Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws
nraclaptrap
De-Quilling the Porcupine
Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws
With its militia-based approach to national security, Switzerland
has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world -- not
to mention one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. Now
gun- control advocates are calling for restrictions on keeping
guns and ammunition at home.
REUTERS
When most people think of Switzerland, they imagine a sleepy --
even boring -- country of beautiful Alpine vistas and tranquil
cows, where the most exciting thing that could happen would be a
lake-side yodel. It comes as a surprise to many to learn that the
peaceful country has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in
the world -- lagging behind the United States, naturally, but
still above the rest of Western Europe, not to mention Iraq.
Now the high number of gun-related deaths, combined with the fact
that many of those guns are stored in bedroom closets or attics,
is leading opposition politicians and lobby groups to call for
changes to the country's gun laws.
The Swiss parliament has repeatedly turned down motions calling
for a ban on storing guns at home, most recently in March.
However a parliamentary commission has now proposed a compromise
motion which would place a ban on keeping ammunition at home.
The new motion is considered to have a good chance of success. A
recent poll by the mass circulation newspaper Blick showed that
66 percent of Swiss want a ban on guns being stored at home,
while 76 percent said there was no need to store both guns and
ammunition at home in order to defend the country.
Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
will take place in summer 2007. The initiative calls for imposing
restrictions on who is allowed to own guns and keep them at home.
The new calls for gun control are backed by Annabelle, a leading
women's magazine which is concerned about the high numbers of
women who are murdered by their gun-toting husbands. Their
campaign appears to have wide support -- the Blick survey showed
that three quarters of all women were against storing army
weapons at home.
However, the new moves to impose limits on gun and ammunition
ownership are opposed by gun advocates. "No gun law will ever
stop the crazy man from doing outrageous things," Ferdinand
Hediger of the pro-gun lobby Pro Tell -- named for crossbow-
wielding Swiss national hero William Tell -- told the Washington
Post.
Packing plenty of heat
Switzerland is unusual in Western Europe in having a high level
of gun ownership. Accurate figures are not available, as guns do
not need to be registered, but most estimates say there are at
least 2 million weapons in circulation, with some placing the
number at twice that. The Geneva-based Small Arms Survey
estimates that the country has 46 guns per 100 people, which
makes it the country with the fourth-highest level of gun
ownership, behind only the United States, Yemen and Finland. Even
Iraq has a lower level of gun ownership, with an estimated 39
weapons per 100 people.
As a small, neutral country, Switzerland has traditionally felt
the need to maintain an armed militia, a strategy known as the
"porcupine" approach -- the country may be small but it has
millions of deadly "quills" in the shape of its reserve soldiers.
Able-bodied men have to serve in the military and are issued with
assault rifles or pistols. They are allowed to keep their weapons
and 50 rounds of ammunition at home during military service --
which generally goes to the age of 30 or even longer -- so that
the army can be mobilized at short notice. Many men buy their
weapons after they finish their military service, and the arms
are often stored in unsecured closets, attics or cellars.
The new public mood is largely in response to a series of
shootings involving army weapons. In a 2001 incident which
sparked nationwide debate, 15 people died when a man opened fire
with an army assault rifle in a regional parliament building in
the small town of Zug, shooting 14 people and killing himself.
In another much-publicized case, the private banker Gerold
Stadler last year used his army-issue pistol to commit suicide
after killing his pregnant wife, former world champion skiier
Corinne Rey-Bellet, and her brother. In the latest incident of
its kind, a 26-year-old bank employee opened fire with his army
rifle in a hotel restaurant in Baden, killing one and wounding
four on April 13 -- just three days before the Virginia Tech
massacre.
Around 300 people are killed in Switzerland each year in
incidents -- mostly suicides and family murders -- involving army
guns. According to a 25-country survey by the British-based non-
governmental organization International Action Network on Small
Arms, Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including
accidents, in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000.
The country also has an unusually high suicide rate, at 19.1
suicides per 100,000 inhabitants, according to a 2005 study by
the country's Federal Health Office. The rate is well above the
World Health Organization's global average of 14.5 and the
European Union's rate of 14.1.
And although experts agree the high suicide rate has many
factors, many feel that the ubiquity of guns certainly plays its
part. "Easy access to suicide methods, in this case firearms in
Switzerland, ... contributes to a high rate," Vladeta Ajdacic, a
sociologist at a psychiatric hospital at Zurich's university,
told the news agency Reuters.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,480545,00.html
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Fiftycal
<nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 05/02/2007
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The new motion is considered to have a good chance of success. A
>recent poll by the mass circulation newspaper Blick showed that
>66 percent of Swiss want a ban on guns being stored at home,
>while 76 percent said there was no need to store both guns and
>ammunition at home in order to defend the country.
Must have used the same BOGUS POLLSTER that asshole from NYC used to
get the BOGUS poll results that said NRA members "want gun control".
>
>Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
>popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
>will take place in summer 2007. The initiative calls for imposing
>restrictions on who is allowed to own guns and keep them at home.
Uh, stupid asshole loon, this "news" is 2 years old. Have the Swiss
adopted your gun ban wet dream?
NO?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
POINT PROVEN!
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH LAUGH
edi...@netpath.net
> Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
> popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
> will take place in summer 2007.
Wake up; it's more than 2 YEARS LATER. Did the antigun lobby win that
referendum - or was it even ever held?
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Klaus Schadenfreude
> 05/02/2007
2007?
Laugh laugh laugh. Getting desperate now, are you?
nraclaptrap
4329-9769-9...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 17, 8:07�pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
>> popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
>> will take place in summer 2007.
>
> Wake up; it's more than 2 YEARS LATER. Did the antigun lobby win that
> referendum - or was it even ever held?
[begin excerpts]
As of October 2007, the issuing of personal ammunition after boot camp
has been discontinued and a majority of the already issued packs will be
withdrawn within 2008.[7]
http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/sturmgewehr_bleibt_vorerst_im_schra
nk__1.2132954.html
* * *
The rules laid out above were changed on 1 December 2008 as Switzerland
joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of
their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss
government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will
change:
* Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
* Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition
permit: this is, from a Swiss point of view, a radical restriction that
is assumed will undercut private gun trade dramatically.
* Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
* Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by
the new law.
* Only one weapon may be purchased per weapon acquisition permit:
Presumably, this will dry out the market for relatively cheap used guns,
including popular collector's items such as Swiss army revolvers from the
late 19th/early 20th century.
* Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which
did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a
central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope
to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
* While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon
acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms
bureau of the sale.
[end excerpts]
From Wikipedia, where you can find an article on Swiss gun control.
Also, Kopel's claim that you can buy ammo at a shooting range and the law
stating that you must use the ammo at the range is not taken seriously,
IS FROM 1990.
See if you can prove that one, BEDWETTER.
Next.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:8jeoi5pu3v595hsei...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:07:07 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 05/02/2007
>>
>>De-Quilling the Porcupine
>>
>>Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws
>>
>>With its militia-based approach to national security, Switzerland
>>has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world -- not
>>to mention one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. Now
>>gun- control advocates are calling for restrictions on keeping
>>guns and ammunition at home.
>>
> Bullshit.
No, it's the truth.
"Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005 was
6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
> In 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland
> about the same number as in England and Wales
So? The claim mentioned gun deaths, not gun murders - try to focus and
comment on the subject being discussed.
Regardless, England and Wales have about 8 times the population of
Switzerland, so obviously the firearm murder rate was about 8 times higher
in Switzerland than England and Wales, iof your figure is correct..
> where it is damn near
> impossible to leally own one. So in a country where every able-bodied
> male has a fully automatic rifle & ammo provided for by the state the
> death rate is the same as a country where very few if any people are
> legally armed. Yeah sounds like a real big problem to me.
8 times the rate? Sure looks like a problem to me too. But not as big a
problem as the US which has about 40 times the rate.
>
> The rest of the article is basically a lie as to the cause for the
> Swiss Law Makers rethinking their Defense Posture. It has more to do
> with the European Union not liking Swiss gun laws and wanting them to
> conform to the rest of the Union's pussified gun stance..
Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, stupid.
edi...@netpath.net
> Also, Kopel's claim that you can buy ammo at a shooting range and the law
> stating that you must use the ammo at the range is not taken seriously,
> IS FROM 1990.
Ammo is SMALL - sort of like crack cocaine. Anyone really thinking
there's any way that anyone is really sure that the guy shot all 100
rounds - instead of pocketing 20 to take home after shooting the other
80 at a noisy range - is absurd.
nraclaptrap
news:8jeoi5pu3v595hsei...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:07:07 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> 05/02/2007
>>
>>De-Quilling the Porcupine
>>
>>Swiss Mull Tighter Gun Laws
>>
>>With its militia-based approach to national security, Switzerland
>>has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world -- not
>>to mention one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. Now
>>gun- control advocates are calling for restrictions on keeping
>>guns and ammunition at home.
>>
> Bullshit. In 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland
> about the same number as in England and Wales where it is damn near
> impossible to leally own one. So in a country where every able-bodied
> male has a fully automatic rifle & ammo provided for by the state the
> death rate is the same as a country where very few if any people are
> legally armed. Yeah sounds like a real big problem to me.
>
> The rest of the article is basically a lie as to the cause for the
> Swiss Law Makers rethinking their Defense Posture. It has more to do
> with the European Union not liking Swiss gun laws and wanting them to
> conform to the rest of the Union's pussified gun stance..
>>REUTERS
Then why does Zombywussy set the X-No-Archive header to yes?
Because you're a coward, Zombywussy.
Dismissed with prejudice.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:v2foi51j76vd9icfn...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:59:57 -0600, nraclaptrap
> <nracl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"edi...@netpath.net" <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in news:e04cb3f0-3164-
>>4329-9769-9...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com:
>>> On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
>>>> popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
>>>> will take place in summer 2007.
>>>
>>> Wake up; it's more than 2 YEARS LATER. Did the antigun lobby win
>>> that referendum - or was it even ever held?
>>
>>[begin excerpts]
>>
>>As of October 2007, the issuing of personal ammunition after boot camp
>>has been discontinued and a majority of the already issued packs will
>>be withdrawn within 2008.[7]
>>
>>http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/schweiz/sturmgewehr_bleibt_vorerst_im_sch
>>ra nk__1.2132954.html
> So basically the Swiss people didn't have a problem with their version
> of firearm ownership, others did.
>
> The firearms regulations of the Schengen Agreement (not Treaty) are at
> http://www.spjelkavik.priv.no/henning/ifi/schengen/body3.html#chapter%2
> 07
Treaties are agreements, Zombywussy. Remember the Geneva Conventions?
Treaties. Now, frame your disagreement.
> The reason there is an issue for the Swiss is that the Agreements
> restrictions on firearms specifically says "Weapons of War". Since
> the Swiss Reservists definitely are issued fully-automatic "Weapons of
> War" there is an Agreement conflict based on that point.
Not really. You know what arms are? Arms of war? Same as weapons of
war?
You get it.
> There is also a somewhat similar Universal Firearms Ownership
> Agreement/Treaty floating around in the U.N.
Then post it.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:3cb9cad0-7f77-4177...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>> Also, Kopel's claim that you can buy ammo at a shooting range and the
>> law stating that you must use the ammo at the range is not taken
>> seriously, IS FROM 1990. �
>
> Ammo is SMALL - sort of like crack cocaine.
So you can't prove that ammo sales at Swiss shooting ranges must be used at
the range and nowhere else?
Thank you, Bedwettor.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
nraclaptrap
news:rteoi5p54a2eurq0m...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:22:44 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
>>> popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
>>> will take place in summer 2007.
>>
>>Wake up; it's more than 2 YEARS LATER. Did the antigun lobby win that
>>referendum - or was it even ever held?
>>
> As it currently stances the Swiss Reserve members will continue to
Stance is not a verb.
> keep their weapons at home, but will only be issued ammo for them when
> they muster for a drill. Officers who are issued pistols will
> continue to be issued ammunition.
Cite your source that says the pistol ammo is issued to any military
personell.
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Speaking of suicide, don't they protect the pope?
Killing themselves gives them a better deal.
Jim Yanik
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:22:44 -0800 (PST), "edi...@netpath.net"
><edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 17, 8:07 pm, nraclaptrap <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a
>>> popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope
>>> will take place in summer 2007.
>>
>>Wake up; it's more than 2 YEARS LATER. Did the antigun lobby win that
>>referendum - or was it even ever held?
>>
> As it currently stances the Swiss Reserve members will continue to
> keep their weapons at home, but will only be issued ammo for them when
> they muster for a drill. Officers who are issued pistols will
> continue to be issued ammunition.
Of course,they can STILL buy their own ammo for use in personal shooting
matches and practice.
ISTR that the issue ammo was in sealed cans,not to be used except in war.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Jim Yanik
news:v2foi51j76vd9icfn...@4ax.com:
> There is also a somewhat similar Universal Firearms Ownership
> Agreement/Treaty floating around in the U.N. that would have a great
> impact on U.S. Firearms Ownership if it is ever signed & ratified by
> the U.S. This is the infamous backdoor firearms restriction that many
> are afraid Obama & Holder would use to met their Gun Control agenda.
that would be "The Trigger".
The signers and ratifiers should not survive such a treason.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote innews:rteoi5p54a2eurq0m...@4ax.com:
The law is as good as their cheese. Full of large holes.
Demon Buddha
> No, it's the truth.
> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005
> was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42. Go look it up in the UCR.
That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as
the rate goes quite a ways down.
> Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, stupid.
That does not necessarily mean the EU has no interest in CH's gun laws.
Restrictive gun laws are based on phony baloney arguments. If the
Swiss let everyone have guns and blood doesn't run hip-deep in the
streets of Berne, other Europeans may take notice and begin to question
the restrictions.
Blinky Bill
"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>
>> No, it's the truth.
>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005
>> was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>
> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just homicide.
> Go look it up in the UCR.
I would be wasting my time because that only counts homicide.
> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as the
> rate goes quite a ways down.
But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI says that
less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to other criminal
activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>
>> Switzerland isn't a member of the EU, stupid.
>
> That does not necessarily mean the EU has no interest in CH's gun laws.
And it certainly doesn't mean that it does, which was the claim you so
cunningly snipped.
> Restrictive gun laws are based on phony ...
<snip> rant
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>
> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>
> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>
> >> No, it's the truth.
> >> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005
> >> was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
> >> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>
> > US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>
> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just homicide.
>
> > Go look it up in the UCR.
>
> I would be wasting my time because that only counts homicide.
>
> > That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as the
> > rate goes quite a ways down.
>
> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI says that
> less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to other criminal
> activities, so the number would change by about 1.
But the drug trade does include drugs manufactured by jewish
interests. My 80 yearold neighbor went beserk after medicare cancelled
her drugs and her TV broke down. She went to the doctor fully loaded
ready to take the religious freak out. Too bad she didn't. Now she has
too be attended to by crack addicts at the nursing home.
Blinky Bill
"Hiccum Blurpaedius" <hic...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9149b030-9abd-4b87...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 19, 5:05 pm, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>
>> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > Blinky Bill wrote:
>>
>> >> No, it's the truth.
>> >> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in
>> >> 2005
>> >> was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>> >> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>
>> > US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>>
>> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just homicide.
>>
>> > Go look it up in the UCR.
>>
>> I would be wasting my time because that only counts homicide.
>>
>> > That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as
>> > the
>> > rate goes quite a ways down.
>>
>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI says
>> that
>> less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to other criminal
>> activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>
> But the drug trade does include drugs manufactured by jewish
<snip> rant unread
Hiccum Blurpaedius
Nursing cartels like the Nursing Guild are nothing short of organized
criminals trained by the US military.
Christian jew cop drug manufacturers have a long fall coming to them.
IT is going to be quite entertaining.
exterminate god god dammit
Hiccum Blurpaedius
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:59:02 -0600, nraclaptrap
>
>
>
>
>
> <nraclapt...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Zombywoof <fishwi...@live.com> wrote in
> want to Bitch about something how about the fact that you post with an
> invalid e-mail and I don't. You probably don't want to talk about
> that now do you?
