Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

Immersiveunreality said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Over the years America has had multiple mass shootings, gun violence, police shootings and gang shootings over narcotics and disputing territory are common in the US.
The gun lobby, NRA, Republicans oppose gun control laws regardless of what happens on the streets.

Small countries like Australia, New Zealand have implemented gun control laws that have been effective because the countries have small populations and manageable and there is no bill of rights that gives people the right to bear arms.

There were a number of factors that lead to the introduction of gun laws in Australia. Bikie gang shootings, serial killer Ivan Milat killing 7 victims and the tipping point was Martin Bryant's mass shooting of 35 victims in 1996, forced the Australian government to introduce gun control laws. An Australia born mass shooter in New Zealand, earlier this year has forced the NZ government to implement tight gun control laws.

It has been a God given right for Americans to own guns for 240 years and it is in the bill of rights of the American Constitution. Republicans, NRA, gun lobbyists are not going to allow any changes to the American Constitution.

There is not much Americans can do to change anything in the US because the Republicans, gun lobbyists, strong conservative media ensures that nothing changes. Americans have a great fear of Socialism/Communism and propaganda is spread to ensure that people vote for no changes and America stays the same. Only 50 to 60% of the American adults vote in Presidential elections ensures that nothing ever changes in America.

First bolded:But America has states that can behave as "small countries"

Second bolded:Alrighty, let me put my knights armor on and go on a crusade in the next village as it is my God given right as a european!

Send the Spanish inquisition against those Calvinist infidels! They'd never expect it!

Just to point out that the constitution says "weapon", not "gun". So in theory, nukes would be fair game, as would chemical weapons.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:

jason1637 said:

1. Guns are not the reason people want to commit sucide.

No one said that they were.  

jason1637 said:

1.If you take away the guns their emotions that make them want to end their lives are still there and since most suicides are not done with firearms these people would just find another way to commit suicides.

The two counterpoints:

-Guns are used so often because they are fast and reliable.  So people are more likely to use them.

-Guns are reliable.  Basically if people are more likely to use other methods, it is more likely they can be saved.  

jason1637 said:

If we take the UK for an example. In 1996/1997 they passed some gun control laws but sucide rate the following years had increased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_Kingdom (you can see the chart when you click on the suicide rates thing under statistics). And Japan si another example of a country with strict gun laws and a high suicide rates. Guns are just one means people use to commit suicide. Take that away people will just find other ways.

One example doesn't make for a trend.  The number of suicides per year can fluctuate due to all kinds of reasons.  

Besides that, pointing to one example of gun control doesn't mean much, because not all gun controls laws are equal.  

jason1637 said:

2. You claimed that "Often it is because there either was a firearm present or they believed a firearm to be present." and I've never seen evidence of this that's why I asked for a source. The source you provided does not say anything about this.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/8/13/17938170/us-police-shootings-gun-violence-homicides

"One explanation for the disparity is that murder and gun violence are more common in the US, putting police in more situations in which the use of force is necessary"

"The research bears this out: More guns lead to more gun violence. And for police in particular, one study in the American Journal of Public Health found that every 10 percent increase in firearm ownership correlated with 10 additional officers killed at the state level over a 15-year period."

jason1637 said:

3. There will always be accidents for a lot of things. That's just people being careless. The primary focus of gun control laws are to prevent violent gun crimes so adding accidents to the equation isnt fair because they will still happen.

There is always a way to prevent carelessness.  

That could mean designing safer guns (that could be impossible for children to use), requiring higher standards for guns being locked up (that could mean requiring police to check houses to see how guns are stored), requiring some kind of training.  

jason1637 said:

4. The guy wanted to show that the issue of gun control is not as big as the media and some politicians make it to be. Yeah some of his evidence was a bit misleading because he said himself that he was not able to find full info and had to use info form past years. But even with more accurate stats you provided earlier the gun problem is not as big as the media makes it out to be,

How big does an issue need to be, to be worth the attention?  

