Surge in gun deaths in states relaxing their gun laws.

[rahl]

Firearms are far more dangerous than motor vehicles and a bigger social problem.

Proven false. As motor vehicles kill or injur 30x more people.

Sorry you have trouble with reality.

I’m pounding your position into the pavement with reality

 

[RF667799]

Firearms are far more dangerous than motor vehicles and a bigger social problem. Sorry you have trouble with reality.

Sorry you have an opinion that leads you to irrational conclusions.

 

[jaeger19]

We were talking about violent crime in general. But we can focus on suicides if you want.

1.​

Study: Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway (2002), "Household firearm ownership and suicide rates in the United States"

• Published in: Epidemiology
• Finding: States with higher rates of gun ownership have significantly higher firearm suicide rates, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, and mental illness rates.
• Conclusion: Firearms in the home substantially increase the risk of suicide.

2.​

Study: Brent et al. (1991), "The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicide victims"
Published in: JAMA

• Finding: Adolescents who died by suicide were significantly more likely to have lived in homes with firearms, despite similar rates of depression and suicidal thoughts compared to controls.
• Conclusion: The lethality of firearms—not a greater propensity to attempt—is the key variable.

---

3.​

Study: Webster et al. (2004), "Association between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides"

• Published in: JAMA
• Finding: States with stricter child access prevention laws had significantly lower suicide rates among youth.
• Conclusion: Legal restrictions on firearm access save lives.

---

4.​

Study: Chapman et al. (2006), "Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: Faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and mass shootings"

• Published in: Injury Prevention
• Finding: After Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearm suicides fell significantly. There was no evidence of method substitution (i.e., people did not just switch to other means).
• Conclusion: Stronger gun laws reduced overall suicide deaths by removing access to a lethal method.

---

5.​

Study: Kellermann et al. (1992), "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership"

• Published in: New England Journal of Medicine
• Finding: People living in homes with firearms were nearly 5 times more likely to die by suicide than those without guns.
• Conclusion: Keeping a gun in the home is a major risk factor.

---

Mechanism: Why does gun access increase suicide?​

• Suicidal crises are often impulsive and brief.
• Firearms are the most lethal method (case fatality rate >85%), while most other methods are far less likely to result in death.
• People who survive suicide attempts often do not go on to die by suicide, so means restriction can save lives.

---

Yeah already dealt with this.
Your studies are outdated when it comes to suicide. And thus thei conclusions are faulty.

As the article I cited shows suicide completers are very different from suicide attempters .
So this “ but those that try suicide and fail rarely try suicide again?

Doesn’t have the meaning they think it does.
Because suicide attempters generally don’t use very lethal means like firearms even when available.
So taking firearms from them ? Meh.
Second . If they aren’t going to try again? Why does taking a firearm away work then ?
As they said, it’s unlikely to happen again anyway.
See the disconnect there?

As far as being impulsive ?
New studies ( which I cited) show that especially for suicide completers , rarely is suicide “ impulsive” but involves a plan and more often the time to write a note.

Means restriction of the general population clearly doesn’t work.
If it did ? S. Korea and Japan would have among the lowest suicide rates in the world. But they don’t.

I am sorry but you simply cannot get around the best evidence.

The best evidence is that instead of taking firearms from people who don’t have suicide ideation . The best way to prevent suicide is to get people better access to the mental health they need before they become suicidal.
Tgat prevents suicide regardless of method.

 

[jaeger19]

Sure. That's why observational studies undergo statistical analysis on their data to tease out the causative weight of all the different variables.

Just because people are living longer, but also eating more fat and salt, does not mean fat and salt are good for you.


Sure. There are all sorts of variables involved. Different ones are at work in different countries and locations. But that’s what these studies are designed to do: tease out, isolate, and study each variable independently.

But theses studies don’t. Which is why they don’t find that there is a CAUSAL relationship with firearms and murder etc.
and that makes sense given that there is no physiological mechanism between a firearm and its user that causes that user to murder when they normally wouldn’t.
Alcohol however does.

When you look at these studies that show “ higher chance of violence in a home with a firearm”.
The study also finds that these homes also have higher rates of violence WITHOUT a firearm as well.

Which means that the group of people without firearms in the study were statistically different than the control group.

Which makes sense as there is selection bias in the these studies.

Here’s why.

Let’s say that you had 100 people in a group and you had 3 people in the group that were violent criminal types.

If you put all 100 in a room and said everyone can choose one firearm to take with them if they want ,

40 to 60% of the room would choose to get a firearm .

And if you looked at who chose a firearm it would ALWAYS INCLUDE that small minority of criminally minded people.