>
> >Because you're a coward, Zombywussy.
>
> Usenet RFP call for it.
>
> >Dismissed with prejudice.
>
> Your simply dismissed.
> --
>
> "Gustatus Similis Pullus"
You are still a pussy
Exterminate god god dammit
Demon Buddha
>
>
> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>
>>> No, it's the truth.
>>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in
>>> 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>
>> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>
> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just homicide.
Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will
find other ways. Oh, and the homicide rate by gun is actually about 3.2.
>
> But the drug trade exists,
Legalize it and that whole world goes away almost over night.
nraclaptrap
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it's the truth.
>>>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in
>>>> 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>>>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>>
>>> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>>
>> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just
>> homicide.
>
> Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they
> will find other ways.
Does that include your own children? Or your own wife, if any? Or you
personally, asshole?
--
NRACLAPTRAP
Blinky Bill
"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
news:95KdnaLvG-W137PW...@giganews.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it's the truth.
>>>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents, in 2005
>>>> was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>>>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>>
>>> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>>
>> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just homicide.
>
> Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will
> find other ways.
Numerous studies find the exact opposite.
RD (The Sandman)
news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as
>> the rate goes quite a ways down.
>
> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to
> other criminal activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>
Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved in
either drug or gang activity. That does not necessarily mean at the time
of the occurrence. It means that if you avoid drug or gang activity (or
association with those that are involved) your chances of becoming a
homicide victim are greatly reduced.
The stat you cite above is those where the homicide itself was part of
either drug or gang activity.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
They do? From your cite:
"Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that
access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. *Firearm owners are not
more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are
more likely to be fatal.* (The very point some have been making.) Many
suicide attempts are made impulsively during a short-term crisis period.
If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive attempters
and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily postpone their
attempt, the odds are increased that they will survive.
(Note that does not say that they won't substitute, it simply states that
their substituted method will likely be less lethal.
Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to
lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and, very
often, the overall suicide rate decline.
(Because they are less successful, not because they are not attempted.)
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE77DE03...@216.196.97.130...
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
>>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those as
>>> the rate goes quite a ways down.
>>
>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
>> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to
>> other criminal activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>>
>
> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved in
> either drug or gang activity.
Evidence?
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE77E9BD...@216.196.97.130...
Indeed - including me. That should be obvious to even you given that I
provided that URL.
> Many
> suicide attempts are made impulsively during a short-term crisis period.
> If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive attempters
> and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily postpone their
> attempt, the odds are increased that they will survive.
That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded gun
kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion rate
will likely fall.
>
> (Note that does not say that they won't substitute, it simply states that
> their substituted method will likely be less lethal.
And some of them won't succeed in "offing" themselves, which is the claim I
am addressing -
"IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other ways."
>
> Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to
> lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and, very
> often, the overall suicide rate decline.
>
> (Because they are less successful, not because they are not attempted.)
Or a bit of both.
"1. Won't a suicidal person just substitute another method if they can't get
a gun?
Often yes...... "
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/faq/#FAQ1
So not always.
RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE77DE03...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>
>>>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those
>>>> as the rate goes quite a ways down.
>>>
>>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
>>> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to
>>> other criminal activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved
>> in either drug or gang activity.
>
> Evidence?
Various police reports. Do you understand what is being said?
RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE77E9BD...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:4b2e7757$0$56973$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>> news:95KdnaLvG-W137PW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it's the truth.
>>>>>>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents,
>>>>>>> in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>>>>>>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just
>>>>> homicide.
>>>>
>>>> Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they
>>>> will find other ways.
>>>
>>> Numerous studies find the exact opposite.
>>>
>>> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/bibliography/firearm-availab
>>> il ity-and-suicide-prevalence-us-case-control-studies.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They do? From your cite:
>>
>> "Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that
>> access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. *Firearm owners are
>> not more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide
>> attempts are more likely to be fatal.* (The very point some have been
>> making.)
>
> Indeed - including me. That should be obvious to even you given that I
> provided that URL.
>
>> Many
>> suicide attempts are made impulsively during a short-term crisis
>> period. If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive
>> attempters and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily
>> postpone their attempt, the odds are increased that they will
>> survive.
>
> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
> gun kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the
> completion rate will likely fall.
Yep, but not because of less attempts. It would be due to less lethality
of the instrument. Just as I stated below.
>> (Note that does not say that they won't substitute, it simply states
>> that their substituted method will likely be less lethal.
>
> And some of them won't succeed in "offing" themselves, which is the
> claim I am addressing -
> "IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other ways."
If they don't have a gun available they will find other ways to commit
the act.....jump off an overpass, suicide by cop, poison, sleeping pills,
carbon monoxide, etc.. Lack of a gun will not stop the attempt which was
the point.
>> Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to
>> lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and,
>> very often, the overall suicide rate decline.
>>
>> (Because they are less successful, not because they are not
>> attempted.)
>
> Or a bit of both.
>
> "1. Won't a suicidal person just substitute another method if they
> can't get a gun?
>
> Often yes...... "
> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/faq/#FAQ1
>
> So not always.
If the will to commit suicide is strong enough to pursue the most lethal
means available and it isn't.....then something else will be substituted.
Demon Buddha
> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
> gun kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the
> completion rate will likely fall.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
because some will use them to commit suicide?
> So not always.
I can accept that for impulse attempts, but not for those who have
seriously considered it for extended periods. Those who are determined
will always find a way.
Demon Buddha
>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>> gun kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the
>> completion rate will likely fall.
>
> Yep, but not because of less attempts. It would be due to less lethality
> of the instrument. Just as I stated below.
Not less lethal, just more easily foiled. A bottle of valium is every
bit as lethal as a gun (dead is dead, after all). It takes longer to do
the job and therefore enlarges the window of opportunity for the
candidate to change his mind or to be discovered by a third party. With
the right determination and some care in planning, valium is every bit
as effective as a gun. In some cases, more so. I have a good friend in
Boulder, another friend of whom put a .45 in his mouth and pulled the
trigger. The bullet whizzed around the inside of his skull and exited
the other side of his face. The poor bastard then went to prison for
two years for the attempt, courtesy of the interminably humanitarian CO
"justice" system. Had he taken a couple of grams of valium, he would
almost certainly have succeeded in killing himself.
Hiccum Blurpaedius
@comcast.net> wrote:
> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved in
> either drug or gang activity. That does not necessarily mean at the time
> of the occurrence. It means that if you avoid drug or gang activity (or
> association with those that are involved) your chances of becoming a
> homicide victim are greatly reduced.
99% of homicides are committed in countries that are religious police
states. All are christian dominated. Most are capitalist tax suckng
maggots.
Without Satan Jesus would be nothing
Exterminate god god dammit
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE78F7EC...@216.196.97.130...
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> news:4b2e7f1d$0$56973$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CE77DE03...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove those
>>>>> as the rate goes quite a ways down.
>>>>
>>>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
>>>> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected to
>>>> other criminal activities, so the number would change by about 1.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved
>>> in either drug or gang activity.
>>
>> Evidence?
>
> Various police reports.
Some police reports probably do, but you need evidence that shows 80% of
homicides involve drug or gang activity.
>Do you understand what is being said?
Yes - you said 80% of homicides involve drug or gang activity. I asked for
evidence - do you understand what is being said, because so far you give no
indication of understanding what constitutes evidence.
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE7902B0...@216.196.97.130...
Who cares? That's just another attempt at diversion. Your claim was "Suicide
is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other
ways." The evidence is that they don't find other ways to off themselves.
> It would be due to less lethality
> of the instrument. Just as I stated below.
So now you are backing away from you claim that they find other ways to off
themselves.
>
>>> (Note that does not say that they won't substitute, it simply states
>>> that their substituted method will likely be less lethal.
>>
>> And some of them won't succeed in "offing" themselves, which is the
>> claim I am addressing -
>> "IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other ways."
>
> If they don't have a gun available they will find other ways to commit
> the act.....jump off an overpass, suicide by cop, poison, sleeping pills,
> carbon monoxide, etc.. Lack of a gun will not stop the attempt which was
> the point.
