Shooting at Jason Aldean show in Las Vegas, 50+ dead

Help!I'maRock! said:
IMO, the one change we should all be able to agree on, is repealing the law that prevents the CDC from studying gun violence/deaths. The problem is the budget amendment that disallows the CDC from studying gun violence, is reauthorized every year. It was introduced in 1996, during the Clinton Administration. Both Democrats and Republicans are complicit in the dearth of information.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.5530f9594dd2
Click to expand...
I'm not against more data.

The CDC however is not without bias on this issue. There is a reason they were defunded: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/
 
wagdog said:
Pretty sure the gun death stats they reported in the CBS article included suicide with a gun. That's 2/3 of the deaths in the US with a firearm. People in those countries kill themselves at a higher rate than the US.

AFAIK there isn't an official number of people who defend themselves with a firearm. I've seen numbers as low as 100,000 to over 2,000,000. These numbers are estimates because my understanding is there no official source. I suspect many defensive uses go unreported as well.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the chart in the study? One column for homicides and a seperate one for suicides.

I call bullshit on 100k to 2 million people successfully defend themselves per year with a gun. The would increase the homicide total tenfold.
 
wagdog said:
I'm not against more data.

The CDC however is not without bias on this issue. There is a reason they were defunded: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...trol-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/
Click to expand...

I disagree with the Forbes article in a bunch of places. If much gun violence is a result of mental health, and the CDC is allowed to research that particular slice, then having the agency expand the scope of that data seems like the efficient thing to do. However, I'm certainly willing to listen on which agency is the appropriate one to conduct studies on gun violence that have the scope, breadth, and scrutiny our current world demands.
 
Would someone please explain to me why the "Suicide by gun" thing is being beaten into the ground with such emphatic vigor?

Yeah, ok. We get it. Lot's of suicidal people use a gun. Point taken.

Exactly WTF does that have to do with the overall debate, and why is it being used by the very side of the debate that loves to point out that criminals and terrorists will always find a way to commit evil whether they have guns or not? This seems hugely hypocritical at best. Sucidal people will still be suicidal if you take away easy access to guns. It's a moot point.

Then again, who's to say that such easy access to guns doesn't make the suicide rate higher? How many people only go through with that final act BECAUSE they have access to a sure fire, instant death machine?

Hmm, perhaps this isn't water we should be swimming in...
 
OGG said:
Would someone please explain to me why the "Suicide by gun" thing is being beaten into the ground with such emphatic vigor?

Yeah, ok. We get it. Lot's of suicidal people use a gun. Point taken.

Exactly WTF does that have to do with the overall debate, and why is it being used by the very side of the debate that loves to point out that criminals and terrorists will always find a way to commit evil whether they have guns or not? This seems hugely hypocritical at best. Sucidal people will still be suicidal if you take away easy access to guns. It's a moot point.

Then again, who's to say that such easy access to guns doesn't make the suicide rate higher? How many people only go through with that final act BECAUSE they have access to a sure fire, instant death machine?

Hmm, perhaps this isn't water we should be swimming in...
Click to expand...

No joke here. If you give me a gun, I will shoot myself in the head. I don't want to deal with poison or knives or hanging or any kind of pain. My goal is to eliminate pain. A bullet to the temple is the quickest way. I do not own a gun, and if you point one at me, I will tell you to shoot me in the head. Don't fuck around with me. Do it and be done with it. Don't miss. But since I have not acquired a gun, I am still living. This should continue for the foreseeable future. Until then, I will maintain.
 
Chad said:
Did you look at the chart in the study? One column for homicides and a seperate one for suicides.

I call bullshit on 100k to 2 million people successfully defend themselves per year with a gun. The would increase the homicide total tenfold.
Click to expand...
I did, and I'll look again tomorrow when I'm not exhausted.

Defensive gun uses don't always mean someone was shot or even that a shot was fired. The presence of a gun is often enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime. That's another reason actual numbers are hard to come by.
 
OGG said:
Would someone please explain to me why the "Suicide by gun" thing is being beaten into the ground with such emphatic vigor?

Yeah, ok. We get it. Lot's of suicidal people use a gun. Point taken.

Exactly WTF does that have to do with the overall debate, and why is it being used by the very side of the debate that loves to point out that criminals and terrorists will always find a way to commit evil whether they have guns or not? This seems hugely hypocritical at best. Sucidal people will still be suicidal if you take away easy access to guns. It's a moot point.

Then again, who's to say that such easy access to guns doesn't make the suicide rate higher? How many people only go through with that final act BECAUSE they have access to a sure fire, instant death machine?

