Slog Comments
Four Dead, Multiple Injured During California Shooting Spree
5
I don't believe it. This is impossible, as California already has strict gun control, including assault weapons ban and magazines restricted to 10 rounds.
6
Guess Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa is no better than Rahm Emanuel at keeping crazed illegal gun abusers at bay.
7
Yes, I agree that it's all too common to read about the 100 people a year killed in mass shootings. Especially when there are thousands of people being killed by other means.
8
I grew up in Tustin, still have family and friends there, and know those locations very, very well. When I saw this article earlier this morning I held my breath for a moment, worried that someone I knew might have been injured or even killed. Then I saw the times listed and sighed with relief since nobody I know is ever up that early. But someone else's family member or friend was and now they are dead. I should not have to rely on what time people wake up for assurance that people I care about are still alive. Let's get real about gun regulation and let's do it now.
9
@7
In Washington guns kill more people than cars. Whereas there in Colorado, um, well... guns kill more people than cars. So there you go.
In Washington guns kill more people than cars. Whereas there in Colorado, um, well... guns kill more people than cars. So there you go.
11
This is not happening more often, it is just getting reported more due to the lingering effects of the Newtown shooting.
The problem is that only the shooting that involve wealthy, white, or multiple people get reported. As you were typing your post, four young black men were gunned down in our cities. But we will not know their names, and their deaths will not seem like a common news story, just a common event in the city.
The problem is that only the shooting that involve wealthy, white, or multiple people get reported. As you were typing your post, four young black men were gunned down in our cities. But we will not know their names, and their deaths will not seem like a common news story, just a common event in the city.
12
@7: would you like to hear about all firearm deaths, then? or just not hear about firearm deaths?
which ones are OK to report on? was it OK to discuss 20 little kids getting shot at school, but not these run-of-the-mill 4 dead including shooter killings? maybe a few of these boring ones here & there, but not all of them, for christ's sake?
which ones are OK to report on? was it OK to discuss 20 little kids getting shot at school, but not these run-of-the-mill 4 dead including shooter killings? maybe a few of these boring ones here & there, but not all of them, for christ's sake?
15
The media (including The Stranger) is not here to report the news.
They are here to make money selling ads for you to click on. Period.
If they printed EVERY shooting death, people would get bored and stop reading (i.e., stop clicking on ads). They only print the ones that people will react emotionally to, so they'll read more and click on more links.
You guys all know that.
They are here to make money selling ads for you to click on. Period.
If they printed EVERY shooting death, people would get bored and stop reading (i.e., stop clicking on ads). They only print the ones that people will react emotionally to, so they'll read more and click on more links.
You guys all know that.
16
@9,10: Gun deaths are only more frequent in those states if you count suicides, which is kind of a statistical oddity. If you only count person-to-person violence, the numbers are not even close to traffic deaths.
It is hard to say due to the suicide question...is it really fair and accurate to call a suicide by gun "violence," and can we really say for sure whether or not the person would have killed themselves (or not) if there was no gun?
But also, this is not a very good comparison because fewer homes have guns than cars, more people drive than shoot guns, etc. Also, we regulate cars more heavily than guns, we require testing and licensing with cars and not guns, etc.
Bascially, I think it is a crap argument for both sides as it is comparing two things that really can not be compared. Way too much noise and variables in the data.
It is hard to say due to the suicide question...is it really fair and accurate to call a suicide by gun "violence," and can we really say for sure whether or not the person would have killed themselves (or not) if there was no gun?
But also, this is not a very good comparison because fewer homes have guns than cars, more people drive than shoot guns, etc. Also, we regulate cars more heavily than guns, we require testing and licensing with cars and not guns, etc.
Bascially, I think it is a crap argument for both sides as it is comparing two things that really can not be compared. Way too much noise and variables in the data.
17
@1, not the problem doesn't exist, is that the new NRA meme? Not to mention that there was legislation passed so that the ATF can't even report the firearm statistics they collect.
18
@4: That was my first thought, too.... what constitutes a "spree" and can we please find a more appropriately horrific word, please? Massacre works for me.
19
@ 16, given the much greater chance that a suicide attempt by gun will be successful than by nearly any other means, yes, it's relevant, and suicide by gun deaths are part of the picture. Especially in the context of things like background checks, waiting periods, mental health - you know, all the things everyone has talked about since Newtown.
That said, I'm in full agreement that gun deaths can't be compared to things like automobile deaths, because of the design of guns (weapons) vs. the design of cars (transportation). Someone comparing the two might have a legitimate reason to do so if nearly all automotive fatalities were the result of vehicular homicide, but drivers generally do not try to run people over deliberately.
@ 18, spree is a term that's been used by law enforcement and prosecution teams for decades. It means someone on the run, committing a string of crimes at different locales until caught or killed (think Charles Starkweather). It's absolutely an accurate description of what happened here. And I think the prefix "shooting" makes it horrifying enough, personally.
That said, I'm in full agreement that gun deaths can't be compared to things like automobile deaths, because of the design of guns (weapons) vs. the design of cars (transportation). Someone comparing the two might have a legitimate reason to do so if nearly all automotive fatalities were the result of vehicular homicide, but drivers generally do not try to run people over deliberately.
@ 18, spree is a term that's been used by law enforcement and prosecution teams for decades. It means someone on the run, committing a string of crimes at different locales until caught or killed (think Charles Starkweather). It's absolutely an accurate description of what happened here. And I think the prefix "shooting" makes it horrifying enough, personally.
20
Shorter 5280 - all these dead people and kids are worth the sacrifice. Also, guns are exactly like everything else that could be deadly except they're special and shouldn't be regulated for any reason.