No it wasn't. Your claim was that they find other ways to off themselves -
now you say that these other ways don't work. So there is a lower suicide
rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is what you now seem to be
agreeing with.
>
>>> Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to
>>> lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and,
>>> very often, the overall suicide rate decline.
>>>
>>> (Because they are less successful, not because they are not
>>> attempted.)
>>
>> Or a bit of both.
>>
>> "1. Won't a suicidal person just substitute another method if they
>> can't get a gun?
>>
>> Often yes...... "
>> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/faq/#FAQ1
>>
>> So not always.
>
> If the will to commit suicide is strong enough to pursue the most lethal
> means available and it isn't.....then something else will be substituted.
You can ignore evidence to the contrary - it is your right, nay, obligation
as a gunloon to ignore evidence which contradicts your beliefs.
Blinky Bill
"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
> Blinky Bill wrote:
>
>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded gun
>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>> rate will likely fall.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
> because some will use them to commit suicide?
Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I( wrote.
>
>> So not always.
>
> I can accept that for impulse attempts, but not for those who have
> seriously considered it for extended periods. Those who are determined
> will always find a way.
Very likely, but not every suicide fits into that category.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>Who cares? That's just another attempt at diversion. Your claim was "Suicide
>is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other
>ways." The evidence is that they don't find other ways to off themselves.
The evidence [Japan} is that they do.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>
>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded gun
>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>> rate will likely fall.
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>
>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I( wrote.
Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal means?"
Or are you going to claim that keeping it unloaded in a safe is going
to prevent suicide? [chuckle]
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:oitjj5dfq4puh5jf4...@4ax.com...
The subject wasn't only Japan , but I expected such an attempt at
cherry-picking diversion - the evidence was many studies showing that
reduced availability of firearms is associated with a lower risk of suicide.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lktjj5hvjc11k3pbf...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>>>> gun
>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>
>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I(
>>wrote.
>
> Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal means?"
No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been written
can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which you
have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
available)".
> Or are you going to claim that keeping it unloaded in a safe is going
> to prevent suicide? [chuckle]
That is what what a large number of studies have found - I believe them
rather than someone who is so clueless he can only chuckle at well
documented evidence that he dislikes.
>
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:oitjj5dfq4puh5jf4...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Who cares? That's just another attempt at diversion. Your claim was
>>>"Suicide
>>>is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other
>>>ways." The evidence is that they don't find other ways to off themselves.
>>
>> The evidence [Japan} is that they do.
>
>The subject wasn't only Japan , but I expected such an attempt at
>cherry-picking diversion - the evidence was many studies showing that
>reduced availability of firearms is associated with a lower risk of suicide.
I never said the subject was only Japan. However, Japan is proof that
those without access to guns can still kill themselves in record
numbers, thereby completely negating the whole "availability of guns
influences the numbers of suicides" argument.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:lktjj5hvjc11k3pbf...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>>>>> gun
>>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>>
>>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I(
>>>wrote.
>>
>> Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal means?"
>
>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been written
>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which you
>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>available)".
So you think the five seconds it takes to make a "not readily
available" gun into a "readily available gun" is going to make a
difference? Please provide your cites.
>> Or are you going to claim that keeping it unloaded in a safe is going
>> to prevent suicide? [chuckle]
>
>That is what what a large number of studies have found - I believe them
>rather than someone who is so clueless he can only chuckle at well
>documented evidence that he dislikes.
Then explain Japan.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8kujj5hssssvjnoo3...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:lktjj5hvjc11k3pbf...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>>>>>> gun
>>>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>>>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>>>
>>>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I(
>>>>wrote.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal means?"
>>
>>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been
>>written
>>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which you
>>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>>available)".
>
> So you think the five seconds it takes to make a "not readily
> available" gun into a "readily available gun" is going to make a
> difference?
I don't know where you get your "5 seconds" - I can only cite the results of
the studies.
>Please provide your cites.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tgujj5h8jpsn9ddi4...@4ax.com...
Then what part of Japan with firearm controls was used to compare with what
part of Japan without firearm controls? Or what periods in time with and
without firearm controls are you comparing? In reality there is no study of
the influence of changing the availability of guns in Japan. There is only a
raw number that shows Japan has a high suicide rate and has a high rate for
cultural reasons.
The studies cited did not claim that suicide rate would be the lowest, just
that it is lower when guns are not as readily available as in areas that are
otherwise similar.
Klaus Schadenfreude
And low firearms use for suicides. For whatever reason. The fat
remains, people can kill themselves at a very high rate WITHOUT
resorting to firearm use, thereby completely negating the whole
"availability of guns influences the numbers of suicides" argument.
>
>The studies cited did not claim that suicide rate would be the lowest, just
>that it is lower when guns are not as readily available as in areas that are
>otherwise similar.
Oh, I did not see the part of the study that added, "...in areas that
are otherwise similar." Can you please cite that part for me so I can
read it? Thanks.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Then please cite the amount of time it takes to result in a deterrent.
RD (The Sandman)
>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE78F7EC...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>> news:4b2e7f1d$0$56973$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9CE77DE03...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>> news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>
>>>>>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove
>>>>>> those as the rate goes quite a ways down.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
>>>>> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected
>>>>> to other criminal activities, so the number would change by about
>>>>> 1.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved
>>>> in either drug or gang activity.
>>>
>>> Evidence?
>>
>> Various police reports.
>
> Some police reports probably do, but you need evidence that shows 80%
> of homicides involve drug or gang activity.
Why would I do that? That wasn't my claim. My claim was that in about
80% of the homicides, one party or both had involvement in either drug or
gang activity. I did not say that the homicide did.
>>Do you understand what is being said?
>
> Yes - you said 80% of homicides involve drug or gang activity.
No, I didn't.
I asked
> for evidence - do you understand what is being said, because so far
> you give no indication of understanding what constitutes evidence.
RD (The Sandman)
>>>>> ab il ity-and-suicide-prevalence-us-case-control-studies.html
Yep, as I restated just above.
> now you say that these other ways don't work.
No, I didn't. I said that the other ways were not as lethal.
So there is
> a lower suicide rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is
> what you now seem to be agreeing with.
There may be a lower completion rate since many other methods are not as
lethal. That, however, does not mean that the participant didn't try as
I noted below.
>>>> Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access
>>>> to lethal means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate
>>>> and, very often, the overall suicide rate decline.
>>>>
>>>> (Because they are less successful, not because they are not
>>>> attempted.)
>>>
>>> Or a bit of both.
>>>
>>> "1. Won't a suicidal person just substitute another method if they
>>> can't get a gun?
>>>
>>> Often yes...... "
>>> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/faq/#FAQ1
>>>
>>> So not always.
>>
>> If the will to commit suicide is strong enough to pursue the most
>> lethal means available and it isn't.....then something else will be
>> substituted.
>
> You can ignore evidence to the contrary - it is your right, nay,
> obligation as a gunloon to ignore evidence which contradicts your
> beliefs.
I see you are very good at that, Blinky.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:er1kj5tmre57eauma...@4ax.com...
So there haven't been any studies in Japan comparable to the ones I cited,
so all you can say is that the Japan rate is high. It may be that if guns
were available it would be even higher.
> For whatever reason. The fat
> remains, people can kill themselves at a very high rate WITHOUT
> resorting to firearm use,
Yes, no-one has denied that.
> thereby completely negating the whole
> "availability of guns influences the numbers of suicides" argument.
No it doesn't - you are labouring under the delusion that a single outlying
data point "negates" a correlation. That is not how statistical studies
work. As an analogy, if a treatment for cancer is not successful, it does
not mean that form of treatment has been "negated" and must be abandoned.
>>
>
>>The studies cited did not claim that suicide rate would be the lowest,
>>just
>>that it is lower when guns are not as readily available as in areas that
>>are
>>otherwise similar.
>
> Oh, I did not see the part of the study that added, "...in areas that
> are otherwise similar." Can you please cite that part for me so I can
> read it? Thanks.
I already have and you didn't - get a grown up to help.