1. The point I was making was that since Guns don't make people want to comitt sucide taking them alway does not solve that issue. Yeah guns are reliable but there are other reliable ways people can commit suicide. I used the example of the UK gun control to show that gun control does not necessarily lead to lower sucide rates.

2. That's an interesting correlation. But still does not prove that those killed were doing anything wrong. If a police officer shot someone who had a gun but the person shot wasnt doing anything criminal then the issue is that the officers lack training not that the victim had a gun.

3. Lock up laws are in some parts of the country but I agree that they should be nationwide. But letting cops search peoples homes would be a nightmare.

4.I'm not saying that it isn't worth attention just that the amount of attention it gets by the media should eb given to bigger issues that affect more people.



jason1637 said:

1. The point I was making was that since Guns don't make people want to comitt sucide taking them alway does not solve that issue. Yeah guns are reliable but there are other reliable ways people can commit suicide. I used the example of the UK gun control to show that gun control does not necessarily lead to lower sucide rates.

You are making several assumptions here that cannot be assumed with the given information. You assume that all individuals who attempt suicide with a firearm would attempt suicide without the firearm around and you assume that all individuals who do attempt suicide would use a method which is equally reliable.

Yes, there are methods that are equally reliable, however with these other methods you also have to ask how physically available and how psychologically available they are. Jumping out of a plane may be fairly reliable, but it tends to be physically unavailable. On the other hand, something like slitting your wrists would be something that would be considered highly psychologically unavailable because of the pain and emotional difficultly involved.

While an individual could likely find a way to commit suicide, it is unreasonable to assume that those who commit suicide with guns would still attempt suicide at a 100% rate, and that those who still attempt suicide would use a manner with as high of a success rate at a 100% rate.

To illustrate this point, the Washington Post did some math which applied typical methods to suicide attempts to the United States to determine how suicide rates would change if fewer attempts were performed with firearms. This math does not account for a possible decrease in attempts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Overall, by changing how individuals attempt suicide, the overall suicide rate could decline 20-38%. That is a very substantial figure (and again, it doesn't account for a likely decrease in attempts).

A similar correlative effect is seen when comparing states by household firearm ownership:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext

Overall, with a 10% increase in household firearm ownership, youth suicide increases by about 26%.

This same trend has been reproduced in multiple studies. The following study examined the relation between firearm ownership and suicides at a city level instead of a state level:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/21/e1/e116.short

Again, the same trend was observed, with higher rates of firearm ownership being strongly associated with higher suicide rates.

Further studies introduced questions about firearm storage and strictness of gun control regulations into the above picture and again, found similar trends:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12243

Availability of guns and gun readiness were associated with increases in suicide rates, while stricter gun regulations decreased suicide rates.

And here is an article which looks specifically at Handgun Purchase Delay regulations and again finds that it has an effect on suicide rates:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/128/616/3117/5251684

Overall, purchase delay laws alone were found to reduce firearm suicide rates by 2-5% with no associated increase in non-firearm suicides. Obviously, there are numerous things that can be done beyond this which would stack to further reduce suicide rates, but this is just one example.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Gun control does not work. Gun parts can be imported. Criminals still get their guns and we have 3D printers that allow anyone to make guns that are untraceable.

Gun control does work... Australia has proven it, the evidence is overwhelming, it shouldn't even be up for debate anymore.

The fact that guns can still be smuggled in, printed and abused by those in positions of power doesn't discredit the effectiveness gun control has had on Australia or other nations that have implemented Gun Control.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

There are billions of guns in the USA and there is no way gun control laws work in a large country.

Sure there are, it will just be a larger logistical effort than other nations.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Corrupt police officers and custom officers can get guns through because a good pile of cash to turn a blind eye is appealing.

Then they need better and stricter border policies, that's not the fault of Gun Control.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

It is an Americans right to bear arms to defend his/her property.

Sure. But what you forget is that Gun Control doesn't actually remove your right to bear arms anyway, making this argument extremely redundant.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

Guns allow for the death of people far quicker, easier and conveniently than other methods which tend to be more confrontational.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

The NRA, Gun lobbyists, the Republicans and the majority of Americans oppose gun control laws.

