun to be not first choice. Then the number of suicides that might have been thwarted would be roughly the same. Although you are correct in pointing out that america has a particular problem with guns and suicide any suggestion that regulating guns will help prevent or even make suicide harder is questionable.
Your post made me curious, so I did some research. The United States has a relatively high suicide rate, not in the top 10, but well above average. Among developed countries it is even higher, but not at the top. Among the G20, only South Korea and Russia exceed the US suicide rate... but significantly.

Unless you isolate suicide by firearm. Then the US lags only Greenland. "In 2016, firearm suicides in the United States represented 35.3% (95% UI, 29.1%-40.3%) of global firearm suicides; in that year, 4.3% of the global population was in the United States."

Unfortunately, the data I can find so far doesn't answer the question, and can only be suggestive.
 

Real Korimyr #9

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
20,073
Reaction score
16,122
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Both violating a Constitutional right and doing nothing about an ongoing series of terrorist incidents are extremist political positions... the problem is, both political parties have a vested interest in excluding that middle. Using dead children as a way to dunk on their political opponents is more important to them-- absolutely 'both sides'-- than protecting living children.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
9,742
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
My apology I forgot that americans are kind of prudish. I take it you think a simple expletive is uncivil.
prudish? lol. You really don't me. It off topic. you want an expletive laden discussion on firearms we can have it in another topic.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,619
Reaction score
51,867
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The myriad factors that create those conditions are all worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, devoid of context, the statement is almost meaningless. Did you know that most guns used in gun crimes in Chicago come from Indiana? That goes to my previous post. Local gun laws, while demonstrably effective, are undermined by neighbouring state laxity.

Yes, I am aware. However given the 400 million guns currently in circulation, even strict laws in neighboring states would be unlikely to change anything.


Sadly, the rest of that post is devoid of substance, barely relevant to the topic, and needn't be commented on further.

In your opinion, which is clearly biased, and also wrong. What I said is HIGHLY relevant to any PRACTICAL discussion of the matter, unless you just want to keep to ivory-tower theory. I have to classify this dismissal of relevant facts and conditions as a mere ploy to avoid talking about things you don't wish you talk about.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
80,482
Reaction score
35,311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Your post made me curious, so I did some research. The United States has a relatively high suicide rate, not in the top 10, but well above average. Among developed countries it is even higher, but not at the top. Among the G20, only South Korea and Russia exceed the US suicide rate... but significantly.

Unless you isolate suicide by firearm. Then the US lags only Greenland. "In 2016, firearm suicides in the United States represented 35.3% (95% UI, 29.1%-40.3%) of global firearm suicides; in that year, 4.3% of the global population was in the United States."

Unfortunately, the data I can find so far doesn't answer the question, and can only be suggestive.
What we learned from Australia, New Zealand, England, Japan, etc, is that gun bans do not prevent suicide. The logical fallacy is that since more men commit suicide by firearm than woman and since firearms ares used regularly for suicide, then taking away firearms will prevent people from killing themselves.

In England, the firearm ban had no impact...they just switched to hanging themselves. In Japan they poison themselves, jump off buldings, or step in front of trains. Suicidal people find a way to kill themselves.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
80,482
Reaction score
35,311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The myriad factors that create those conditions are all worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, devoid of context, the statement is almost meaningless. Did you know that most guns used in gun crimes in Chicago come from Indiana? That goes to my previous post. Local gun laws, while demonstrably effective, are undermined by neighbouring state laxity.

Sadly, the rest of that post is devoid of substance, barely relevant to the topic, and needn't be commented on further.
Thats not an altogether surprising fact. Purchasing a gun was oppressive for EVERYONE in Chicago.Purchasing a gun in Indiana is lawful. However...purchasing a firearm in Indiana for use of a crime AND purchasing a firearm with the intent to provide the means of committing a crime to others is also a crime. Since we have a pretty good history of who is providing firearms for criminals in Chicago, the answer is simple...pass mandatory minimum sentencing laws for criminals and charge those that provide them with firearms as accessories and with the same sentencing enhancements.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Your post made me curious, so I did some research. The United States has a relatively high suicide rate, not in the top 10, but well above average. Among developed countries it is even higher, but not at the top. Among the G20, only South Korea and Russia exceed the US suicide rate... but significantly.

Unless you isolate suicide by firearm. Then the US lags only Greenland. "In 2016, firearm suicides in the United States represented 35.3% (95% UI, 29.1%-40.3%) of global firearm suicides; in that year, 4.3% of the global population was in the United States."

Unfortunately, the data I can find so far doesn't answer the question, and can only be suggestive.
The only way to be sure would be to find the state that has the highest suicides and then ban guns in that state and watch to see what happens to the suicide rate. There may however be an ethical issue with this idea.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
prudish? lol. You really don't me. It off topic. you want an expletive laden discussion on firearms we can have it in another topic.
I politely suggest your just looking for a way out. There is not one good reason you can give me for being offended.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
9,742
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I politely suggest your just looking for a way out. There is not one good reason you can give me for being offended.
where did i say i was offended? hint: i didn't. what i said was that this line of discussion was off topic and since the OP pointed it out it is inappropriate to continue this discussion here. i suggest you reread what i wrote.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
where did i say i was offended? hint: i didn't. what i said was that this line of discussion was off topic and since the OP pointed it out it is inappropriate to continue this discussion here. i suggest you reread what i wrote.
This line may be of topic but the post you claim offends was not, off topic or offensive. You make an excuse not to reply by going off topic and now still trying to dodge with an excuse that you went off topic. Not particularly worried , you painted yourself into a corner.