"A later psychological autopsy study (Brent 1999) compared 140 adolescent
suicide decedents with 131 demographically similar community controls"
and
"....while controlling for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and
alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide."
I assume (probably incorrectly) that you know what is meant by
"controlling".
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rv1kj553fn2qn3qqn...@4ax.com...
Read the cited studies.
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF079403...@216.196.97.130...
Then provide evidence for your claim. Handwaving "police reports" is not
evidence.
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF079E72...@216.196.97.130...
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
> news:4b39f5f2$0$81997$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CE7902B0...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b2e8308$0$56977$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>
Well duh - if they don't work the death rate is lower because they don't
"off themselves" which is contrary to your claim.
>
> So there is
>> a lower suicide rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is
>> what you now seem to be agreeing with.
>
> There may be a lower completion rate since many other methods are not as
> lethal. That, however, does not mean that the participant didn't try as
> I noted below.
So they don't always "off themselves" by other means.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:1cukj5lg8kod5ivjl...@4ax.com...
> As you like to say, what evidence?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
> Obviously people the world over
> off themselves by any variety of means. The statistics of methods
> used in the U.S. alone proves that out. If any of the people who
> offed themselves by method other then firearm while owning a firearm
> then would you accept that as your beloved "evidence"?
I don't understand the question. I accept that some people with access to
firearms almost certainly use other methods for suicide.
> What would you
> do with said evidence if provided with it?
I would say "so what" - the evidence of studies is "....within the U.S.,
access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk."
> Would change your opinion,
> STFU, or off yourself by means other then firearm?
Stick to English, I am having trouble reading gibberish.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:1cukj5lg8kod5ivjl...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:28:34 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> As you like to say, what evidence?
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
> Obviously people the world over
> off themselves by any variety of means. The statistics of methods
> used in the U.S. alone proves that out. If any of the people who
> offed themselves by method other then firearm while owning a firearm
> then would you accept that as your beloved "evidence"?
I don't understand the question. I accept that some people with access to
firearms almost certainly use other methods for suicide.
> What would you
> do with said evidence if provided with it? Would change your opinion,
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:toukj5hd181becjaq...@4ax.com...
> You do realize that people publish studies to back up theories not
> create them in the first place.
No I don't - what evidence do you have for this? None? So it is just like
your "theory" about the CDC speaking in a special code that only you
understand when they publish their results.
> If the study doesn't back up the
> theory it is either discarded or the results not published.
You shouldn't attribute your thought patterns to other people - they are not
all as mentally bankrupt as you.
> Do you even know what "Well Documented Evidence" is?
Sure - and obviously you don't. You think it is only results that agree with
you.
> --
>
> "Gustatus Similis Pullus"
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:mtukj5tns1bkvdubc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:13:53 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>>>>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been
>>>>written
>>>>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which you
>>>>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>>>>available)".
>>>
>>> So you think the five seconds it takes to make a "not readily
>>> available" gun into a "readily available gun" is going to make a
>>> difference?
>>
>>I don't know where you get your "5 seconds" - I can only cite the results
>>of
>>the studies.
>>
> The amount of time it takes to convert an unloaded weapon to loaded
> one.
Not if the gun, ammunition and if possible the bolt are stored separately.
>>
>>>Please provide your cites.
>>
>>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
>>
> No doubt in your blinking little mind that those good folks had no
> agenda right?
Feel free to provide any evidence you have that they had an agenda. What's
that? You don't have any?
No doubt in your malfunctioning mind they are part of a great anti-gun
conspiracy, just as is everybody else who finds evidence you don't like.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:91vkj5l46rgekf4bj...@4ax.com...
> If you include Alcohol (which I actually consider a drug) the
> percentage is probably higher.
In asked for evidence, not your opinion
RD (The Sandman)
I made the statement as it is one I have read from time to time in news
articles about homicides. I don't have a cite sitting here and don't
care to look it up. If you wish to prove me wrong, go for it.
RD (The Sandman)
$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
However, it wasn't due to lack of effort which appears to be your arguing
point. Are you saying that they don't try any other methods or that
those methods may not be as lethal? Try to be specific on your own for a
change.
>> So there is
>>> a lower suicide rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is
>>> what you now seem to be agreeing with.
>>
>> There may be a lower completion rate since many other methods are not
as
>> lethal. That, however, does not mean that the participant didn't try
as
>> I noted below.
>
> So they don't always "off themselves" by other means.
See above.
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF0A61C...@216.196.97.130...
That's not how it works - I am under no obligation to prove you wrong when
you make a claim. You are obliged to provide evidence to support your claim,
otherwise some might think you are just making it up, ancd that is exactly
what I think you did.
Blinky Bill
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF0A673F...@216.196.97.130...
> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in news:4b3a7fbe$0$82000
> $c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>
>>
>>
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CF079E72...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b39f5f2$0$81997$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If they don't have a gun available they will find other ways to
>>>>> commit the act.....jump off an overpass, suicide by cop, poison,
>>>>> sleeping pills, carbon monoxide, etc.. Lack of a gun will not stop
>>>>> the attempt which was the point.
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn't. Your claim was that they find other ways to off
>>>> themselves -
>>>
>>> Yep, as I restated just above.
>>>
>>>> now you say that these other ways don't work.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. I said that the other ways were not as lethal.
>>
>> Well duh - if they don't work the death rate is lower because they
> don't
>> "off themselves" which is contrary to your claim.
>
> However, it wasn't due to lack of effort which appears to be your arguing
> point.
That is what you are attempting to divert the discussion to. Your original
statement was quite specific and clear -
"Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will
find other ways."
The evidence is they don't find other ways to off themselves, because
"access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk."
> Are you saying that they don't try any other methods or that
> those methods may not be as lethal?
Who cares? It is irrelevant if the suicidal thought is not carried through
to completion.
>
> Try to be specific on your own for a change.
About something that is irrelevant? Why shwould I bother?
>>> So there is
>>>> a lower suicide rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is
>>>> what you now seem to be agreeing with.
>>>
>>> There may be a lower completion rate since many other methods are not
> as
>>> lethal. That, however, does not mean that the participant didn't try
> as
>>> I noted below.
>>
>> So they don't always "off themselves" by other means.
>
> See above.
I did, that's why I was able to conclude that they don't off themselves by
other means. That is, the completion rate is lower.
Klaus Schadenfreude
No, that's not all I've been saying, if you'll take the time to read
what I've written.
I've been saying
(a) the rate in Japan is incredibly high
(b) the "average" Japanese citizen has no access to guns
(c) regardless of (b), Japanese manage to kill themselves without
guns.
Therefore, people can easily kill themselves without guns.
Therefore, guns don't "cause" people to commit suicide, influence
people to commit suicide, or make it easier to commit suicide.
It's obvious. You don't need a "study."
>It may be that if guns
>were available it would be even higher.
the rate is irrelevant.
>> For whatever reason. The fat
>> remains, people can kill themselves at a very high rate WITHOUT
>> resorting to firearm use,
>
>Yes, no-one has denied that.
Well then, our conversation appears to be at a close. We agree.
Klaus Schadenfreude
IOW, you know of no such cite.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bh7lj51jojoco3j7n...@4ax.com...
> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> And low firearms use for suicides.
>>
>>So there haven't been any studies in Japan comparable to the ones I cited,
>>so all you can say is that the Japan rate is high.
>
> No, that's not all I've been saying, if you'll take the time to read
> what I've written.
>
> I've been saying
>
> (a) the rate in Japan is incredibly high
Not really - it ranks 8th and is about twice the US rate
> (b) the "average" Japanese citizen has no access to guns
Arguable because "average" makes little or no sense in that context.
> (c) regardless of (b), Japanese manage to kill themselves without
> guns.
>
> Therefore, people can easily kill themselves without guns.
No one has argued the contrary view.
> Therefore, guns don't "cause" people to commit suicide, influence
> people to commit suicide, or make it easier to commit suicide.
I'll believe the studies documented by Harvard before you. They show that in
population which are similar, "that within the U.S., access to firearms is
associated with increased suicide risk." They are not comparing the U*S with
other populations which have significant cultural dufferences.