Then if you studied who was likley to commit crime. Of course the firearm group would have a higher rate of both firearm crime and non firearm crime.

 

[Spock]

Proven false. As motor vehicles kill or injur 30x more people.

I’m pounding your position into the pavement with reality

You have been shown the facts and continue to deny the reality that usage of motor vehicles is far less dangerous than firearm use.

.,..

The best evidence is that instead of taking firearms from people who don’t have suicide ideation . The best way to prevent suicide is to get people better access to the mental health they need before they become suicidal.
Tgat prevents suicide regardless of method.

Do you favor given depressed individuals firearms?

 

[ataraxia]

But theses studies don’t. Which is why they don’t find that there is a CAUSAL relationship with firearms and murder etc.
and that makes sense given that there is no physiological mechanism between a firearm and its user that causes that user to murder when they normally wouldn’t.
Alcohol however does.

When you look at these studies that show “ higher chance of violence in a home with a firearm”.
The study also finds that these homes also have higher rates of violence WITHOUT a firearm as well.

Which means that the group of people without firearms in the study were statistically different than the control group.

Which makes sense as there is selection bias in the these studies.

Here’s why.

Let’s say that you had 100 people in a group and you had 3 people in the group that were violent criminal types.

If you put all 100 in a room and said everyone can choose one firearm to take with them if they want ,

40 to 60% of the room would choose to get a firearm .

And if you looked at who chose a firearm it would ALWAYS INCLUDE that small minority of criminally minded people.

Then if you studied who was likley to commit crime. Of course the firearm group would have a higher rate of both firearm crime and non firearm crime.

You're right to point out that correlation doesn’t automatically imply causation—but high-quality studies on gun violence account for this. Researchers often use matched case-control studies, multivariable regression, and natural experiments to control for confounders like socioeconomic status, criminal history, or neighborhood violence. A landmark example is Australia’s 1996 National Firearms Agreement. After strict gun laws and a buyback program were implemented, firearm homicide and suicide rates dropped dramatically, and there was no evidence of method substitution (i.e., people did not switch to other weapons). These declines were not seen before the reforms, making a causal interpretation much more plausible.
Chapman et al., 2006, Injury Prevention


It’s also true that people who own guns may differ in key ways from those who don’t—but rigorous studies control for this potential selection bias. For instance, Kellermann et al. (1993) conducted a case-control study in which homicide victims were matched to controls from the same neighborhoods with similar socioeconomic characteristics. Even after controlling for these factors, having a gun in the home was associated with a 2.7 times higher risk of being murdered by a family member or acquaintance than in homes without a gun. This is not simply due to more “violent people” choosing guns—the elevated risk persisted even after controlling for criminal history, alcohol use, and domestic violence.
Kellermann et al., 1993, New England Journal of Medicine


The argument that guns don’t have a physiological effect like alcohol is correct—but it misses a more important behavioral point. Guns may not chemically alter your brain, but they change behavior and outcomes by making confrontations far more lethal and escalating the potential for harm. Decades of psychological research show a reliable “weapons effect”: the presence of a gun increases aggressive behavior, even in otherwise nonviolent individuals. In experiments, participants exposed to guns (versus neutral objects) responded with significantly more hostility and aggression. This is a behavioral pathway for causation, even if it’s not physiological like alcohol.
[Berkowitz & LePage, 1967, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]
[Anderson et al., 1998, meta-analysis in Aggressive Behavior]


Real-world policy experiments in the U.S. further support a causal relationship between gun access and violence. For example, when Connecticut implemented a permit-to-purchase law in 1995, firearm homicides declined by an estimated 40%. By contrast, when Missouri repealed a similar law in 2007, firearm homicides increased by 25%. These kinds of before-and-after comparisons, using synthetic control groups, strengthen the argument that access to firearms plays a causal role in shaping homicide rates—not just a coincidental one.
[Rudolph et al., 2015, American Journal of Public Health]
[Webster et al., 2013, JAMA Internal Medicine]

 

[rahl]

You have been shown the facts and continue to deny the reality that usage of motor vehicles is far less dangerous than firearm use.

Proven false. 30x more people killed and injured via motor vehicles.

Do you favor given depressed individuals firearms?

What does this have to do with you being proven wrong regarding motor vehicles and firearms?

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah already dealt with this.
Your studies are outdated when it comes to suicide. And thus thei conclusions are faulty.

As the article I cited shows suicide completers are very different from suicide attempters .
So this “ but those that try suicide and fail rarely try suicide again?