Your post reveals a real flaw in american society. That you have forgotten how to be a community.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The only way to be sure would be to find the state that has the highest suicides and then ban guns in that state and watch to see what happens to the suicide rate. There may however be an ethical issue with this idea.
I disagree. It is(was) perfectly possible to demonstrate, through statistical analysis, correlations such as this. It's a central methodology of social science. I just haven't done it personally. But I'll acknowledge that eliminating extraneous variables is extremely difficult. That is the nature of complex systems.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, I am aware. However given the 400 million guns currently in circulation, even strict laws in neighboring states would be unlikely to change anything.
You're just wrong on this point, but I'm going to post later today a more thorough analysis. The argument, however, is a classic "begging of the question". There are(were) many ways of addressing both the ubiquity of firearms in circulation, and the restriction of the interstate transportation of firearms.

Unfortunately, I have other priorities today that may keep me from getting to it soon.
In your opinion, which is clearly biased, and also wrong. What I said is HIGHLY relevant to any PRACTICAL discussion of the matter, unless you just want to keep to ivory-tower theory. I have to classify this dismissal of relevant facts and conditions as a mere ploy to avoid talking about things you don't wish you talk about.
In this thread. Relevant to this thread.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
9,742
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This line may be of topic but the post you claim offends was not, off topic or offensive. You make an excuse not to reply by going off topic and now still trying to dodge with an excuse that you went off topic. Not particularly worried , you painted yourself into a corner.

Your post reveals a real flaw in american society. That you have forgotten how to be a community.
Jeez why is this so goddamned hard.

A. I never used the word offend or offensive.

B. I never said we were off topic the OP did and under the rules of this forum he has every right to do so.

C. Because the OP said it's off topic we're supposed to stop - THOSE ARE THE RULES OF THIS FORUM (at least as i understand them).

Jesus H Christ what about this are you not getting?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I disagree. It is(was) perfectly possible to demonstrate, through statistical analysis, correlations such as this. It's a central methodology of social science. I just haven't done it personally. But I'll acknowledge that eliminating extraneous variables is extremely difficult. That is the nature of complex systems.
Yes, the part in bold is true. But another part of the social sciences is testing the results of that methodology against the real world.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,619
Reaction score
51,867
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You're just wrong on this point, but I'm going to post later today a more thorough analysis. The argument, however, is a classic "begging of the question". There are(were) many ways of addressing both the ubiquity of firearms in circulation, and the restriction of the interstate transportation of firearms.

Unfortunately, I have other priorities today that may keep me from getting to it soon.

In this thread. Relevant to this thread.


So you get to frame the discussion in the terms you want, controlling what is or isn't "relevant" to you, in order to push the discussion in the direction you want it to go?

Doesn't work like that. Even in this forum, you don't get to exclude facts you find inconvenient.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, the part in bold is true. But another part of the social sciences is testing the results of that methodology against the real world.
Through statistics and comparables, not by double-blind studies. That's kinda the whole point.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
13,594
Reaction score
3,381
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Jeez why is this so goddamned hard.

A. I never used the word offend or offensive.

B. I never said we were off topic the OP did and under the rules of this forum he has every right to do so.

C. Because the OP said it's off topic we're supposed to stop - THOSE ARE THE RULES OF THIS FORUM (at least as i understand them).

Jesus H Christ what about this are you not getting?
No, I used the word offensive so as to explain why you are looking for an excuse to get out. I thought that was clear.

The OP has said nothing to me. Were you communicated with by post or ouija board?

The post of mine was on topic. You went off topic with what so far I can only assume must be an excuse.

Right now I am not getting any message from the OP. So I am curious about yours.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So you get to frame the discussion in the terms you want, controlling what is or isn't "relevant" to you, in order to push the discussion in the direction you want it to go?

Doesn't work like that. Even in this forum, you don't get to exclude facts you find inconvenient.
Clearly define the topic of your thread, and stay within the realm of a threads stated topic.
Minor thread drift is normal and occurs in all threads. However, when a threads topic is clearly laid out the conversation should stay primarily about that topic, with only small divergence to other connected issues. If major thread drift occurs report it and focus your own posts on the topic rather than engaging the individual about their potential drifting.

I'm intending to comply with this rule. As I've noted, it's not my role to police it, I am merely following the guidelines. I'm not excluding facts that are inconvenient. I'm ignoring points that are not within the scope of the topic. I've been very clear about that.
 

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
14,748
Reaction score
9,133
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
When I started this thread, I stated its purpose: "What I'd like to have is a rational, cool, polite discussion about firearms: what they are, what they do, and their place in modern society." Although I'd like a broad discussion, I explicitly did not intend it to be just another rehash of the Second Amendment. I'll participate in those discussions as appropriate in those threads.

People tend in such discussions to start with their conclusion and end any effort at civil discourse by simply declaring they're right (even if they aren't by disagreeing with me...;)). I do not want this thread to become that. I acknowledge that the legal debate exists on that Amendment's meaning and scope.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
16,825
Reaction score
9,742
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, I used the word offensive so as to explain why you are looking for an excuse to get out. I thought that was clear.

The OP has said nothing to me. Were you communicated with by post or ouija board?

The post of mine was on topic. You went off topic with what so far I can only assume must be an excuse.

Right now I am not getting any message from the OP. So I am curious about yours.
The OP said it to me in replying to a post of mine.

discussion over.
 
Top Bottom