> It's obvious. You don't need a "study."
It's obvious you don't like the results of the studies cited b y Harvard.
>>It may be that if guns
>>were available it would be even higher.
>
> the rate is irrelevant.
>
>>> For whatever reason. The fat
>>> remains, people can kill themselves at a very high rate WITHOUT
>>> resorting to firearm use,
>>
>>Yes, no-one has denied that.
>
>
> Well then, our conversation appears to be at a close. We agree.
Good then you agree "that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated
with increased suicide risk." so our conversation appears to be at a close.
Blinky Bill
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fr7lj5p7vqvkqb98c...@4ax.com...
That's right - and I didn't claim to know such a time. You are constructing
a strawman. You introduced 5 seconds into the discussion but provide no
evidence that any study mentioned 5 seconds. And now you want me to cite a
time frame - do your own research. If you really want to know, then do as I
suggest - read the cited stuidies.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:pt2mj51c29g41dj78...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:53:43 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:bh7lj51jojoco3j7n...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And low firearms use for suicides.
>>>>
>>>>So there haven't been any studies in Japan comparable to the ones I
>>>>cited,
>>>>so all you can say is that the Japan rate is high.
>>>
>>> No, that's not all I've been saying, if you'll take the time to read
>>> what I've written.
>>>
>>> I've been saying
>>>
>>> (a) the rate in Japan is incredibly high
>>
>>Not really - it ranks 8th and is about twice the US rate
>>
> I suspect you are using the chart at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
>>
>>> (b) the "average" Japanese citizen has no access to guns
>>
>>Arguable because "average" makes little or no sense in that context.
>>
> Do you really need a definition of what "Average" means in this
> context? Such as the "Average" Japanese owns a cell phone, or
> computer, of HDTV as opposed to firearm?
Meaningless gibberish from someone who apparently has a poor command of
English.
I notice you have moved the goal-posts - the original "access to" has been
changed to "owns".
>>
>>> (c) regardless of (b), Japanese manage to kill themselves without
>>> guns.
>>>
>>> Therefore, people can easily kill themselves without guns.
>>
>>No one has argued the contrary view.
>>
>>
>>> Therefore, guns don't "cause" people to commit suicide, influence
>>> people to commit suicide, or make it easier to commit suicide.
>>
>>I'll believe the studies documented by Harvard before you. They show that
>>in
>>population which are similar, "that within the U.S., access to firearms is
>>associated with increased suicide risk." They are not comparing the U*S
>>with
>>other populations which have significant cultural dufferences.
>>
> Well there is a little addendum that you Harvard Study lovers have
> been leaving out. Miller, Matthew and Hemenway, David (2001). Firearm
> Prevalence and the Risk of Suicide: A Review. Harvard Health Policy
> Review. p. 2.
> http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~epihc/currentissue/Fall2001/miller.htm.
>
> "One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun
> ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g.
> where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the
> association lost its statistical significance when additional
> countries were included.
> The same thing can be said about U.S. States & Cities where firearm
> ownership is greatly restricted, especially handguns which are the
> preferred firearm for suicide.
>>
>>> It's obvious. You don't need a "study."
>>
>>It's obvious you don't like the results of the studies cited b y Harvard.
>>
> It's obvious you didn't include all the studies or mention that it was
> only one that found a statistically significant relationship.
No - every study cited found a statistical significant relationship - can't
you read?
"Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access
to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are not more
suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more
likely to be fatal."
"Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to lethal
means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and, very often, the
overall suicide rate decline."
"Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died
by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more
likely to live in homes with guns."
"Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to
those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are
more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from
higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across
states. "
Why you think these means that only one study found a statistically
significant relationship is something only you can explain.
For Christ's learn to read - I'm wasting my time giving you information that
you cannot understand.
>However,
> that study only include 14 developed nations where the survey data on
> gun ownership levels were available.
>
> Looks like a little Whoopsie of the full disclosure aspect.
"Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access
to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are not more
suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more
likely to be fatal."
"Studies in a variety of countries have indicated that when access to lethal
means is reduced, both the means-specific suicide rate and, very often, the
overall suicide rate decline.
"Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died
by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more
likely to live in homes with guns."
"Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to
those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are
more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from
higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across
states. "
Any little whoopsie in this discussion has been made entirely by you. Get a
grown up to help you read.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:s14mj59j1tanjnulf...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:53:43 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
> Well since you "love" your studies this ought to really rock your boat
> on the issue of restricting the access to firearms just means the
> suicide victim will pick a different method.
That is not what the US studies found, or most international studies.
>
> Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in
> conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated
> that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide,
> other methods such as hanging increased.
Actually there have been several studies in Australia, but I notice you only
mention one that you think supports your view.
Chapman and Alpers found falls in " firearm suicides (p?=?0.007) and firearm
homicides (p?=?0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional
firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for
suicides or homicides was observed. "
So no method substitution observed.
They also found "Figure 1F and table 3 indicate that the rate of total
non-firearm suicides increased by an average of 2.3% per year before the
introduction of the gun law and reduced by an average of 4.1% per year after
the introduction of the gun laws (see row 6, columns 2 and 3, respectively
in table 3). The ratio of the pre-law to-post-law trends differs
statistically (p<0.001)."
So they say that firearm and non-firearm suicides fell after the laws
changed, which means that total suicides must have fallen. You claim another
study found that the suicide rate increased. Let's look at the official
figures for suicide after the laws changed.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3309.0/
Look at the first graph - it clearly shows that total suicides have fallen
since 1997 when the laws came into force.
>In Australia, the overall
> rate of suicide actually increased (following a trend that had been
> moving upwards for some time),
A lie - the ABS shows that it decreased after the laws came into force.
> and did not decrease until measures
> specifically aimed at providing support to would-be suicide victims
> was enacted.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:j74mj5prr2e0g766i...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:16:29 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9CF079E72...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b39f5f2$0$81997$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9CE7902B0...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:4b2e8308$0$56977$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>> Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun,
>>>>>>>>> they will find other ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Numerous studies find the exact opposite.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/bibliography/firearm-avail
>>>>>>>> ab il ity-and-suicide-prevalence-us-case-control-studies.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They do? From your cite:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that
>>>>>>> access to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. *Firearm owners
>>>>>>> are not more suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their
>>>>>>> suicide attempts are more likely to be fatal.* (The very point some
>>>>>>> have been making.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed - including me. That should be obvious to even you given that
>>>>>> I provided that URL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many
>>>>>>> suicide attempts are made impulsively during a short-term crisis
>>>>>>> period. If highly lethal means are made less available to impulsive
>>>>>>> attempters and they substitute less lethal means, or temporarily
>>>>>>> postpone their attempt, the odds are increased that they will
>>>>>>> survive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a
>>>>>> loaded gun kept readily available) and the studies concluded that
>>>>>> the completion rate will likely fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, but not because of less attempts.
>>>>
>>>> Who cares? That's just another attempt at diversion. Your claim was
>>>> "Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they
>>>> will find other ways." The evidence is that they don't find other ways
>>>> to off themselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It would be due to less lethality
>>>>> of the instrument. Just as I stated below.
>>>>
>>>> So now you are backing away from you claim that they find other ways
>>>> to off themselves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Note that does not say that they won't substitute, it simply
>>>>>>> states that their substituted method will likely be less lethal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And some of them won't succeed in "offing" themselves, which is the
>>>>>> claim I am addressing -
>>>>>> "IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find other ways."
>>>>>
>>>>> If they don't have a gun available they will find other ways to
>>>>> commit the act.....jump off an overpass, suicide by cop, poison,
>>>>> sleeping pills, carbon monoxide, etc.. Lack of a gun will not stop
>>>>> the attempt which was the point.
>>>>
>>>> No it wasn't. Your claim was that they find other ways to off
>>>> themselves -
>>>
>>> Yep, as I restated just above.
>>>
>>>> now you say that these other ways don't work.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't. I said that the other ways were not as lethal.
>>
>>Well duh - if they don't work the death rate is lower because they don't
>>"off themselves" which is contrary to your claim.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So there is
>>>> a lower suicide rate because of the unavailability of guns, which is
>>>> what you now seem to be agreeing with.