Doesn’t have the meaning they think it does.
Because suicide attempters generally don’t use very lethal means like firearms even when available.
So taking firearms from them ? Meh.
Second . If they aren’t going to try again? Why does taking a firearm away work then ?
As they said, it’s unlikely to happen again anyway.
See the disconnect there?

As far as being impulsive ?
New studies ( which I cited) show that especially for suicide completers , rarely is suicide “ impulsive” but involves a plan and more often the time to write a note.

Means restriction of the general population clearly doesn’t work.
If it did ? S. Korea and Japan would have among the lowest suicide rates in the world. But they don’t.

I am sorry but you simply cannot get around the best evidence.

The best evidence is that instead of taking firearms from people who don’t have suicide ideation . The best way to prevent suicide is to get people better access to the mental health they need before they become suicidal.
Tgat prevents suicide regardless of method.

While it's true that suicide completers often differ from attempters, this doesn't invalidate the evidence showing that access to lethal means—especially firearms—significantly increases the likelihood that a suicide attempt will result in death. Firearms are by far the most lethal commonly available method: over 85–90% of firearm suicide attempts result in death, compared to less than 5% for pills or cutting. Because most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide, removing access to the most lethal means—especially during moments of crisis—saves lives. The point is not that attempters and completers are identical, but that delaying or interrupting an attempt dramatically reduces the risk of death, especially when the most lethal tools are not within reach.
Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine
Harvard School of Public Health: Means Matter


On the question of impulsivity, recent studies actually reinforce the importance of firearm access. Many suicide completions do involve planning, but that does not mean they are long-standing, carefully deliberated events. Research shows that the time between deciding to die by suicide and acting on it can be astonishingly short—often under an hour. In one study, 24% acted within 5 minutes of the decision. Even people who plan may do so impulsively in response to acute emotional distress. The ability to carry out that plan swiftly and lethally is precisely what makes firearms so dangerous in suicidal crises.
Deisenhammer et al., 2009, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry


The argument that “means restriction doesn’t work” because countries like Japan and South Korea have high suicide rates despite tight gun control is misleading. Yes, they have relatively high suicide rates, but those rates would likely be even higher if firearms were widely available. Cultural and societal factors—such as work stress, stigma around mental illness, and social isolation—also play a massive role. Importantly, when Japan and South Korea implemented restrictions on other means, such as pesticides or charcoal-burning, suicide rates did drop. Means matter, regardless of the method.
Yip et al., 2012, The Lancet
Gunnell et al., 2007, BMJ


Finally, of course mental health care access is essential—everyone agrees on that. But it’s a false dichotomy to say we must choose between improving mental health and regulating access to lethal means. The best evidence shows that comprehensive suicide prevention requires both: mental health care and limiting access to deadly tools during high-risk periods. In fact, firearm suicide rates are significantly lower in U.S. states with waiting periods, safe storage laws, and background checks—even after adjusting for mental health prevalence.
Anestis et al., 2017, American Journal of Public Health
Swanson et al., 2016, Law and Contemporary Problems

 

[jaeger19]

You have been shown the facts and continue to deny the reality that usage of motor vehicles is far less dangerous than firearm use.

Hmm there are approximately .085 cars per person the us .
While approximately 1.9 firearms per person in the us .

Clearly the injury rate with firearms is far and away lower than vehicles .

Do you favor given depressed individuals firearms?

I favor given depressed individuals treatment rather than your solution of taking firearms from people without mental health issues .

 

[Spock]

Cool, please specify where it was incorrect. The numbers and ratio are there.

Previously explained, but your comprehension seems deficient, so I will explain again.
Firearms are used one at a time; multiple firearms in storage do not reflect the actual danger of usage;
Review post #441 for a more through calculation.

"You think" wrong, as usual

Do you deny that you consider firearms a net benefit to American society and that you attempt to disparage any efforts to reduce firearm violence?

 

[Spock]

Hmm there are approximately .085 cars per person the us .
While approximately 1.9 firearms per person in the us .

Clearly the injury rate with firearms is far and away lower than vehicles .

Better check your numbers.
All firearms are not used daily or yearly
400 billion auto uses per year.
How many firearm uses occur yearly? (hint: firearms in storage are not used)

I favor given depressed individuals treatment rather than your solution of taking firearms from people without mental health issues .

You have no objection to giving a loaded firearm to a person expressing self-harm intent?

 

[Lursa]

Previously explained, but your comprehension seems deficient, so I will explain again.
Firearms are used one at a time; multiple firearms in storage do not reflect the actual danger of usage;
Review post #441 for a more through calculation.

Do you deny that you consider firearms a net benefit to American society and that you attempt to disparage any efforts to reduce firearm violence?