Hmm, perhaps this isn't water we should be swimming in...
Click to expand...
The reason is suicide by gun is lumped in with the numbers for "gun violence" and often used in pointing out how the US has a gun problem.

It's disingenuous at best and dishonest.

The US has a suicide rate of 12.6 per 100k people and is 48th in the world. Firearms are used in ~50% of the suicides in the US.
 
wagdog said:
You can cause all sorts of havoc with a vehicle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack - 86 dead, more than were killed in this attack, which was a pretty nightmarish scenario.

I would like to see more people take gun safety courses, especially if they're going to carry a weapon. I'd like to think people would voluntarily take a course (or refresher) if it were available. Mandating it is again a slippery slope that I'm not comfortable with.
Click to expand...

Are you against driver training and driving skills tests. Motorcycle training and skills demonstration? Were you trained to do your job, or did they just cut you loose on day one and let you figure it out?

I won't get into any of the other arguments on this topic because honestly I'm split on a lot of them, but demonstrating competency with a weapon and having a basic set of safety skills should be required. I have personally witnessed some incredible feats of mishandling of firearms over the years.
 
wagdog said:
The reason is suicide by gun is lumped in with the numbers for "gun violence" and often used in pointing out how the US has a gun problem.

It's disingenuous at best and dishonest.

The US has a suicide rate of 12.6 per 100k people and is 48th in the world. Firearms are used in ~50% of the suicides in the US.
Click to expand...
It's not even remotely disingenuous or dishonest. As HIAR pointed out in Crystal clear verbage in response to my earlier post, the easy access and the almost certainty that it will be a very quick and painless way out can, and often does make the difference between suicidal thoughts and actual suicide. As morbid as the topic is, far too many people who couldn't for myriad reasons go through with an attempt by other, less immediate or potentially lengthy and painful means will go through with it because they have easy access to a fire arm. That's not hyperbole or conjecture, nor is it dishonest. It's a well established fact.

I'm sitting here writing this as someone who has spent their entire lifetime suffering chronic major depressive disorder and a big goodie bag full of other issues. I'm also only able to do so because I make it a point not to have a gun handy.

I have owned guns. Several of them in fact. There was a time when I thought their presence in my home was a positive thing and that I could theoretically protect myself by having them. Fortunately, I grew up and wised up before having a particularly bad episode, else I'd surely be dead. Fact.

In reality, I'm a textbook example of someone who shouldn't own a gun. However, there is NOTHING stopping me should I ever decide I want to buy more.

The very tragic reality is that each and everyone of us knows at least one person whom we know damn well should never have access to a gun, but there's nothing stopping them either. Think about that. I guarantee you that if you flip through your mental Rolodex, it won't take long before a face pops into your head and you think "yeah... That person probably shouldn't own a gun".
 
wagdog said:
The presence of a gun is often enough of a deterrent to prevent a crime.
Click to expand...
And often the presence of a gun will escalate the situation to bring ot another gun.

If guns defended people, there would be no violence in the USA.

But...gun nuts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tig
OGG said:
It's not even remotely disingenuous or dishonest. As HIAR pointed out in Crystal clear verbage in response to my earlier post, the easy access and the almost certainty that it will be a very quick and painless way out can, and often does make the difference between suicidal thoughts and actual suicide. As morbid as the topic is, far too many people who couldn't for myriad reasons go through with an attempt by other, less immediate or potentially lengthy and painful means will go through with it because they have easy access to a fire arm. That's not hyperbole or conjecture, nor is it dishonest. It's a well established fact.

I'm sitting here writing this as someone who has spent their entire lifetime suffering chronic major depressive disorder and a big goodie bag full of other issues. I'm also only able to do so because I make it a point not to have a gun handy.

I have owned guns. Several of them in fact. There was a time when I thought their presence in my home was a positive thing and that I could theoretically protect myself by having them. Fortunately, I grew up and wised up before having a particularly bad episode, else I'd surely be dead. Fact.

In reality, I'm a textbook example of someone who shouldn't own a gun. However, there is NOTHING stopping me should I ever decide I want to buy more.

The very tragic reality is that each and everyone of us knows at least one person whom we know damn well should never have access to a gun, but there's nothing stopping them either. Think about that. I guarantee you that if you flip through your mental Rolodex, it won't take long before a face pops into your head and you think "yeah... That person probably shouldn't own a gun".
Click to expand...

As the report Chad linked to pointed out: when compared to 22 other high-income countries, we have a LOWER suicide rate, even with easy access to guns.

Yes, I know people who shouldn't own guns but legally do. I've also lost a friend to suicide, with a gun.