And? Who cares? Plenty of people are supportive of gun control laws.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Good guys with guns will stop the bad guys with guns. More guns for good guys is needed to stop the bad guys with guns.

Not always. Sometimes the good guys get killed first.
Sometimes the good guys fuck up and kill other good guys.
Sometimes the good guys fuck up and leave their weapon of choice unsecured which can sometimes result in the death of a curious child, or stolen by someone with malicious intent.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Only Leftist/Socialist push gun control laws that can never be implemented in a  large country like USA, Russia or Germany, corrupt officials, public backlash and the growth of a black market of illegal arms dealers.

Fake news. Gun control was implemented by a right-wing government in Australia and has generally had bipartisan support ever since, it's only from the far-far-right or left political parties/loonies that oppose it.

Gun Control isn't leftist/socialist.

I find it hilarious when someone states that a nation that can land a man on the moon cannot implement Gun control, do you have any idea how silly your claim is?

Dark_Lord_2008 said:

Small countries like Australia, New Zealand have implemented gun control laws that have been effective because the countries have small populations and manageable and there is no bill of rights that gives people the right to bear arms.

The size of a country has nothing to do with it.
The bill of rights has nothing to do with it.

The right to bear arms isn't being destroyed, it's a false fear-campaign from the uneducated about gun control, you do NOT loose access to guns, you can still own guns in Australia and New Zealand and other nations.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:


It has been a God given right for Americans to own guns for 240 years and it is in the bill of rights of the American Constitution. Republicans, NRA, gun lobbyists are not going to allow any changes to the American Constitution.

No changes needed to the American Constitution.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
There is not much Americans can do to change anything in the US because the Republicans, gun lobbyists, strong conservative media ensures that nothing changes. Americans have a great fear of Socialism/Communism and propaganda is spread to ensure that people vote for no changes and America stays the same. Only 50 to 60% of the American adults vote in Presidential elections ensures that nothing ever changes in America.

Maybe Americans might just stop supporting politicians who are getting paid off by lobbyists/lobby groups?



sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1. The point I was making was that since Guns don't make people want to comitt sucide taking them alway does not solve that issue. Yeah guns are reliable but there are other reliable ways people can commit suicide. I used the example of the UK gun control to show that gun control does not necessarily lead to lower sucide rates.

You are making several assumptions here that cannot be assumed with the given information. You assume that all individuals who attempt suicide with a firearm would attempt suicide without the firearm around and you assume that all individuals who do attempt suicide would use a method which is equally reliable.

Yes, there are methods that are equally reliable, however with these other methods you also have to ask how physically available and how psychologically available they are. Jumping out of a plane may be fairly reliable, but it tends to be physically unavailable. On the other hand, something like slitting your wrists would be something that would be considered highly psychologically unavailable because of the pain and emotional difficultly involved.

While an individual could likely find a way to commit suicide, it is unreasonable to assume that those who commit suicide with guns would still attempt suicide at a 100% rate, and that those who still attempt suicide would use a manner with as high of a success rate at a 100% rate.

To illustrate this point, the Washington Post did some math which applied typical methods to suicide attempts to the United States to determine how suicide rates would change if fewer attempts were performed with firearms. This math does not account for a possible decrease in attempts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Overall, by changing how individuals attempt suicide, the overall suicide rate could decline 20-38%. That is a very substantial figure (and again, it doesn't account for a likely decrease in attempts).

A similar correlative effect is seen when comparing states by household firearm ownership:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext

Overall, with a 10% increase in household firearm ownership, youth suicide increases by about 26%.

This same trend has been reproduced in multiple studies. The following study examined the relation between firearm ownership and suicides at a city level instead of a state level:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/21/e1/e116.short

Again, the same trend was observed, with higher rates of firearm ownership being strongly associated with higher suicide rates.

Further studies introduced questions about firearm storage and strictness of gun control regulations into the above picture and again, found similar trends:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12243

Availability of guns and gun readiness were associated with increases in suicide rates, while stricter gun regulations decreased suicide rates.