Go back and read post 50. Also I even gave examples where more than one firearm is used in another. In any case. Go back to post 50 and address it directly, not with some distilled version where you remove context and that doesnt address what I wrote. The fact that you wont shows that you cant.

 

[RF667799]

Better check your numbers.
All firearms are not used daily or yearly
400 billion auto uses per year.
How many firearm uses occur yearly? (hint: firearms in storage are not used)

Then those firearms are not a hazard, by your reckoning. Yet we've also been told they're a hazard by virtue of their existence.

One thing that makes arguing with gun control zealots fun, is the sheer lunacy of some of their arguments. I think there really is irrational fear at the bottom of some of these.

You have no objection to giving a loaded firearm to a person expressing self-harm intent?

You have no objection to giving a slip knotted rope to a person expressing self-harm intent?

 

[RF667799]

Previously explained, but your comprehension seems deficient, so I will explain again.
Firearms are used one at a time; multiple firearms in storage do not reflect the actual danger of usage;
Review post #441 for a more through calculation.

Do you deny that you consider firearms a net benefit to American society and that you attempt to disparage any efforts to reduce firearm violence?

So how many firearms are in use at one time?

And yes, I consider private firearm ownership to be a net benefit.

 

[Spock]

Go back and read post 50. Also I even gave examples where more than one firearm is used in another. In any case. Go back to post 50 and address it directly, not with some distilled version where you remove context and that doesnt address what I wrote. The fact that you wont shows that you cant.

I have addressed it. Your anecdotal two gun nonsense is not worth further comment. Clearly the dimensions of the firearm violence problem is beyond your ability to understand and you are dedicated to excuses and misrepresentations to undermine any discussion that might enlighten you.

 

[RF667799]

I have addressed it. Your anecdotal two gun nonsense is not worth further comment. Clearly the dimensions of the firearm violence problem is beyond your ability to understand and you are dedicated to excuses and misrepresentations to undermine any discussion that might enlighten you.

A "Nuh-Uh" followed by ad hominem.

How much does the NRA pay you to make the Gun Control Industry look like chumps?

 

[Lursa]

I have addressed it.

Please provide the post number where you did so. Then I'll post mine and yours together and we'll see.

Your anecdotal two gun nonsense is not worth further comment.

You made a false claim and I can cite more than one competitive organization and instances where people do. So your lie is exposed.

Clearly the dimensions of the firearm violence problem is beyond your ability to understand and you are dedicated to excuses and misrepresentations to undermine any discussion that might enlighten you.

"You think" wrong, as usual Your word salad stinks of desperation.

 

[jaeger19]

While it's true that suicide completers often differ from attempters, this doesn't invalidate the evidence showing that

Right but you miss the point here .
A suicide completer is choosing a more lethal means while a suicide attempter is choosing a less lethal means WHEN MORE LETHAL MEANS ARE AVAILABLE.

It’s not a function of availability. It’s a function of choice.
Without firearms in a. Korea ? Suicide completers simple choose another highly lethal means like . Hanging.

Because most people who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide, removing access to the most lethal means—especially during moments of crisis—saves lives.

But those suicide attempters who survive are qualitatively different than those that complete suicide. That’s why they are in part less likley to attempt again.

And of course another major reason that suicide attempters are less likely to try again?
Is because they GET TREATMENT .

The point is not that attempters and completers are identical, but that delaying or interrupting an attempt dramatically reduces the risk of death, especially when the most lethal tools are not within reach.

Sure. But that’s only in the case of when someone has become suicidal.
That’s not the case in removing firearms from people who are not suicidal.
That’s a giant waste of resources that instead should go to improving access to mental health so people don’t develop suicidal ideation and make an attempt regardless of method.

Miller, Azrael, & Hemenway, 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine
Harvard School of Public Health: Means Matter

Well , actually the planning can go on for some time.
That’s why one of the warning signs of an imminent attempt is a patient suddenly becoming better. At that point they have made the decision and have a plan in place and feel at peace.

Research shows that the time between deciding to die by suicide and acting on it can be astonishingly short—often under an hour. In one study, 24% acted within 5 minutes of the decision

1. Again that’s suicide attempters. Who are less likely to use firearms anyway. How do we know? Because they attempted and failed which is how we can ask them.
But we know suicide completers are different .
So assuming that those that choose a firearm are “ just as impulsive” is blatantly wrong.