21
@16: when a bullet tears through someone's flesh, damaging vital organs beyond repair, or causing all their blood to drain out, that's "violence", whether they shot themselves or not.
are you going to parse out types of auto accident deaths, too? like we can't count pedestrians or bicyclists killed by vehicles, because they weren't IN the vehicle, or we can't count deaths in trucks, because they're not autos?
gun deaths are gun deaths. it's an inclusive category. gun suicides DID NOT use another method. they used a gun. hence, gun death.
why must this statistical comparison vex you so? the point is simply to show that many gun deaths are preventable, by comparing them to another preventable cause of death society has had success at reducing.
are you going to parse out types of auto accident deaths, too? like we can't count pedestrians or bicyclists killed by vehicles, because they weren't IN the vehicle, or we can't count deaths in trucks, because they're not autos?
gun deaths are gun deaths. it's an inclusive category. gun suicides DID NOT use another method. they used a gun. hence, gun death.
why must this statistical comparison vex you so? the point is simply to show that many gun deaths are preventable, by comparing them to another preventable cause of death society has had success at reducing.
22
@12
"would you like to hear about all firearm deaths, then?"
Yes.
And not just the deaths.
Include the shootings where people are just wounded.
Include the shootings where no one was shot.
With as many details as possible.
Who shot at whom with what gun (including magazine size) and why.
Don't act surprised.
I've been posting this for months.
Yet The Stranger will not report on such incidents in Seattle.
But you will read about incidents all over the nation.
"would you like to hear about all firearm deaths, then?"
Yes.
And not just the deaths.
Include the shootings where people are just wounded.
Include the shootings where no one was shot.
With as many details as possible.
Who shot at whom with what gun (including magazine size) and why.
Don't act surprised.
I've been posting this for months.
Yet The Stranger will not report on such incidents in Seattle.
But you will read about incidents all over the nation.
23
@21,
Because the terminology makes the distinction too vague.
It's like saying you want to put fences on the sides of high bridges in order to prevent all the violent deaths that occur there. If you don't say "it's to prevent suicides" or "to prevent jumpers," people would likely wonder what you meant.
Because the terminology makes the distinction too vague.
It's like saying you want to put fences on the sides of high bridges in order to prevent all the violent deaths that occur there. If you don't say "it's to prevent suicides" or "to prevent jumpers," people would likely wonder what you meant.
24
I see two reasons not to include suicide statistics in this discussion.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
2. Suicide-by-gun results in 20,000 deaths a year. But 1,000,000 people attempt suicide a year. So focusing on 20,000 and ignoring the 980,000 shows that the focus is on guns and NOT suicide.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
2. Suicide-by-gun results in 20,000 deaths a year. But 1,000,000 people attempt suicide a year. So focusing on 20,000 and ignoring the 980,000 shows that the focus is on guns and NOT suicide.
25
Canadians need to get rid of rope...too much rope violence:
http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributi…
People who want to suicide, do.
http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributi…
People who want to suicide, do.
26
@16 That's not a bug, it's a feature.
A high school friend of mine had a dad with serious dementia. He had a moment of clarity and shot himself. Nasty for them in the short term.
My dad got rid of all his guns seven years ago. Now he's moderately happy and completely discombobulated, but my mom is miserable and will be for the forseeable future, quite possibly until she is also to old to have any enjoyment from life.
My goal is to follow my friend's dad's example, not mine.
Depressed but otherwise healthy people should not have guns, but I don't condemn all suicides.
A high school friend of mine had a dad with serious dementia. He had a moment of clarity and shot himself. Nasty for them in the short term.
My dad got rid of all his guns seven years ago. Now he's moderately happy and completely discombobulated, but my mom is miserable and will be for the forseeable future, quite possibly until she is also to old to have any enjoyment from life.
My goal is to follow my friend's dad's example, not mine.
Depressed but otherwise healthy people should not have guns, but I don't condemn all suicides.
27
@ 24, I see what you did there, conflating suicide deaths by gun with suicide attempts of ever type. Masterful propagandizing there.
Before so breezily (and illegitimately) dismissing suicides by gunshot, why not tell us a) how many of those other suicide attempts are successful, and b) break down the success rate of suicide attempts by the method? Would that present guns as being no more effective than most other methods? Would it demonstrate that the impulsiveness of some suicides would not have been assisted by the use of guns?
Before so breezily (and illegitimately) dismissing suicides by gunshot, why not tell us a) how many of those other suicide attempts are successful, and b) break down the success rate of suicide attempts by the method? Would that present guns as being no more effective than most other methods? Would it demonstrate that the impulsiveness of some suicides would not have been assisted by the use of guns?
28
@27
"Before so breezily (and illegitimately) dismissing suicides by gunshot, ..."
No one is dismissing it.
As I had pointed out in the section that you skipped:
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
"Before so breezily (and illegitimately) dismissing suicides by gunshot, ..."
No one is dismissing it.
As I had pointed out in the section that you skipped:
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
29
Oops, my comment @26 is supposed to be directed @19, not 16. The Scrawny Kayaker regrets the error.
30
Has anybody's fundamental starting position been altered by all the earnestness/frothing over this subject in this venue these past two months? No? Why are you doing it—just to hone your arguments for other, possibly more constructive, outlets for all the earnestness/frothing?
32
@30: my fundamental view was that sensible firearm reforms might someday reduce the incidence of amoklauf killings &/or suicides, and now i think that many of my fellow citizens are paranoid, belligerent assholes who think they're going to fight off tyranny with their arsenals at some near point in the future, and therefore the 2nd amendment is a dangerous anachronism with no relevance to the modern world.
is that a fundamental shift?
is that a fundamental shift?
33
@9,10,16: You really can't talk about suicide-by-Firearm without looking at all suicides.
@30: Yes.
I know Ph'nglui is fixated on suicide by Firearm, mostly because suicide by Firearm is the only case where you can find any correlation between ownership of firearms and suicide rate (but only if you don't factor in population density - rural people are both more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to have a firearm. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas even in areas which do not have a lot of firearms.) However, why don't we put this in perspective:
Here are the 20 leading causes of death among persons older than 10:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/su…
Suicide is #10 on the list, Homicide is #15. (If you include persons under 10 years old, suicide and homicide get pushed down even more and drowning - swimming pools, buckets of water, tubs..etc becomes much more prominent).