You asked why suicide is brought up when we talk about gun deaths: the reason is suicdes are lumped into our "gun problem" discussions, but rarely, if ever is that fact mentioned (certainly not in the headline). People are going to commit suicide with or without access to firearms. The aforementioned report has the numbers to prove that.

The honest question is, "would the number of suicides by gun go down if we didn't have guns?", the answer is obviously yes. Unfortunately that dodges the actual real question, which is "would the number of suicides go down?". Or, if those 22 other countries had more access to guns, would their rate go up?

I'm glad you have a handle on your depression. I also appreciate and admire that you're comfortable sharing a lot of this online.

335clone said:
Are you against driver training and driving skills tests. Motorcycle training and skills demonstration? Were you trained to do your job, or did they just cut you loose on day one and let you figure it out?

I won't get into any of the other arguments on this topic because honestly I'm split on a lot of them, but demonstrating competency with a weapon and having a basic set of safety skills should be required. I have personally witnessed some incredible feats of mishandling of firearms over the years.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not against driver training. I'm on the road daily with other drivers. I don't know the numbers, but I suspect I pass a lot fewer people with guns on a daily basis than people with cars.

Guns are nowhere near as complicated to operate when compared to vehicles. Yes, I've witnessed incredible incompetence from people with firearms; trained people who should have known better. I witness idiots in vehicles on a daily basis. Presumably they are licensed and trained idiots.

Here's a question for you: Since we teach drivers Ed in schools, should we teach firearms safety?
 
smorgdonkey said:
And often the presence of a gun will escalate the situation to bring ot another gun.

If guns defended people, there would be no violence in the USA.

But...gun nuts.
Click to expand...
Source for your first statement?

My feeling (no source) is often one person might have a gun and avoid an altercation because they don't want it to escalate. My statement is about as unprovable as yours.

Do you think everyone in the US walks around with a gun?
 
Firearm safety is better handled by gun retailers as a condition of ownership for adults than as part of the public school system. 15 year olds have enough on their plate in 10th grade with out having to worry about the firing range once a week.
 
VoidTerraFirma said:
Firearm safety is better handled by gun retailers as a condition of ownership for adults than as part of the public school system. 15 year olds have enough on their plate in 10th grade with out having to worry about the firing range once a week.
Click to expand...
I would say that if the firearms situation is as bad as it's made out to be, teaching basic safety to everyone is important enough that it gets done in school. It isn't that large a subject and it doesn't require weekly range trips. As a matter of fact, it doesn't require any range trips.
 
wagdog said:
I would say that if the firearms situation is as bad as it's made out to be, teaching basic safety to everyone is important enough that it gets done in school. It isn't that large a subject and it doesn't require weekly range trips. As a matter of fact, it doesn't require any range trips.
Click to expand...

The firearm situation is bad in that A) war-grade weapons/munitions are widely available leading to repeated instances of mass slaughter and B) firearms trade hands without the slightest pretense of regulation or oversight. Grade school training will address with neither of these. Lawful, responsible ownership of civilian firearms for hunting/sporting/home-defense is not a concern for members of the moderate majority, like myself.

You are now free to continue muddling the discussion.

#fanatics
#bathtubs
#probablynotaconspiracy
 
Chad said:
Did you look at the chart in the study? One column for homicides and a seperate one for suicides.
Click to expand...
Here are the charts. Table 1 is the US, Table 2 are the 22 other countries. Source: http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(15)01030-X/fulltext

table1.JPG
table2.JPG


If you throw out our "firearms homicide", our homicide rate is 1.7 to .6 (nonfirearm to nonfirearm) - about 3 times higher. We're more violent in the US, but we're less suicidal (12.4 to 15).

The CBS article states in it's first line: "Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds."

They are referring to total firearms deaths, including suicide - that is the "fact" that people take from that. By the way, the research DID cherry pick 22 other countries from the list of OECD countries, of which there are 35 (as of 2016), not 22.

Here's the leap this article wants us to make: if we get rid of all the guns in the US, the firearm homicide rate will drop to a statistical 0 and the firearm suicide rate will drop to statistical 0.

I don't buy it.

The homicide rate by other means will go up and the suicide rate by other means will go up. Will they go up as much as much as the dropped? I don't know, and neither does anyone here.
 
I am heavily sceptical of those statistics.

Even if I accepted them at face value, and excluding suicides, the US homicide rate is 6 times higher. And it’s a given that firearms are the leading factor in that.

Edit: ok, having fully read the study and the methodology, I am no longer sceptical. Even so, as I wrote above...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top