>>>
>>> There may be a lower completion rate since many other methods are not as
>>> lethal. That, however, does not mean that the participant didn't try as
>>> I noted below.
>>
>>So they don't always "off themselves" by other means.
>>
> Well since you "love" your studies this ought to really rock your boat
> on the issue of restricting the access to firearms just means the
> suicide victim will pick a different method.
>
> Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in
> conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated
> that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide,
> other methods such as hanging increased.
Why think your previous lie is worth repeating remains a mystery. Suicides
fell after the laws came into force.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:994mj51iema1nnivl...@4ax.com...
> Uh nice try, but totally & completely wrong.
>>
> Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in
> conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated
> that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide,
> other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall
> rate of suicide actually increased
Why you repeat your lie yet again is a mystery only you can explain.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:2d4mj5lgelfsf767i...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:33:58 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> As you like to say, what evidence?
>>
>>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
>>
>>> Obviously people the world over
>>> off themselves by any variety of means. The statistics of methods
>>> used in the U.S. alone proves that out. If any of the people who
>>> offed themselves by method other then firearm while owning a firearm
>>> then would you accept that as your beloved "evidence"?
>>
>>I don't understand the question. I accept that some people with access to
>>firearms almost certainly use other methods for suicide.
>>
>>> What would you
>>> do with said evidence if provided with it?
>>
>>I would say "so what" - the evidence of studies is "....within the U.S.,
>>access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk."
>>
>>> Would change your opinion,
>>> STFU, or off yourself by means other then firearm?
>>
>>Stick to English, I am having trouble reading gibberish.
>>
> Well since you "love" your studies this ought to really rock your boat
> on the issue of restricting the access to firearms just means the
> suicide victim will pick a different method if a firearm was his/her
> first choice.
>
> Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in
> conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated
> that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide,
> other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall
> rate of suicide actually increased
I can see that you are a great believer in the idea that telling a lie often
enough makes it true. Unfortunately that isn't the case - this shows the
number of suicides in Australia after the laws came into force in 1997.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3309.0/
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:aj4mj5t29c06ik843...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:38:34 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:1cukj5lg8kod5ivjl...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:28:34 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns9CE7902B0...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:4b2e8308$0$56977$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns9CE77E9BD...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4b2e7757$0$56973$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:95KdnaLvG-W137PW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:bpednfJ3-ok717DW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it's the truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Switzerland's total number of gun deaths, including accidents,
>>>>>>>>>>>> in 2005 was 6.2 per 100,000 people -- second only to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the US rate of 9.42 per 100,000."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> US rate per 100K is about 4.6, not 9.42.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Read for comprehension "total number of gun deaths", not just
>>>>>>>>>> homicide.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Suicide is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they
>>>>>>>>> will find other ways.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>"Suicide
>>>>is irrelevant. IF they can't off themselves via gun, they will find
>>>>other
>>>>ways." The evidence is that they don't find other ways to off
>>>>themselves.
>>>>
>>> As you like to say, what evidence?
>>
>>
>>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
>>
>>> Obviously people the world over
>>> off themselves by any variety of means. The statistics of methods
>>> used in the U.S. alone proves that out. If any of the people who
>>> offed themselves by method other then firearm while owning a firearm
>>> then would you accept that as your beloved "evidence"?
>>
>>I don't understand the question. I accept that some people with access to
>>firearms almost certainly use other methods for suicide.
>>
>>> What would you
>>> do with said evidence if provided with it? Would change your opinion,
>>> STFU, or off yourself by means other then firearm?
>>
>>I would say "so what" - the evidence of studies is "....within the U.S.,
>>access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk."
>>
> In one study,
I can see that you are a great believer in the idea that telling a lie often
enough makes it true. Many studies demonstrated a higher suicide rate
associated with greater gun availability.
>with a contradictory study performed at the same
> institution.
More lies from the compulsive liar.
> One of the wonderful things about studies is if A says
> seven out of ten dentists use X, another one will come along and say
> no.
>
> Anyhow in two countries with comparable demographics to the U.S.,
> Canada & Australia stricter gun legislation had no impact on the
> suicide rate and the victims simply picked another method. Well
> actually in Australia it went up,
I can see that you are a great believer in the idea that telling a lie often
enough makes it true. Unfortunately that isn't the case - this shows the
number of suicides in Australia decreased after the laws came into force in
1997.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3309.0/
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:os4mj55ph89c7h7a5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:30:03 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>>>> gun
>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>
>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I(
>>wrote.
>>
> So what is your point Bill? Mine (and others) is that a suicide
> should be considered a firearm death just because the victim picked
> that particular tool.
Indeed - on that we agree. Although that seems to contradict your earlier
position and that of some of the other stupid gunloons. But I am glad you
have come to your senses, at least in regard to the matter of counting
firearm deaths.
> That it is disingenuousness to say that there
> are 30,000 firearms deaths
What is "deceptive" about that - it is a matter of fact that is how they
died.
> in the U.S. when the victim would have been
> a death statistic regardless of the choice of tool.
That is your claim without evidence - numerous studies have found that some
probably wouldn't have died. But if we adopt the method put forward by you
and other gunloons, let's not count homicides because they could have been
done using a different tool. And accidental shootings, they were unlucky and
would have died in another accident. Gee look at that - in your fantasy
world nobody dies of gunshot wounds. You are an idiot.
>
> To sum it up there needs to be a little asterisk next to that data
> point when used stating that around half were suicides.
Only for idiots/ lunatics like you.
>>
>>>
>>>> So not always.
>>>
>>> I can accept that for impulse attempts, but not for those who have
>>> seriously considered it for extended periods. Those who are determined
>>> will always find a way.
>>
>>Very likely, but not every suicide fits into that category.
>>
> Not everything fits into every category.
Indeed - not every suicide attempt is made by those who are determined to
die.
> That is the overall general
> point that has been attempted to be made.
Every death by gunshot fits into the category of death by gunshot.
> That saying there are
> 30,000 firearm deaths in the U.S. without annotating that around half
> freely made that choice is a misleading use of that number.
The data on the CDC web site clearly shows how many suicide by gunshot. Just
because you are stupid doesn't mean everybody else is.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:375mj5hleljvgimgj...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:45:25 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:lktjj5hvjc11k3pbf...@4ax.com...
>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a loaded
>>>>>> gun
>>>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the completion
>>>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to arms
>>>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>>>
>>>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what I(
>>>>wrote.
>>>
>>> Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal means?"
>>
>>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been
>>written
>>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which you
>>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>>available)".
>>
>>> Or are you going to claim that keeping it unloaded in a safe is going
>>> to prevent suicide? [chuckle]
>>
>>That is what what a large number of studies have found - I believe them
>>rather than someone who is so clueless he can only chuckle at well
>>documented evidence that he dislikes.
>>
> No it is what ONE study at Harvard found
I can see that you are a great believer in the idea that telling a lie often
enough makes it true.
"No - every study cited found a statistical significant relationship - can't
you read?
"Every U.S. study that has examined the relationship has found that access
to firearms is a risk factor for suicides. Firearm owners are not more
suicidal than non-firearm owners; rather, their suicide attempts are more
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:cc5mj59c11q0e6m9g...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:49:07 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:mtukj5tns1bkvdubc...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:13:53 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been
>>>>>>written
>>>>>>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>>>>>>available)".
>>>>>
>>>>> So you think the five seconds it takes to make a "not readily
>>>>> available" gun into a "readily available gun" is going to make a
>>>>> difference?
>>>>
>>>>I don't know where you get your "5 seconds" - I can only cite the
>>>>results
>>>>of
>>>>the studies.
>>>>
>>> The amount of time it takes to convert an unloaded weapon to loaded
>>> one.
>>
>>Not if the gun, ammunition and if possible the bolt are stored separately.
>>
> Is that what you are advocating? If so why?
I am not advocating anything - I am explaining a condition a gun could be
kept in so that it is not "readily available".
> Of what use would such a
> storage method be when the firearm is used primarily for security &
> safety.