So let's take a look at mechanisms for suicide:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/su…
Males, over 10 years old, predominately use firearms to commit suicide (approximately 56%). 44% of male suicides use some other method.
Females, over 10 years old, predominately use poisoning @ 39%, with firearms at about 30%.
On average, a firearm is used in about 50% of suicides, the type of firearm most used is a handgun, where the capacity is irrelevant. There has not been a single proposal by anyone that will have ANY effect on this. But let's just pretend that we could magically get rid of 50% of suicides, that would be a good thing, right? We have the potential of saving almost 18,000 people per year! (In reality, based on other countries that have banned firearms, the actual reduction is more like 5-10% because people will use other methods, but we're in make believe land right now, which is where most 'gun-control-nuts' are anyway..)
Now, what is the cost for saving, at most, 18,000 people per year and how many people could be saved if whatever that cost is was applied somewhere else? If you look at it more realistically, is that cost worth it to save 3,000 people? Do you really think that you can't get a much better return in other areas?
[Yes, if you magically got rid of all firearms in the country, you might also reduce the homicide rate - no other country in the world, that has gotten rid of firearms, has demonstrably reduced their homicide rate due to banning guns, but we're in fantasy land now, so let's say you reduce the homicide rate by 30%. That is still only another 3-4,000 people, max.]
Realistically, even the most draconian gun laws and a massive seizure/buyback is going to save, at most, 4-5,000 people per year and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge amount of political capital.
Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of things, that would be less expensive and more effective in the long run, to combat firearm violence. But as long as 'gun-control' is about making people feel like they've done something, rather than having an actual impact, we're just going to keep going around in circles.
More...
@30: Yes.
I know Ph'nglui is fixated on suicide by Firearm, mostly because suicide by Firearm is the only case where you can find any correlation between ownership of firearms and suicide rate (but only if you don't factor in population density - rural people are both more likely to commit suicide and are more likely to have a firearm. Suicide rates are higher in rural areas even in areas which do not have a lot of firearms.) However, why don't we put this in perspective:
Here are the 20 leading causes of death among persons older than 10:
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/su…
Suicide is #10 on the list, Homicide is #15. (If you include persons under 10 years old, suicide and homicide get pushed down even more and drowning - swimming pools, buckets of water, tubs..etc becomes much more prominent).
So let's take a look at mechanisms for suicide:
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/su…
Males, over 10 years old, predominately use firearms to commit suicide (approximately 56%). 44% of male suicides use some other method.
Females, over 10 years old, predominately use poisoning @ 39%, with firearms at about 30%.
On average, a firearm is used in about 50% of suicides, the type of firearm most used is a handgun, where the capacity is irrelevant. There has not been a single proposal by anyone that will have ANY effect on this. But let's just pretend that we could magically get rid of 50% of suicides, that would be a good thing, right? We have the potential of saving almost 18,000 people per year! (In reality, based on other countries that have banned firearms, the actual reduction is more like 5-10% because people will use other methods, but we're in make believe land right now, which is where most 'gun-control-nuts' are anyway..)
Now, what is the cost for saving, at most, 18,000 people per year and how many people could be saved if whatever that cost is was applied somewhere else? If you look at it more realistically, is that cost worth it to save 3,000 people? Do you really think that you can't get a much better return in other areas?
[Yes, if you magically got rid of all firearms in the country, you might also reduce the homicide rate - no other country in the world, that has gotten rid of firearms, has demonstrably reduced their homicide rate due to banning guns, but we're in fantasy land now, so let's say you reduce the homicide rate by 30%. That is still only another 3-4,000 people, max.]
Realistically, even the most draconian gun laws and a massive seizure/buyback is going to save, at most, 4-5,000 people per year and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and a huge amount of political capital.
Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of things, that would be less expensive and more effective in the long run, to combat firearm violence. But as long as 'gun-control' is about making people feel like they've done something, rather than having an actual impact, we're just going to keep going around in circles.
34
@32, Funny, I used to think that 'gun-control-nuts' were mostly reasonable liberals, much like myself. However, it seems like the majority of them, around here at least, are belligerent, frothing-at-the-mouth, insulting assholes who don't want to hear anything they disagree with, regardless of facts.
35
@ 28, I saw that, but you lead in by calling it a reason "not to include suicides in this discussion." It's death by gunshot, and has every right to be included in the discussion.
36
There is huge difference between using a gun to end your life, vs. using a gun to end others lives. The gun control nuts rarely if ever lead a topic stating say "10,000 people per year are killed by someone with a gun."
They lead with "guns kill 30000 per year", as if there is no difference between homicide and suicide. Or failing to point out that all the other combined methods of suicide are significant as well.
They lead with "guns kill 30000 per year", as if there is no difference between homicide and suicide. Or failing to point out that all the other combined methods of suicide are significant as well.
37
@35
"It's death by gunshot, and has every right to be included in the discussion."
I can copy-paste this as many times as needed.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
So you are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
"It's death by gunshot, and has every right to be included in the discussion."
I can copy-paste this as many times as needed.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
So you are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
38
randoma, i read plenty i don't agree with on slog, and i listen. but i don't hear a lot of facts, i hear assertions, opinions. the problem isn't that big, anyway nothing can be done, anyway tyranny/freedom/rights/slippery slope.
when a statistic/fact as simple as 30K firearm deaths per year is proferred, it is contested ad nauseum. to me, 20,000 suicide deaths from firearms is a public health issue, and it is UNACCEPTABLE. 10,000 homicides from firearms is ALSO a public health issue, and it too is UNACCEPTABLE. all these folks died from bullet wounds, not hammers/cars/defenistration. there has to be something that can reduce these numbers. what is it?
carnage like this ho-hum-4-persons-dead "spree" will go on & on, i know that. suicides will go on & on, i know that. but if there's something, anything, that might stop a mental defective like Adam Lanza from shooting 20 little kids to death with semi-automatic weapons, i want to try it.
even if it means making our militia regulations less liberal than they currently are.
when a statistic/fact as simple as 30K firearm deaths per year is proferred, it is contested ad nauseum. to me, 20,000 suicide deaths from firearms is a public health issue, and it is UNACCEPTABLE. 10,000 homicides from firearms is ALSO a public health issue, and it too is UNACCEPTABLE. all these folks died from bullet wounds, not hammers/cars/defenistration. there has to be something that can reduce these numbers. what is it?
carnage like this ho-hum-4-persons-dead "spree" will go on & on, i know that. suicides will go on & on, i know that. but if there's something, anything, that might stop a mental defective like Adam Lanza from shooting 20 little kids to death with semi-automatic weapons, i want to try it.
even if it means making our militia regulations less liberal than they currently are.