2. The idea of “ impulsive” as “ acting on it”
After the decision was made?
That implies that they were not having suicide ideation for any time before that and that’s wrong.
Once a decision was made . And perhaps they had been thinking of slicing their arm for days or even weeks , when they decided to do it then they had a knife in their hand quick.
But that’s not REALLY impulsive. That person was having suicide ideation for some time most likley
It’s a bit of an issue in the medical field because the “ impulsivity” of suicide is a nice myth, that absolves medical professionals from liability if a patient commits suicide.

. Even people who plan may do so impulsively in response to acute emotional distress.

And again that planning would involve having a firearm or a rope etc

The argument that “means restriction doesn’t work” because countries like Japan and South Korea have

Not true. This assumption is based on the misdirected belief of the “ impulsivity ” which has been largely disproven.
There is simply no physiological mechanism that a firearm would cause more people to become suicidal.

Cultural and societal factors—such as work stress, stigma around mental illness, and social isolation—also play a massive role.

Exactly. The things that REALLY MATTER.
Clearly s Korea and Japan have spent huge amounts of time and resources on virtually eliminating guns from society and yet suicide rates are exceptionally
As far as it being a false dichotomy? BS. The gun control debate easily overrides any discussion of mental health in this country .
And the billions wasted on gun control could have gone to mental health access and treatment that would have prevented all suicides, not just those with a firearm .

 

[jaeger19]

high.

Importantly, when Japan and
Yip et al., 2012, The Lancet
Gunnell et al., 2007, to Journal of Public Health
Swanson et al., 2016, Law and Contemporary Problems

You need to provide links to these studies as I was not able to find the exact studies with my med search.
I would gather that means restriction worked only with people in a crucial time and not population wide restriction .
In addition , any intervention regarding say reducing access to poisonings would also include education of the public and more awareness of the dangers and thus reduce suicide.

 

[jaeger19]

Better check your numbers.
All firearms are not used daily or yearly

And all vehicles are not used daily or yearly either.

400 billion auto uses per year.
How many firearm uses occur yearly? (hint: firearms in storage are not used)

A crap ton more than that .for firearms.

You have no objection to giving a loaded firearm to a person expressing self-harm intent?

why is your answer to someone who is suicidal is to take away the firearms of a non suicidal person living in another state.

What do you tell a person whose son has died of suicide by hanging? “ aren’t you glad he didn’t use a gun”.

 

[Spock]

And all vehicles are not used daily or yearly either.

There are 400 BILLION motor vehicle uses yearly in the USA.

A crap ton more than that .for firearms.

Nonsense and even you know that is not true.

why is your answer to someone who is suicidal is to take away the firearms of a non suicidal person living in another state.

What do you tell a person whose son has died of suicide by hanging? “ aren’t you glad he didn’t use a gun”.

Explain why even you would not give a loaded firearm to a person with suicidal intent.
For extra credit explain why you would not give a loaded firearm to a young child.
(Don't even try to undermine the questions with some absurd exceptions.)

 

[Spock]

Please provide the post number where you did so. Then I'll post mine and yours together and we'll see.



You made a false claim and I can cite more than one competitive organization and instances where people do. So your lie is exposed.

No going to play your stalling game. I have responded in detail to your claims. You are more interested in obstructing conversation with unreasonable and trivial exceptions than dealing with facts and solid arguments.

Firearms are a risk factor for death and injury in America-- proven.
Firearms, because they are a risk factor, result in more successful suicide attempts.
Firearms are the favored method of homicide in America.
Firearms access is easy in America due to prevalence of private firearms and lack regulation.

 

[RF667799]

No going to play your stalling game. I have responded in detail to your claims. You are more interested in obstructing conversation with unreasonable and trivial exceptions than dealing with facts and solid arguments.

Firearms are a risk factor for death and injury in America-- proven.

Lots of things are.

Firearms, because they are a risk factor, result in more successful suicide attempts.

Lots of things do.

Firearms are the favored method of homicide in America.

If there were no firearms, something else would be "most favored".

Firearms access is easy in America due to prevalence of private firearms and lack regulation.

Easy firearm access is a feature.

 

[Lursa]

No going to play your stalling game. I have responded in detail to your claims.

That's a gross mischaracterization. You've typed a lot of crap...but not directly addressed post 50. Why the need to lie?

Please provide the post number where you did so. Then I'll post mine and yours together and we'll see. Seems simple enough...why wont you do it?

And "You think" wrong, as usual Your word salad stinks of desperation.

 

[Maidenrules29]

the US state department should advise travelers that the USA has very great firearm violence risk.

Well, sure, if those travelers are going to certain areas of certain cities there is more of a risk. They just need to avoid those areas and they will be fine. Any halfway decent travel agent can tell their clients what areas to avoid. Even the Uber driver at the airport can. I may want to visit Chicago soon but I know what part not to visit....