And here is an article which looks specifically at Handgun Purchase Delay regulations and again finds that it has an effect on suicide rates:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/128/616/3117/5251684

Overall, purchase delay laws alone were found to reduce firearm suicide rates by 2-5% with no associated increase in non-firearm suicides. Obviously, there are numerous things that can be done beyond this which would stack to further reduce suicide rates, but this is just one example.

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.



Around the Network
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

You are making several assumptions here that cannot be assumed with the given information. You assume that all individuals who attempt suicide with a firearm would attempt suicide without the firearm around and you assume that all individuals who do attempt suicide would use a method which is equally reliable.

Yes, there are methods that are equally reliable, however with these other methods you also have to ask how physically available and how psychologically available they are. Jumping out of a plane may be fairly reliable, but it tends to be physically unavailable. On the other hand, something like slitting your wrists would be something that would be considered highly psychologically unavailable because of the pain and emotional difficultly involved.

While an individual could likely find a way to commit suicide, it is unreasonable to assume that those who commit suicide with guns would still attempt suicide at a 100% rate, and that those who still attempt suicide would use a manner with as high of a success rate at a 100% rate.

To illustrate this point, the Washington Post did some math which applied typical methods to suicide attempts to the United States to determine how suicide rates would change if fewer attempts were performed with firearms. This math does not account for a possible decrease in attempts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Overall, by changing how individuals attempt suicide, the overall suicide rate could decline 20-38%. That is a very substantial figure (and again, it doesn't account for a likely decrease in attempts).

A similar correlative effect is seen when comparing states by household firearm ownership:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext

Overall, with a 10% increase in household firearm ownership, youth suicide increases by about 26%.

This same trend has been reproduced in multiple studies. The following study examined the relation between firearm ownership and suicides at a city level instead of a state level:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/21/e1/e116.short

Again, the same trend was observed, with higher rates of firearm ownership being strongly associated with higher suicide rates.

Further studies introduced questions about firearm storage and strictness of gun control regulations into the above picture and again, found similar trends:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12243

Availability of guns and gun readiness were associated with increases in suicide rates, while stricter gun regulations decreased suicide rates.

And here is an article which looks specifically at Handgun Purchase Delay regulations and again finds that it has an effect on suicide rates:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/128/616/3117/5251684

Overall, purchase delay laws alone were found to reduce firearm suicide rates by 2-5% with no associated increase in non-firearm suicides. Obviously, there are numerous things that can be done beyond this which would stack to further reduce suicide rates, but this is just one example.

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.

1) The WaPo article does explain how they got their numbers.

2) Yes, the other methods that they discussed in the article do have lower lethality rates.

3) Yes, one study accounts for youths. Others account for the general population. This is a non-point.

4) If you can't access one article, feel free to look at any of the dozens of others which point out the exact same thing.

Again, feel free to actually post a rebuttal instead of just saying "Yeah, but I don't believe it". It wasn't a good argument the first time and it isn't a good argument now...

As for the trend in the UK which you pointed out, there are far too many additional variables to be able to make a conclusion from just that information alone. When additional variables are accounted for (such as in the studies I posted), that trend doesn't hold up. To say that suicide rates can be high in countries with low gun ownership is irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that the suicide rate would not be higher if gun ownership were higher (which I'm betting you can't).



Suicide is the only option for some people that are sick of living or just sick.
Euthanasia should be legalised world wide now!
If you are not happy in life and never going to achieve what you want in life, death is the best option!
Self improvement does not work and is a waste of time, suicide is the better option.
I am on suicide forums, I tell them to man up and just end it.
Do not be scared life is all over for you, life only gets worse over time.
It is not easy taking that final step and going through with it.
So many people are all talk and never follow through with ending it.




sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.

1) The WaPo article does explain how they got their numbers.

2) Yes, the other methods that they discussed in the article do have lower lethality rates.

3) Yes, one study accounts for youths. Others account for the general population. This is a non-point.

4) If you can't access one article, feel free to look at any of the dozens of others which point out the exact same thing.