39
@ 37, it's not up to me to make the case for gun control. I'm not here to do that. I'm here to make sure that the discussion is fair, and that people don't get away with marginalizing valid points that they can't address.
But, just to play devil's advocate, do you think waiting periods might not reduce suicide by gunshot? Given that some suicides are impetuously decided upon, I think they might. I don't know if what the laws are anymore, or if that's something that applies to gun show sales or not (likely it doesn't).
I think that that would reduce suicides, and it's far from a "complete ban." (I feel that that's a straw man, anyway, but I'll leave it to better informed and more passionate gun control advocates to take on.)
But, just to play devil's advocate, do you think waiting periods might not reduce suicide by gunshot? Given that some suicides are impetuously decided upon, I think they might. I don't know if what the laws are anymore, or if that's something that applies to gun show sales or not (likely it doesn't).
I think that that would reduce suicides, and it's far from a "complete ban." (I feel that that's a straw man, anyway, but I'll leave it to better informed and more passionate gun control advocates to take on.)
40
@39
"I'm here to make sure that the discussion is fair, and that people don't get away with marginalizing valid points that they can't address."
I doubt your qualifications for that.
Really, how are you even qualified to do that when you cannot keep your own opinions out of the discussion?
You are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
"But, just to play devil's advocate, do you think waiting periods might not reduce suicide by gunshot?"
Remember that part I just posted about doubting your qualifications for your self-appointed role?
Well you just presented more evidence supporting that doubt.
The point is not "suicide by gunshot" but rather "suicide."
And no, it would not.
"Given that some suicides are impetuously decided upon,"
If they are that impetuous then the gun has to already have been purchased and available.
Otherwise they "impetuously" get out of the house, "impetuously" get some cash, "impetuously" drive to the gun show (how many such suicides were prevented by traffic jams?), "impetuously" buy a gun and ammo and then "impetuously" drive somewhere else to "impetuously" kill themselves.
Again, you are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
"I'm here to make sure that the discussion is fair, and that people don't get away with marginalizing valid points that they can't address."
I doubt your qualifications for that.
Really, how are you even qualified to do that when you cannot keep your own opinions out of the discussion?
You are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
"But, just to play devil's advocate, do you think waiting periods might not reduce suicide by gunshot?"
Remember that part I just posted about doubting your qualifications for your self-appointed role?
Well you just presented more evidence supporting that doubt.
The point is not "suicide by gunshot" but rather "suicide."
And no, it would not.
"Given that some suicides are impetuously decided upon,"
If they are that impetuous then the gun has to already have been purchased and available.
Otherwise they "impetuously" get out of the house, "impetuously" get some cash, "impetuously" drive to the gun show (how many such suicides were prevented by traffic jams?), "impetuously" buy a gun and ammo and then "impetuously" drive somewhere else to "impetuously" kill themselves.
Again, you are insisting that a specific category of deaths be included in the discussion despite the fact that nothing proposed in the discussion would have any effect on the deaths in that specific category.
41
@38, You're making the assumption that these deaths would not occur if the firearms didn't exist. That has not shown to be true anywhere. Not in the United States (in areas with strict gun control), not in any other country where overall homicides/suicides have not dropped simply by reducing the availability of firearms.
Best case, based on available information, if all the firearms in the USA magically disappeared tomorrow, suicides might drop by 10%, homicides might drop by 10%, or they might go up! (UK's homicide rate were higher in the 6 years after their last ban). Just because someone commits suicide with a firearm does not mean that without access to firearms they would now be alive. Similarly, every country that has banned guns has seen a rise in killings by other methods.
The fact is that the 5 states with the 5 highest rates of gun ownership have very similar gun-related homicides to the 5 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership. The states with the highest rates of gun-related homicide have two things in common - and it isn't firearm ownership, it is income inequality and high population density.
Conversely, the states with the highest rates of suicide are, on the whole, related by relatively low population densities, and a "cowboy up" mentality towards mental health. If you're really interested, here's an excellent article on suicide in Wyoming:
www.sheridanmedia.com/files/2012_report_…
If you really want to do something about homicides, do something about income inequality and our prison/drug war.
If you really want to do something about suicides, look at the root of why suicides happen. There are, more or less, three types of suicides - one is a "cry for help", these are likely to not succeed - they may, or may not, use a firearm - if they did, harder access to firearms might save them, but if they don't actually get help it is likely that they'll eventually find a way, or continue doing their probably-not-going-to-succeed method. A second is someone who has thought out and planned their death. These people are most likely to succeed. While removing firearms as a method may be a deterrent, the likelihood is that they will find another method. The third type is those people that have a temporary desire for suicide - it is quite possible that easier access to firearms would reduce their numbers. However, the bottom line is, even if you removed all firearms, the actual impact is nowhere near 20,000 people saved. And so far, none of the gun-control related proposals are likely to have any affect on suicide related deaths.
I'm pretty sure that most of the proposals currently on the table will cost governments (State and Federal) millions of dollars. If you want to look at return on the dollar, you'd save more lives/dollar spending that money on suicide prevention.
More...
