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

[k2skier112]

So 2nd hand smoke killing 3 times more than gun violence doesnt count?

The truth is this is about one side winning and the other losing. Has nothing to do with saving more humans on our already overpopulated rock.



It's about doing something that might actually make a difference as opposed to beating a dead horse.

As I said before this has nothing to do with saving human life. Its a political battle.

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

jesus fuck me, this is why i dont engage with stoopid anymore


pew pew pew, yippie yi ya cowboy!

[SumJongGuy]

Somehow I've managed to own a gun for more than half my life and not kill myself or anyone else. I've been heavily involved in competition shooting. Been around hunting and guns since I was a kid. I never liked hunting though. I prefer fishing.

You are pandering to the TGR crowd while also owning firearms yourself. Take a stand for something... Be a man.

A man leaves his toys at home. It's children that have to have toys with them everywhere they go. Again just like cigarettes..

[sb]

[Bobby Stainless]

A man leaves his toys at home. It's children that have to have toys with them everywhere they go. Again just like cigarettes..

I dont think guns are toys. They are tools meant for killing.

[tbssux]

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

jesus fuck me, this is why i dont engage with stoopid anymore


pew pew pew, yippie yi ya cowboy!

Sadly, I don't think this will get through to our pal Bobby. He kinda gets a little aggro sometimes (see: this thread).

[old goat]

So there was no research done into gun violence for 20+ years?

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

[wyeaster]

The official topic of the House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on April 30, 1996, was the CDC’s budget. But everyone knew the real focus was the agency’s study of gun violence.
The CDC had just started to think about violence as a disease: If you studied it, you might learn how to prevent it. Little was known about a problem that causes roughly 70,000 injuries and 30,000 deaths a year, many of them suicides and accidents.
In 1993, a rigorous CDC-funded studyin the New England Journal of Science found that firearms kept at home greatly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or close acquaintance, rather than offering self-protection.

That finding fired up the opposition. Gun violence is a criminal justice problem, not a public health one, they argued. The NRA in particular accused the CDC of being overtly anti-gun.
The NRA urged its congressional allies to target the CDC’s funding: the $2.6 million spent annually on gun-violence research. And Dickey proudly led the charge.

That’s how Rosenberg, director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, ended up sitting at the subcommittee witness table on that day in April.
He and Dickey had been sparring in the press for months.
Now, they sat in the same room for the first time.
Dickey dug right in, asking why the CDC seemed to align itself with gun-control groups.
Rosenberg said it was just trying to spread the word about the gun-violence problem.
“The problem you’re talking about is gun-related activities?” Dickey said, according to transcripts. “Is that what you’re saying the problem is?”
“No,” Rosenberg countered. The center focuses on violence. “I think it is so important for us to remember that the problem is the problem. It is the problem of premature deaths of our young people that we’re trying to focus on.”


“Can you stop violence? You can’t stop violence unless you stop people from committing it, can you? How can you stop violence by attacking the gun?”
“We’re not trying to attack the gun, sir,” Rosenberg said. “We’re trying to understand the problem. . . . And absolutely yes, we can prevent violence.”

A clear message

Rosenberg left the hearing room in disbelief.
“He truly felt the CDC was trying to take people’s guns away,” Rosenberg recalled.
The Republican-led Congress soon stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget. More importantly, tucked inside the next federal spending bill was a provision that would change the trajectory of the nation’s gun debate — what became known as the Jay Dickey Amendment.
Rosenberg can still recall the words by heart: No funds for the CDC injury center “may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

In one sense, he found it ridiculous. Scientists follow data. They don’t push policies. But he also recognized the implied threat.
“It was really a shot fired across the bow: If any of you researchers do this research or bureaucrats even think about doing it, we are going to harass you,” Rosenberg said.
At first, Rosenberg tried to spot a loophole in the Dickey Amendment.
He had the support of his boss, David Satcher. But Satcher left in 1998, on his way to becoming U.S. surgeon general. Rosenberg’s new boss seemed less interested. A year later, Rosenberg said, he was fired.
“The message was: This is too hot to handle.”
The CDC has never returned to funding firearm studies. The agency held firm even when President Obama ordered itto get back to researching “the causes of gun violence” in early 2013, shortly after a gunman killed 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Private funding has not absorbed the slack, either, scientists say. No one, it seems, wants to pick a fight over guns.
“It’s evident this has had a chilling effect,” said Arthur Kel­lermann, who as a researcher at Emory University co-authored the 1993 study of firearms kept at home.
Kellermann moved on from the gun debate. Today, he is dean of the medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. But he said he recognizes what’s been lost.
“There’s been so little science on this topic in the last 20 years that there’s no new information to keep the public engaged,” he said.
People seem to have forgotten why the research is important.
“This isn’t about guns,” he said. “This is about preventing tragedies.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.64891377f78f

[tbssux]

Old Goat, wyeaster...please move it to a gun thread or get a room or something.
This is the suicide thread (and lately the BS flameout thread).

[Bobby Stainless]

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Just admit that you want to ban guns and saving lives is not really the goal. Why is that so hard?

"I am scared of guns and don't want them available to the public."

Old Goat, wyeaster...please move it to a gun thread or get a room or something.
This is the suicide thread (and lately the BS flameout thread).

Its also a fat joke, pot laws, carry laws, fabrication thread and a thread about rising health care costs. Keep up Masters Degree.

if they do you seem to be suggesting they have a further right to do it with a gun.

Shouldn't people have the right to a painless suicide?

You also never answered if you think people have the right to kill themselves. I think so.

[wyeaster]

i can't answer all the dim questions, streatkred. i just got back from donating plasma.

[Bobby Stainless]

Lets say we hypothetically agree that adults have the right to off themselves. If you take away the most efficient means possible are you really doing anyone any good?