Again, feel free to actually post a rebuttal instead of just saying "Yeah, but I don't believe it". It wasn't a good argument the first time and it isn't a good argument now...

As for the trend in the UK which you pointed out, there are far too many additional variables to be able to make a conclusion from just that information alone. When additional variables are accounted for (such as in the studies I posted), that trend doesn't hold up. To say that suicide rates can be high in countries with low gun ownership is irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that the suicide rate would not be higher if gun ownership were higher (which I'm betting you can't).

1/2. No they don't. "Fifty percent of Americans who commit suicide do so with a gun. In our hypothetical, we assume that figure is just 9 percent — the average level of those four other Western countries. We then assumed the remaining 41 percent would try to commit suicide by other methods, such as suffocation or poisoning. Because none of these methods is as lethal as a gun, fewer people would succeed at committing suicide than if they used firearms. Of course, in reality, it’s possible some people in this 41 percent would not attempt suicide otherwise; we assume they all do to keep our estimate conservative."

The 9% makes sense since they just averaged other western countries but the 41 percent number is totally random.

As for lethality the report fails to adress the different type of guns used and what area of the body si shot. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods This is a list of the most lethal methods. Shotgun shot to the head is #1 but shotguns are by far the least common method used to comitt sucide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1350343/pdf/amjph00246-0074.pdf. The use of Cyanide and a general shot the head would come in second. But getting hit by a train and using explosives come pretty close. The report failed to address these methods too.

3/4. The study that accounts for youth fails to take into account accidents. The generla population study I can't read unless i pay a fee but i'm not gonna do that.

I have looked some up and what i've found is that stricter gun laws reduce suicides by firearms. That's pretty obvious but I have yet to find anything about general suicide rates.

I have provided a rebuttal. If you take away the guns you're just taking away one of the many tools available. The emotions that lead someone to commit sucide is still there. Here is an article that explains why you can't properly relate gun ownership to suide because we we don't know who has guns or not since there's no gun registry or gun purchase documentation.

https://mises.org/wire/more-evidence-guns-dont-cause-suicide

Ther is also another study that shows that stricter gun laws don't show overall decrease in risk of suicide rates in a population.https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/9



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Suicide is the only option for some people that are sick of living or just sick.
Euthanasia should be legalised world wide now!

How progressively left-wing of you.

But yes. It should be legalized world-wide, there are conservatives/powerful religious organizations which tend to be the major road block to achieving this though, but just like Same-Sex marriage, it is only a matter of time before it's legalization occurs.

And as someone who worked in the health sector... This would be life-changing not just for the sufferers, but for family and friends who are often obligated to go along for the journey...

Sometimes the suffering can last decades, when if it was any other living creature... Euthanasia would certainly be an option.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
If you are not happy in life and never going to achieve what you want in life, death is the best option!
Self improvement does not work and is a waste of time, suicide is the better option.

Bullshit.
Self-Improvement does work, it doesn't work for you because you don't think it can.

In short, it's your own damn fault.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
I am on suicide forums, I tell them to man up and just end it.

Wow... Words can't describe of how low I think this is... And is so very wrong.
I think you should vacate such outlets for their well-being, they need support and you are bringing them down.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Do not be scared life is all over for you, life only gets worse over time.
It is not easy taking that final step and going through with it.
So many people are all talk and never follow through with ending it.

Euthanasia isn't about just killing yourself just-because, it's because you cannot deal with the extent of pain... That is physical pain, not emotional pain.
There are steps to be taken for emotional pain.

In future Dark_Lord, it would be nice if you would bother to engage other users on this forum rather than post something controversial and then not address counter-posts only to post something just as controversial later that is often almost a completely different topic, this is a forum, people engage each other on forums.



Suicides and killing sprees could be limited enforcing serious psychiatric tests to concede not only weapon carry licences, but also for the sole weapon possession. Without denying either of them to sane people (or even most neurotic, but not psychotic ones). But while this is considered totally reasonable by even the majority of the most weapon enthusiasts outside of USA, it makes US ones go nuts and scream about fundamental rights at the mere thought.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!