Best case, based on available information, if all the firearms in the USA magically disappeared tomorrow, suicides might drop by 10%, homicides might drop by 10%, or they might go up! (UK's homicide rate were higher in the 6 years after their last ban). Just because someone commits suicide with a firearm does not mean that without access to firearms they would now be alive. Similarly, every country that has banned guns has seen a rise in killings by other methods.
The fact is that the 5 states with the 5 highest rates of gun ownership have very similar gun-related homicides to the 5 states with the lowest rates of gun ownership. The states with the highest rates of gun-related homicide have two things in common - and it isn't firearm ownership, it is income inequality and high population density.
Conversely, the states with the highest rates of suicide are, on the whole, related by relatively low population densities, and a "cowboy up" mentality towards mental health. If you're really interested, here's an excellent article on suicide in Wyoming:
www.sheridanmedia.com/files/2012_report_…
If you really want to do something about homicides, do something about income inequality and our prison/drug war.
If you really want to do something about suicides, look at the root of why suicides happen. There are, more or less, three types of suicides - one is a "cry for help", these are likely to not succeed - they may, or may not, use a firearm - if they did, harder access to firearms might save them, but if they don't actually get help it is likely that they'll eventually find a way, or continue doing their probably-not-going-to-succeed method. A second is someone who has thought out and planned their death. These people are most likely to succeed. While removing firearms as a method may be a deterrent, the likelihood is that they will find another method. The third type is those people that have a temporary desire for suicide - it is quite possible that easier access to firearms would reduce their numbers. However, the bottom line is, even if you removed all firearms, the actual impact is nowhere near 20,000 people saved. And so far, none of the gun-control related proposals are likely to have any affect on suicide related deaths.
I'm pretty sure that most of the proposals currently on the table will cost governments (State and Federal) millions of dollars. If you want to look at return on the dollar, you'd save more lives/dollar spending that money on suicide prevention.
42
Gun control nuts now tally 90% of Americans. The NRA is 90% funded by gun manfacturers since 2005. This isn't a debate. It's an attempt to demand the political system be responsible and represent the citizens. The other side is just the NRA, its lobbyists and its astroturfers doing anything to thwart the attempt to pass some reasonable legislation that the NRA would have supported in 1995.
43
Incidentally, we haven't had anyone talk about firearms related 'accidents' lately and, as far as I remember offhand, they're not really addressed in any of the gun-control proposals. However, in my opinion, education on the use of firearms is severely lacking, which contributes to 'accidents'. In most states, to purchase a firearm, you need to pass a background check and in some areas, you may have to sign something stating that you will keep firearms out of the hands of minors.
However, there is almost no education whatsoever on firearm safety. The basics of modern firearm safety, as codified by Jeff Cooper, are the "four rules". Which are:
1) All guns are always loaded.
2) Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Pretty simple, right? But not simple if you've never heard of them. You want to start reducing 'accidents'? How about making a small quiz part of the background check? Form 4473 has 17 questions for the buyer (including name/address..etc..) would it be so hard to include another 10 questions relating to firearm safety?
Would it help much? I don't really know, but I do know that the cost of implementing it would be really low and based on the sort of 'accidents' that make it into the paper, a little education could go a long way.
However, there is almost no education whatsoever on firearm safety. The basics of modern firearm safety, as codified by Jeff Cooper, are the "four rules". Which are:
1) All guns are always loaded.
2) Never point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Pretty simple, right? But not simple if you've never heard of them. You want to start reducing 'accidents'? How about making a small quiz part of the background check? Form 4473 has 17 questions for the buyer (including name/address..etc..) would it be so hard to include another 10 questions relating to firearm safety?
Would it help much? I don't really know, but I do know that the cost of implementing it would be really low and based on the sort of 'accidents' that make it into the paper, a little education could go a long way.
44
@ 40, doubt it all you want, but given that you can't answer why victims of suicide by gunshot shouldn't be included as victims of gun violence, you're not exactly qualified yourself to make that call.
After all, look at your own comment at 40. Deciding to define "impetuous" to mean "instantaneous." Did you know that suicidal feelings can last for hours, even a few days? If one doesn't own a gun, one can go buy one and do the deed - unless they have to wait 14 days.
But that undermines your contention, doesn't it?
Any decision taken during a period of suicidal thoughts can be described as impetuous. Ask a suicide hotline worker about that sometime.
Anyway, that's just an example. But the fact remains - people who die by the gun are victims of gun violence. Even when they pull the trigger themselves. Maybe the exact things being proposed don't address suicide, as you say, but it wasn't suicide that prompted any of this. It was mass murder.
After all, look at your own comment at 40. Deciding to define "impetuous" to mean "instantaneous." Did you know that suicidal feelings can last for hours, even a few days? If one doesn't own a gun, one can go buy one and do the deed - unless they have to wait 14 days.
But that undermines your contention, doesn't it?
Any decision taken during a period of suicidal thoughts can be described as impetuous. Ask a suicide hotline worker about that sometime.
Anyway, that's just an example. But the fact remains - people who die by the gun are victims of gun violence. Even when they pull the trigger themselves. Maybe the exact things being proposed don't address suicide, as you say, but it wasn't suicide that prompted any of this. It was mass murder.
45
@ 43, if I were a policy maker, I'd first want to be sure that the data of gun violence was all up to date and accurate, and that studies collecting and analyzing it were free of political interference. Then (and I'm going to make an assumption that the data we do have is going to be bolstered by these studies) I'd follow Goldy's suggestion from a while back and say that guns should be treated as a public health issue, and have a huge, decades-long campaign about that. I think that would be more effective over the long haul. Those four rules would be a big part of it.
In the short term, I support universal background checks and waiting periods. Most other proposals may be effective at reducing casualties from mass murders (and are worth supporting for that reason). And let's be honest, as bad as the problem of gun violence is in America, mass murders are scarier to most law abiding Americans because most mass murderers are perfectly law abiding citizens until the moment they commit those murders, and their random nature means that everyone is a potential target, even if the chances of being shot that way are virtually nil.