Leaving them to "sucking on a tailpipe" as tbssux so eloquently put it. That's akin to the coat hanger abortion.

[SumJongGuy]

I dont think guns are toys. They are tools meant for killing.

Only when there is a predetermined job to be done. Unless you're on your way to kill someone they are just toys to play with (the range) or jewelry to look cool and feel better about yourself. Self esteem is definitely a factor in suicide.

I agree that we should keep the discussion around guns limited to the elevated risk of suicide, successful suicide guns pose.

Or, we shouldn't talk about guns or reducing access to them for unstable people because.. what about cancer... LOL

[k2skier112]

Just admit that you want to ban guns and saving lives is not really the goal. Why is that so hard?

"I am scared of guns and don't want them available to the public."



Its also a fat joke, pot laws, carry laws, fabrication thread and a thread about rising health care costs. Keep up Masters Degree.



Shouldn't people have the right to a painless suicide?

You also never answered if you think people have the right to kill themselves. I think so.

You ignorant fucking cunt!

I have guns, was shooting at the age 10.

No civilian needs military style weapons

ALL gun owners need a license and a mandatory training

I'm done talking guns with a fucking moron

[Bobby Stainless]

You ignorant fucking cunt!

I have guns, was shooting at the age 10.

No civilian needs military style weapons

ALL gun owners need a license and a mandatory training

I'm done talking guns with a fucking moron

Strange the debate never gets anywhere. Lol.

Handguns do the lions share of the killing not military style weapons (I imagine you mean AR15). You ban those and you've done fuck all for gun violence.

Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before talking to a "moron".

BTW: I started shooting before you. I have a license. I have had many hours of training.

[wyeaster]

Lets say we hypothetically agree that adults have the right to off themselves. If you take away the most efficient means possible are you really doing anyone any good?

Leaving them to "sucking on a tailpipe" as tbssux so eloquently put it. That's akin to the coat hanger abortion.

this is pure unadulterated streatkred

[wyeaster]

Strange the debate never gets anywhere. Lol.

Handguns do the lions share of the killing not military style weapons (I imagine you mean AR15). You ban those and you've done fuck all for gun violence.

Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before talking to a "moron".

yeah gosh streatkred i wonder if the 20+ years of the nra and the government suppressing research has anything to do with brainiacs saying the debate doesn't get anywhere!

[Bobby Stainless]

this is pure unadulterated streatkred

Why can't you answer the question? Typical Spook.

has anything to do with brainiacs saying the debate doesn't get anywhere!

Name calling is always the mature route in a debate. You know that most of all.

Only when there is a predetermined job to be done. Unless you're on your way to kill someone they are just toys to play with (the range) or jewelry to look cool and feel better about yourself.

That might describe your gun ownership but that's pretty narrow minded stereotyping for everyone else. It's easier to to that I guess.

[wyeaster]

you don't debate, streatkred. you can't even read the report you said is "fabricating" stats. you make ridiculous statements and post memes. your function is entertainment, not learning.

[SumJongGuy]

There is an argument that suicide is not gun violence. It was a death caused by a gun, but ultimately the person had a choice in the matter.

Would a gun be considered the most efficient way to off ones self? I would think so.

I got to discover a suicide by gun once. It was a mess.

So you think it's your inherent right to leave a mess like that for someone else, like for your wife and kids?? And thus, you think it's your wife or kid's inherent right to leave a mess like that for you as well?

[Bobby Stainless]

you don't debate, streatkred. you can't even read the report you said is "fabricating" stats. you make ridiculous statements and post memes. your function is entertainment, not learning.

Didn't answer the question. Dancing Spook.

So you think it's your inherent right to leave a mess like that for someone else, like for your wife and kids?? And thus, you think it's your wife or kid's inherent right to leave a mess like that for you as well?

Finding dead bodies is part of the rental business. Usually its older people that die of natural causes. It happens.

Shooting oneself in the chest with a shotgun is a bit over the top.

Who are you to tell another adult they can't kill themselves? Trying to put a subjective spin on it doesn't change anything.

[old goat]

Lets say we hypothetically agree that adults have the right to off themselves. If you take away the most efficient means possible are you really doing anyone any good?

Leaving them to "sucking on a tailpipe" as tbssux so eloquently put it. That's akin to the coat hanger abortion.

If you need suggestions on how to off yourself painlessly, efficiently, and without leaving a mess, I'd be happy to provide them.

[Bobby Stainless]

If you need suggestions on how to off yourself painlessly, efficiently, and without leaving a mess, I'd be happy to provide them.

I'm good man. Not something I think about. That would be SumJongGuy that has a plan...

Ill put you in the coat hanger crowd with Spook though.

[wyeaster]

Didn't answer the question. Dancing Spook.

i don't answer all the questions 8-11 year olds ask either.

[Bobby Stainless]

i don't answer all the questions 8-11 year olds ask either.

Dancing Spook. That's because you can't. You've back yourself into a corner.

Tell me something. If we save all these people... What's going to happen to the animals???

[SumJongGuy]

Shooting oneself in the chest with a shotgun is a bit over the top.

Who are you to tell another adult they can't kill themselves? Trying to put a subjective spin on it doesn't change anything.

I would definitely try to talk them out of it. Even all but the worst case scenario, i.e. hospice last days or full blown dementia, is more useful to their family and friends alive than dead. My faith prevents me from not trying to help people who are that depressed and believe that suicide is the only solution to their problems when it probably isn't. Super easy access to guns, especially for addicts or teens raging on puberty swings, is a dangerous environmental condition which I believe should be avoided. If the person is not 100% lucid in their ability to reason and analyze their situation objectively they shouldn't have easy access to the tools that make that permanent wrong decision so easy to make.