Why all the suicides if everything is going so well in Murica?

[SumJongGuy]

2,800,000 people die each year...23,000 of those are suicide by gun. Or .8% of them.

Tobacco on the other hand... Kills 450,000 a year or 16%...

Which legislation do you think would be easier to pass anti-tobacco or anti-gun?

Ya but whattabout!

Look at all the anti tobacco PR going on. Look at all the places you can't smoke but CAN take a gun. Tobacco isn't a weapon or a reliable way for highly intoxicated people to decide to kill themselves while not having the mental facilities to make a rational decision. Can you imagine the outrage if bullets were taxed at the same rate as cigarettes?

[mtngirl79]

2,800,000 people die each year...23,000 of those are suicide by gun. Or .8% of them.

Tobacco on the other hand... Kills 450,000 a year or 16%...

Which legislation do you think would be easier to pass anti-tobacco or anti-gun?

Remove all the people who are over 70 from your numbers. It's much different when the elderly pass away than middle aged or younger people dying tragically and unexpectedly.

[Bobby Stainless]

It's much different when the elderly pass away than middle aged or younger people dying tragically and unexpectedly.

[goldengatestinx]

Not exactly, but close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/59977...lence-research
Most research is funded either by the federal govt--in the case of trauma by the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control -- or by companies with a vested interest in a product. With the CDC banned from spending money on gun research and no companies with an interest in showing that guns are bad, the only research being done--at least until the Dickey Amendment was reversed this last April--was funded by grants from NGO's and the like. Now of course if the NRA and the gun makers (the two are the same thing actually) thought that research would show guns are good* they would have funded the research themselves. The fact that they didn't is proof that they know that guns are bad*. So it's not SJW's and bleeding heart liberals telling you guns are bad. It's the gun lobby itself, by stifling research its knows will turn out against them. QED

*guns are good means availability of guns decreases injury and death by allowing people to protect themselves. Guns are bad means that the availability of guns increases injury and death. So

The Dickey amendment didn't ban study if violence using firearms. It banned the CDC from advocating for or promoting gun control.

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control."[1]

The fact that the CDC chose to not study the topic is on them.

[wooley12]

What I heard.

I'm not a doctor, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express. .

[wyeaster]

The fact that the CDC chose to not study the topic is on them.

that's not very honest or realistic is it.
...

However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”


At the time APA advocated in support of firearm-related injury research, and APA released the following statement when the Dickey amendment was adopted:
Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.

A report released in January 2013 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (PDF, 2MB), founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget.

https://www.apa.org/science/about/ps...-violence.aspx

[wyeaster]

Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times
published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.”

[iceman]

that's not very honest or realistic is it.

He's so full of shit it's coming out his ears.

[goldengatestinx]

that's not very honest or realistic is it.
...

However, Congress also took $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget — the amount the CDC had invested in firearm injury research the previous year — and earmarked the funds for prevention of traumatic brain injury. Dr. Kellerman stated in a December 2012 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up.”


At the time APA advocated in support of firearm-related injury research, and APA released the following statement when the Dickey amendment was adopted:
Research on the prevention of firearm-related injury, supported by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and coordinated within CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), has come under attack from Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee initially rejected Rep. Dickey's attempt to eliminate the $2.6 million dedicated to CDC firearm-injury research. However, Mr. Dickey prevailed in the full Appropriations Committee. The Dickey amendment would transfer the $2.6 million to regional health education centers. This research has attracted a powerful and wealthy opponent — the NRA. The NRA has taken the position that firearm-related injury research at the CDC amounts to 'antigun' political advocacy and has also attacked the quality of this research. However, research proposals submitted to CDC are subject to a peer review process that follows standard practices. APA's Public Policy Office (PPO) has distributed accurate information to Congress on the nature of CDC-supported firearm-injury research and is advocating against the Dickey amendment.

A report released in January 2013 by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (PDF, 2MB), founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, found that since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget.

https://www.apa.org/science/about/ps...-violence.aspx

The CDC has a budget of billions and chose to not study something certain people feel is important. Choices have consequences. CDC staff are cowards and hypocrites.

[old goat]

The CDC has a budget of billions and chose to not study something certain people feel is important. Choices have consequences. CDC staff are cowards and hypocrites.

The Dickey amendment reads: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Now of course, the CDC could have continued research as long as the research didn't show that guns are bad, but Dickey, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers lobby knew that that the research would show guns are bad and that that conclusion would be read as advocating for gun control. Congress reauthorized the ban in 2011. The CDC is bound by law to spend money as directed by Congress. Those who chose not to defy the ban are not cowards and hypocrites; they are following a law. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the funding of the CDC and prevent it from funding the research that saves thousands of lives in many different ways. I realize that for many in the current administration the law is considered as something to evade but that is not true for the scientists of the CDC.

The idea that the Dickey Amendment didn't really ban funding gun research by the CDC is a recent trope by the right. Certainly at the time the amendment was enacted it was understood as a ban by both the right and everyone else. However, now that the power of the gun lobby seems finally to be weakening suddenly the right is spouting the nonsense--parroted by GGS, who is incapable of independent thought--that the ban isn't a ban and that the research wasn't done because the CDC is made up of "cowards and hypocrites". It's a lot like the Republicans who are suddenly in favor of expanded health care, after they see that the tide is turning against them on that issue.

I would look to the incoming House to add funding to the CDC budget for gun violence research. Let's see if it makes it through the Senate. My guess that the NRA's bought and paid for Republican Senators won't pass it, but little by little the NRA is growing weaker and the handwriting is on the wall--sooner or later this country will have a rational gun policy, and crybabies like you will have to crawl back under your rocks, without your precious guns to protect you from . . . . nothing.