That said, gun deaths (even without mass murders) are great enough to be considered a public health issue, and treating it as such is probably the only way to make a meaningful reduction in those deaths.
In the short term, I support universal background checks and waiting periods. Most other proposals may be effective at reducing casualties from mass murders (and are worth supporting for that reason). And let's be honest, as bad as the problem of gun violence is in America, mass murders are scarier to most law abiding Americans because most mass murderers are perfectly law abiding citizens until the moment they commit those murders, and their random nature means that everyone is a potential target, even if the chances of being shot that way are virtually nil.
That said, gun deaths (even without mass murders) are great enough to be considered a public health issue, and treating it as such is probably the only way to make a meaningful reduction in those deaths.
46
@44
"... you're not exactly qualified yourself to make that call."
I didn't say I was.
I know that people have different opinions.
You seem to have a problem with that concept.
Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion. Learn that.
"... but given that you can't answer why victims of suicide by gunshot shouldn't be included as victims of gun violence ..."
I have answered that.
And I can copy-paste it AGAIN because YOU don't want to accept it.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
"After all, look at your own comment at 40. Deciding to define 'impetuous' to mean 'instantaneous.'"
"Did you know that suicidal feelings can last for hours, even a few days?"
Again, you have a problem seeing when your opinion is your opinion and not a fact.
Learn that.
All the steps I outlined seem to indicate someone who is committed to the idea of suicide.
Which is kind of the opposite of "impetuous".
If the person has enough time to get to the store to buy a knife or a rope or any other method then WAITING TO GO TO A GUN SHOW really isn't going to change much.
"But the fact remains - people who die by the gun are victims of gun violence."
Yes. That is known as a "tautology".
Look it up.
"Maybe the exact things being proposed don't address suicide, as you say, but it wasn't suicide that prompted any of this. It was mass murder."
And, again:
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. SO LET'S FOCUS ON LAWS THAT DO HAVE AN EFFECT ON REDUCING INCIDENTS THAT CAN BE REDUCED THROUGH THOSE LAWS.
Did you understand it THAT time?
Because right now you're arguing that I'm right.
More...
"... you're not exactly qualified yourself to make that call."
I didn't say I was.
I know that people have different opinions.
You seem to have a problem with that concept.
Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion. Learn that.
"... but given that you can't answer why victims of suicide by gunshot shouldn't be included as victims of gun violence ..."
I have answered that.
And I can copy-paste it AGAIN because YOU don't want to accept it.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.
"After all, look at your own comment at 40. Deciding to define 'impetuous' to mean 'instantaneous.'"
"Did you know that suicidal feelings can last for hours, even a few days?"
Again, you have a problem seeing when your opinion is your opinion and not a fact.
Learn that.
All the steps I outlined seem to indicate someone who is committed to the idea of suicide.
Which is kind of the opposite of "impetuous".
If the person has enough time to get to the store to buy a knife or a rope or any other method then WAITING TO GO TO A GUN SHOW really isn't going to change much.
"But the fact remains - people who die by the gun are victims of gun violence."
Yes. That is known as a "tautology".
Look it up.
"Maybe the exact things being proposed don't address suicide, as you say, but it wasn't suicide that prompted any of this. It was mass murder."
And, again:
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. SO LET'S FOCUS ON LAWS THAT DO HAVE AN EFFECT ON REDUCING INCIDENTS THAT CAN BE REDUCED THROUGH THOSE LAWS.
Did you understand it THAT time?
Because right now you're arguing that I'm right.
47
@45, How exactly do you feel that the existing data, gathered by the FBI and CDC regarding gun violence is not up to date and/or accurate? If prior studies regarding gun violence, sponsored by the CDC, had not been obviously politically motivated/slanted, the NRA would not have been able to lobby to cut funding for it. So, what exactly do you mean by "free of political interference"?
"(and I'm going to make an assumption that the data we do have is going to be bolstered by these studies)" I'm afraid that I'm not able to parse what you mean here.
"guns should be treated as a public health issue, and have a huge, decades-long campaign about that." Also don't know what you mean here.
Did you actually read my post #41? If you want to address HOMICIDE as a public health issue, that's great. But despite the calls of otherwise rational human beings, more guns does not = more homicides. So saying you want to address firearms as a public health issue is narrow minded at best.
And if more guns == more suicide, then why is the USA relatively average for suicide rate per capita when it has more firearms than anywhere else?
Exactly which proposal is it that may be effective at reducing casualties from mass shooters? The worst (in terms of total people killed) mass shooting to date, was the Virginia Tech shooting. An "assault weapons" ban would have had no effect. A high cap magazine ban would have had no effect. If the Newtown shooter had only had the two handguns and hadn't had the "assault rifle", the total killed would have been just as high. On the other hand, if the Oklahoma City bombing had been a shooting instead of a bombing, the total killed probably would have been much lower.
As far as "perfectly law abiding citizens until the moment they commit those murders" goes - the vast majority of mass shooters had LOTS of warning signs before hand. Unlike serial killers such-as Ted Bundy, no one, after the fact, is saying, "Oh. He was such a nice young man, I can't believe he suddenly went insane and killed all those people." It is more like, "He was absolutely bonkers. I can't believe he wasn't in a mental institution."
More...
"(and I'm going to make an assumption that the data we do have is going to be bolstered by these studies)" I'm afraid that I'm not able to parse what you mean here.
"guns should be treated as a public health issue, and have a huge, decades-long campaign about that." Also don't know what you mean here.
Did you actually read my post #41? If you want to address HOMICIDE as a public health issue, that's great. But despite the calls of otherwise rational human beings, more guns does not = more homicides. So saying you want to address firearms as a public health issue is narrow minded at best.
And if more guns == more suicide, then why is the USA relatively average for suicide rate per capita when it has more firearms than anywhere else?
Exactly which proposal is it that may be effective at reducing casualties from mass shooters? The worst (in terms of total people killed) mass shooting to date, was the Virginia Tech shooting. An "assault weapons" ban would have had no effect. A high cap magazine ban would have had no effect. If the Newtown shooter had only had the two handguns and hadn't had the "assault rifle", the total killed would have been just as high. On the other hand, if the Oklahoma City bombing had been a shooting instead of a bombing, the total killed probably would have been much lower.
As far as "perfectly law abiding citizens until the moment they commit those murders" goes - the vast majority of mass shooters had LOTS of warning signs before hand. Unlike serial killers such-as Ted Bundy, no one, after the fact, is saying, "Oh. He was such a nice young man, I can't believe he suddenly went insane and killed all those people." It is more like, "He was absolutely bonkers. I can't believe he wasn't in a mental institution."
48
@46, "1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides." Actually, statistically speaking, even if you magically removed all of the firearms in the United States, it would have, at best, a marginal impact on overall suicide rates. (See UK, Australia...etc.)
Removing firearms from the equation just removes one of many means. It does not remove the underlying urge/desire. (Yes, I know you already know this.)
Removing firearms from the equation just removes one of many means. It does not remove the underlying urge/desire. (Yes, I know you already know this.)
50
@48 "Actually, statistically speaking, even if you magically removed all of the firearms in the United States, it would have, at best, a marginal impact on overall suicide rates. (See UK, Australia...etc.)"
Umm, that's not right. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness." See the article for the link to that study and others. Why you lie?
Umm, that's not right. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk…
"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness." See the article for the link to that study and others. Why you lie?
51
This thread has gone way beyond my original point regarding suicides, but I just wanted to point out that I was not necessarily saying that we should not count suicides in these totals, but rather there is evidence that having a gun around can influence a suicide, but also evidence that eliminating guns does not affect overall suicide rates.
So it is obviously a contentious issue, but I do think the stats are used dishonestly when you hear "X people killed by gun violence each year" and the majority of X are suicides. A person getting shot dead in a robbery and a person shooting themself in their home are two very different events and social issues, even if the result is essentially the same. Further complicating this idea is that no one can say for sure if a person would have killed themselves or not if there was a gun around (or not).
But the main point was that comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths is apples and oranges, the difficult suicide question being only one reason why. Because if we are going to count gun suicides, shouldn't we also count people who commit suicide by jumping in traffic, or purposefully crash their car?
So it is obviously a contentious issue, but I do think the stats are used dishonestly when you hear "X people killed by gun violence each year" and the majority of X are suicides. A person getting shot dead in a robbery and a person shooting themself in their home are two very different events and social issues, even if the result is essentially the same. Further complicating this idea is that no one can say for sure if a person would have killed themselves or not if there was a gun around (or not).
But the main point was that comparing gun deaths to traffic deaths is apples and oranges, the difficult suicide question being only one reason why. Because if we are going to count gun suicides, shouldn't we also count people who commit suicide by jumping in traffic, or purposefully crash their car?
52
@ 46, your judgment spoke to your belief that you were qualified. And although you may have answered it to your own satisfaction, you fall short from what is actually reasonable.
So go ahead, keep copying and pasting. The sheep in Animal Farm never got tired of saying "Four legs good, Two legs bad," so I don't expect you to tire of your version of that, either.
@ 47, I don't know that for sure. If the current data IS complete and accurate, then lets go full speed ahead now. (And if you don't believe that the NRA hasn't been interfering with such studies, I've got a bridge for sale.)
As far as warning signs go, I've yet to hear of a shooter who was so out there with them that he stood out from the other mentally disturbed people out there who never went out on a murder spree. If you know different, then please share what you know.
@ 48, marginal is better than zero.
So go ahead, keep copying and pasting. The sheep in Animal Farm never got tired of saying "Four legs good, Two legs bad," so I don't expect you to tire of your version of that, either.
@ 47, I don't know that for sure. If the current data IS complete and accurate, then lets go full speed ahead now. (And if you don't believe that the NRA hasn't been interfering with such studies, I've got a bridge for sale.)
As far as warning signs go, I've yet to hear of a shooter who was so out there with them that he stood out from the other mentally disturbed people out there who never went out on a murder spree. If you know different, then please share what you know.
@ 48, marginal is better than zero.
53
@50, Why don't you look at the actual data? Which does not reflect the assertions of that study.
Here's the data on homicides:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicid…
Take a look at the second graph:
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/…
That's the overall homicide rate. Do you notice a significant drop after 1996 or do you notice a rise? Has the overall homicide rate in Australia dropped? Yes, it has. However, it has dropped at the same rate pre-ban and post ban, statistically speaking.
Here's another counter study:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-…
(Link to the actual study: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_vi… )
Here's another study:
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr…
As far as suicides go, yes, there has been a drop in suicides since the ban. There was also a massive suicide prevention program that was put in place two years after the ban. Why don't you get your facts straight?
Here's a link to the actual data for suicides in Australia:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/…
Do you see a 65% drop in overall suicide rates in any year? Hell no. There may have been a 65% drop in Firearms related suicide (as stated in your "study") but it absolutely had a parallel increase in other methods.
Here's another study on suicide in Australia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882…
So tell me, why does your study lie? The data doesn't lie. What people do with the data is another story.
More...
Here's the data on homicides:
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicid…
Take a look at the second graph:
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/aic/…
That's the overall homicide rate. Do you notice a significant drop after 1996 or do you notice a rise? Has the overall homicide rate in Australia dropped? Yes, it has. However, it has dropped at the same rate pre-ban and post ban, statistically speaking.
Here's another counter study:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-…
(Link to the actual study: http://www.popcenter.org/problems/gun_vi… )
Here's another study:
http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr…
As far as suicides go, yes, there has been a drop in suicides since the ban. There was also a massive suicide prevention program that was put in place two years after the ban. Why don't you get your facts straight?
Here's a link to the actual data for suicides in Australia:
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/…
Do you see a 65% drop in overall suicide rates in any year? Hell no. There may have been a 65% drop in Firearms related suicide (as stated in your "study") but it absolutely had a parallel increase in other methods.