[AKPogue]

The Dickey amendment reads: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Now of course, the CDC could have continued research as long as the research didn't show that guns are bad, but Dickey, the NRA, and the gun manufacturers lobby knew that that the research would show guns are bad and that that conclusion would be read as advocating for gun control. Congress reauthorized the ban in 2011. The CDC is bound by law to spend money as directed by Congress. Those who chose not to defy the ban are not cowards and hypocrites; they are following a law. To do otherwise is to jeopardize the funding of the CDC and prevent it from funding the research that saves thousands of lives in many different ways. I realize that for many in the current administration the law is considered as something to evade but that is not true for the scientists of the CDC.

The idea that the Dickey Amendment didn't really ban funding gun research by the CDC is a recent trope by the right. Certainly at the time the amendment was enacted it was understood as a ban by both the right and everyone else. However, now that the power of the gun lobby seems finally to be weakening suddenly the right is spouting the nonsense--parroted by GGS, who is incapable of independent thought--that the ban isn't a ban and that the research wasn't done because the CDC is made up of "cowards and hypocrites". It's a lot like the Republicans who are suddenly in favor of expanded health care, after they see that the tide is turning against them on that issue.

I would look to the incoming House to add funding to the CDC budget for gun violence research. Let's see if it makes it through the Senate. My guess that the NRA's bought and paid for Republican Senators won't pass it, but little by little the NRA is growing weaker and the handwriting is on the wall--sooner or later this country will have a rational gun policy, and crybabies like you will have to crawl back under your rocks, without your precious guns to protect you from . . . . nothing.

You must be a shitty doctor. One that treats the symptoms rather than find out the cause. I find it ironic you think we should have a rational policy on gun control when doctors kill way more people than guns.

[Bobby Stainless]

the handwriting is on the wall--sooner or later this country will have a rational gun policy, and crybabies like you will have to crawl back under your rocks, without your precious guns to protect you from . . . . nothing.

Meanwhile gun laws in my state have become more lax. Lol.

Great post. Would read again.

[Bobby Stainless]

without your precious guns to protect you from . . . . nothing.

How can there be LOADS of gun violence, yet no need for protection from said violence?

Can't have it both ways.

[old goat]

You must be a shitty doctor. One that treats the symptoms rather than find out the cause. I find it ironic you think we should have a rational policy on gun control when doctors kill way more people than guns.

My advice to you is to avoid both doctors and guns.

[muted]

You must be a shitty doctor. One that treats the symptoms rather than find out the cause. I find it ironic you think we should have a rational policy on gun control when doctors kill way more people than guns.

I hope this late post of yours signals yer drunk and not thinking straight. 'Cause yer statement comparing doctors and guns is a bit embarrassing, ha.

[ill-advised strategy]

RIP to incredibly funny comedian Brody Stevens, aka Arizona State University pitcher Steve Brody.

!!! ¡¡¡

[SkiBall]

I haven't been staying up on my comics in recent years. I totally whiffed on Brody. Didn't really know of him until now. A unique talent in the comedic world. RIP

[tbssux]

I haven't been staying up on my comics in recent years. I totally whiffed on Brody. Didn't really know of him until now. A unique talent in the comedic world. RIP

Two things. His series "Enjoy it" was incredible if you like raw and emotional and uncomfortable comedy.
http://www.cc.com/shows/brody-stevens--enjoy-it-

His tweet from three days ago was "ready to get back on the festival circuit". It's so hard to do imagine the ups and downs he must have gone through in his life (his series gives you a glimpse).

[SkiBall]

Thanks. I will check it out.

Other people are fighting battles you will never understand, suicide being one of the more serious ones on the list. I try to keep that in mind when I come across someone that is angry, confused, etc. Many battles being waged on this site alone. Some get put out there and discussed, but so many more that we have no idea about.

[AK47bp]

I have felt the overall economy for many Americans has gone to shit in the last 10 years, while the "Official Numbers" are massaged to send a very different message. So if things are so great and never better, than why does it seem like so many people are killing themselves?

Attachment 238282

The rate of suicide deaths has been rising across the U.S. since at least 1999, according to new data released Thursday. But in some states, the increases are staggering.

In North Dakota, the suicide rate increased by almost 58 percent from 1999 to 2016, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of the 25 states where the suicide rate increase by more than 30 percent, the most noticeable rises occurred in western states. Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas and Wyoming all saw increases from 38 to 58 percent. In the east, Vermont, New Hampshire and South Carolina saw dramatic spikes as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ine&yptr=yahoo

I didn’t realize things were so great and “never better” in America.

Things were probably pretty good in 1491.

The 90’s seemed pretty good too.

[BCMtnHound]

^^Thanks for that.
Now I need to search for the whole discussion.

[Tele 'til You're Smelly]

good NPR story on this- lack of well-paying jobs for non-college educated. Note the chart- other countries not suffering from this https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ths-of-despair

[glademaster]

Other people are fighting battles you will never understand, suicide being one of the more serious ones on the list. I try to keep that in mind when I come across someone that is angry, confused, etc. Many battles being waged on this site alone. Some get put out there and discussed, but so many more that we have no idea about.

This is wise advice, and very fucking true.

[SumJongGuy]

Thanks. I will check it out.

Other people are fighting battles you will never understand, suicide being one of the more serious ones on the list. I try to keep that in mind when I come across someone that is angry, confused, etc. Many battles being waged on this site alone. Some get put out there and discussed, but so many more that we have no idea about.