Here's another study on suicide in Australia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12882…
So tell me, why does your study lie? The data doesn't lie. What people do with the data is another story.
54
@52, What exactly does this mean? "If the current data IS complete and accurate, then lets go full speed ahead now."?
The actual data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership do not necessarily have higher rates of gun violence. The actual data also shows that there is a far greater link between poverty and gun violence than between guns and gun violence. (Areas that are relatively affluent, with lower levels of income inequality, have less gun violence than areas that are poorer/have greater levels of income inequality.)
So, full speed ahead with what exactly?
"marginal is better than zero." So, in your mind, it would be worth it, whatever the cost, to save around 3-8000 lives per year by getting rid of all firearms in the USA even though putting those resources into other things could potentially save many more lives?
Do you realize that the USA ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in preventing premature death, infant mortality, total health care coverage, number of practicing doctors, and preventing heart disease death? The death toll from internal health related issues is in the millions. Many of those deaths could be prevented with a better health care system. The USA spends more per capita for health care than most other industrialized nations yet still ranks in the bottom for all the things mentioned above.
Here's a study that shows that 45,000 people per year die because they lack health care:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20…
If you saved 10% of those you'd save more lives than you would save from suicide by magically getting rid of all the firearms in the country. (And the cost would be a hell of a lot lower.)
I am not saying that there aren't plenty of things you can do, in regards to firearms, that would save lives. (I, and other 'gun-nuts' have proposed various things that we believe would be effective). However, as a country, we have a limited amount of resources (both monetary and politically). Gun-control-nuts often talk about an "assault weapons" ban as being "low hanging fruit", meaning that it is relatively easy to pass and is therefore worthwhile even though it will have little, impact on firearms related deaths. I say why don't we pick some other low hanging fruit that will have a greater impact on deaths.
More...
The actual data shows that states with higher rates of gun ownership do not necessarily have higher rates of gun violence. The actual data also shows that there is a far greater link between poverty and gun violence than between guns and gun violence. (Areas that are relatively affluent, with lower levels of income inequality, have less gun violence than areas that are poorer/have greater levels of income inequality.)
So, full speed ahead with what exactly?
"marginal is better than zero." So, in your mind, it would be worth it, whatever the cost, to save around 3-8000 lives per year by getting rid of all firearms in the USA even though putting those resources into other things could potentially save many more lives?
Do you realize that the USA ranks near the bottom of industrialized nations in preventing premature death, infant mortality, total health care coverage, number of practicing doctors, and preventing heart disease death? The death toll from internal health related issues is in the millions. Many of those deaths could be prevented with a better health care system. The USA spends more per capita for health care than most other industrialized nations yet still ranks in the bottom for all the things mentioned above.
Here's a study that shows that 45,000 people per year die because they lack health care:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20…
If you saved 10% of those you'd save more lives than you would save from suicide by magically getting rid of all the firearms in the country. (And the cost would be a hell of a lot lower.)
I am not saying that there aren't plenty of things you can do, in regards to firearms, that would save lives. (I, and other 'gun-nuts' have proposed various things that we believe would be effective). However, as a country, we have a limited amount of resources (both monetary and politically). Gun-control-nuts often talk about an "assault weapons" ban as being "low hanging fruit", meaning that it is relatively easy to pass and is therefore worthwhile even though it will have little, impact on firearms related deaths. I say why don't we pick some other low hanging fruit that will have a greater impact on deaths.
55
@ Randoma, where did I state or imply that we should get rid of all guns in America. I was only speaking of waiting periods.
This is too bad. I was thinking that I was talking to an honest person, but a motherfucker who sets up straw men like that, placing words in another's posts because he's too dishonest to deal with what was actually written, isn't worth a shit stain on a dog's anus. I hope you're proud of yourself.
This is too bad. I was thinking that I was talking to an honest person, but a motherfucker who sets up straw men like that, placing words in another's posts because he's too dishonest to deal with what was actually written, isn't worth a shit stain on a dog's anus. I hope you're proud of yourself.
56
@55, Please re-read what I said in @54 and @48. *I* said that the only way to have a marginal impact on suicide rates was if you got rid of all the guns in the country. I then said it was not worth doing. *I* said it, not you. I don't believe I ever attributed it to you in any way.
As I repeatedly said, in asking for clarification, I have no idea what you were trying to say!
As I repeatedly said, in asking for clarification, I have no idea what you were trying to say!
57
@52
"And although you may have answered it to your own satisfaction, you fall short from what is actually reasonable."
And you are the judge of what is reasonable.
I don't think you will understand it but that itself shows that you are unreasonable.
At least I know that my opinion is my opinion.
"So go ahead, keep copying and pasting."
The problem is that you have NOT addressed what I posted.
You've just decided that YOU are the arbiter of what is reasonable and what is not.
There is a reason you will not address what I posted and that reason is that you cannot.
"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"
Yes. Reasonable is exactly what you are?
If someone has an opinion that is different than yours then they are wrong.
Because YOU have the only true opinion on the matter.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. SO LET'S FOCUS ON LAWS THAT DO HAVE AN EFFECT ON REDUCING INCIDENTS THAT CAN BE REDUCED THROUGH THOSE LAWS.
"And although you may have answered it to your own satisfaction, you fall short from what is actually reasonable."
And you are the judge of what is reasonable.
I don't think you will understand it but that itself shows that you are unreasonable.
At least I know that my opinion is my opinion.
"So go ahead, keep copying and pasting."
The problem is that you have NOT addressed what I posted.
You've just decided that YOU are the arbiter of what is reasonable and what is not.
There is a reason you will not address what I posted and that reason is that you cannot.
"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"
Yes. Reasonable is exactly what you are?
If someone has an opinion that is different than yours then they are wrong.
Because YOU have the only true opinion on the matter.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. SO LET'S FOCUS ON LAWS THAT DO HAVE AN EFFECT ON REDUCING INCIDENTS THAT CAN BE REDUCED THROUGH THOSE LAWS.
Comments (57) RSS