The suicide statistics show that it is a risk to security and safety. And if
we apply your novel use of 'average', then the average US citizen is not
robbed or killed or assaulted.
> Wouldn't your methodology complete render that usage null &
> void?
Possibly - but it would only effect paranoid idiots like you
>>>>
>>>>>Please provide your cites.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
>>>>
>>> No doubt in your blinking little mind that those good folks had no
>>> agenda right?
>>
>> Feel free to provide any evidence you have that they had an agenda.
>> What's
>>that? You don't have any?
>>
> There is another study at the exact same institution discounting their
> research methods
Which one was that?
> because the study you mentioned only included 14
> developed countries were gun ownership levels are known.
It would be difficult to do such a study of countries where gun ownership
levels are not known.
The Harvard site mentions not one but over a dozen studies about the
association between suicide and gun availability - get an adult to help you
read it
> Additionally
> there are three studies showing that stricter firearms laws in Canada
> & Australia had absolutely no impact on the overall suicide rate.
I can see that you are a great believer in the idea that telling a lie often
enough makes it true. Unfortunately that isn't the case - this shows the
number of suicides in Australia decreased after the laws came into force in
1997.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3309.0/
>>
>>No doubt in your malfunctioning mind they are part of a great anti-gun
>>conspiracy, just as is everybody else who finds evidence you don't like.
>>
> Well they really aren't known for being a "Gun Friendly" Institution
> in a "Gun Friendly" State. Almost all Colleges & Universities are
> bastions of Liberal/Progressive Philosophy. One of the primary tenets
> of which is the strictest form of gun control they can get away with.
So you don't actually have any evidence that what they wrote was biased - it
is just your fantasy because you don't like the results. It saves a lot of
typing if you just admit that
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:4p5mj51a3igs8vp97...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:42:41 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>> You do realize that people publish studies to back up theories not
>>> create them in the first place.
>>
>>No I don't - what evidence do you have for this? None? So it is just like
>>your "theory" about the CDC speaking in a special code that only you
>>understand when they publish their results.
>>
> Ok I'll try to type real slowly for you. First go read Clinton's AWB
> Bill.
Irrelevant - stop wasting my time - explain what is code about the results
of the CDC survey of the effect of legal interventions on violent crime.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:786mj5t5k7c8qlnfe...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:10:27 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9CF079403...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b39f22e$0$81999$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9CE78F7EC...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:4b2e7f1d$0$56973$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:Xns9CE77DE03...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:4b2d4e14$0$32081$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That rate includes crimes related to the drug trade. Remove
>>>>>>>>> those as the rate goes quite a ways down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the drug trade exists, so the use in that counted. And the FBI
>>>>>>>> says that less than a quarter of firearm homicides are connected
>>>>>>>> to other criminal activities, so the number would change by about
>>>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, in about 80% of homicides one party or both are involved
>>>>>>> in either drug or gang activity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evidence?
>>>>>
>>>>> Various police reports.
>>>>
>>>> Some police reports probably do, but you need evidence that shows 80%
>>>> of homicides involve drug or gang activity.
>>>
>>> Why would I do that? That wasn't my claim. My claim was that in about
>>> 80% of the homicides, one party or both had involvement in either drug
>>> or
>>> gang activity. I did not say that the homicide did.
>>
>>Then provide evidence for your claim. Handwaving "police reports" is not
>>evidence.
>>
> If you do not want to use Police Reports or FBI numbers, exactly what
> do you want to use?
FBI reports would be quite satisfactory - cite one that says that one or
both parties in homicides are involved in drugs or crime activity.
Blinky Bill
"Zombywoof" <fish...@live.com> wrote in message
news:mc6mj55s6sahbdfsc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:37:07 +1100, "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9CF0A61C...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote in
>>> news:4b3a7e54$0$82000$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net:
>>> I made the statement as it is one I have read from time to time in news
>>> articles about homicides. I don't have a cite sitting here and don't
>>> care to look it up. If you wish to prove me wrong, go for it.
>>
>>That's not how it works - I am under no obligation to prove you wrong when
>>you make a claim. You are obliged to provide evidence to support your
>>claim,
>>otherwise some might think you are just making it up, ancd that is exactly
>>what I think you did.
>>
> No your not as long as you keep your mouth closed.
Yes you are - and "police reports" is not a verifiable source.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:fr7lj5p7vqvkqb98c...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rv1kj553fn2qn3qqn...@4ax.com...
>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8kujj5hssssvjnoo3...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:lktjj5hvjc11k3pbf...@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Demon Buddha" <Nob...@no.where> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:XO-dnSQs7sHzc7PW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Blinky Bill wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's the whole point - remove highly lethal means (such as a
>>>>>>>>>>> loaded
>>>>>>>>>>> gun
>>>>>>>>>>> kept readily available) and the studies concluded that the
>>>>>>>>>>> completion
>>>>>>>>>>> rate will likely fall.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you seriously suggesting that everyone be denied access to
>>>>>>>>>> arms
>>>>>>>>>> because some will use them to commit suicide?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Are seriously so stupid that you construct that strawman from what
>>>>>>>>>I(
>>>>>>>>>wrote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you seriously denying that you said "remove highly lethal
>>>>>>>> means?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No - but even someone as skilled as you at distorting what has been
>>>>>>>written
>>>>>>>can see what was written immediately after what you quoted and which
>>>>>>>you
>>>>>>>have ignored- here it is again "(such as a loaded gun kept readily
>>>>>>>available)".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you think the five seconds it takes to make a "not readily
>>>>>> available" gun into a "readily available gun" is going to make a
>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know where you get your "5 seconds" - I can only cite the
>>>>>results
>>>>>of
>>>>>the studies.
>>>>
>>>> Then please cite the amount of time it takes to result in a deterrent.
>>>
>>>Read the cited studies.
>>>
>>
>> IOW, you know of no such cite.
>
>That's right - and I didn't claim to know such a time. You are constructing
>a strawman. You introduced 5 seconds into the discussion but provide no
>evidence that any study mentioned 5 seconds. And now you want me to cite a
>time frame - do your own research. If you really want to know, then do as I
>suggest - read the cited stuidies.
Oh, I'll take any reasonable time you can cite. But it has to be the
amount of time it would take to get a gun, say, our of a safe, and
load it.
Go ahead and find it.
Klaus Schadenfreude
>
>
>"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:bh7lj51jojoco3j7n...@4ax.com...
>> In talk.politics.guns "Blinky Bill" <nos...@anytime.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> And low firearms use for suicides.
>>>
>>>So there haven't been any studies in Japan comparable to the ones I cited,
>>>so all you can say is that the Japan rate is high.
>>
>> No, that's not all I've been saying, if you'll take the time to read
>> what I've written.
>>
>> I've been saying
>>
>> (a) the rate in Japan is incredibly high
>
>Not really - it ranks 8th and is about twice the US rate
Oh, I'd rather use the gun-grabber tactic here and say it's the
highest "among the industrialized nations." :>
>> (b) the "average" Japanese citizen has no access to guns
>
>Arguable because "average" makes little or no sense in that context.
It makes perfect sense. Only one out of over 400 citizens has a gun.
>> (c) regardless of (b), Japanese manage to kill themselves without
>> guns.
>>
>> Therefore, people can easily kill themselves without guns.
>
>No one has argued the contrary view.
Well, LOTS of people have argued contrary views, maybe just not here
in this thread.
>> Therefore, guns don't "cause" people to commit suicide, influence
>> people to commit suicide, or make it easier to commit suicide.
>
>I'll believe the studies documented by Harvard before you. They show that in
>population which are similar, "that within the U.S., access to firearms is
>associated with increased suicide risk." They are not comparing the U*S with
>other populations which have significant cultural dufferences.
That's like saying wet sidewalks cause rain. You are, of course, free
to believe anything you want. But Japan proves Harvard to be wrong.
>> It's obvious. You don't need a "study."
>
>It's obvious you don't like the results of the studies cited b y Harvard.
It's obvious that the study is flawed.
>>>> For whatever reason. The fat
>>>> remains, people can kill themselves at a very high rate WITHOUT
>>>> resorting to firearm use,
>>>
>>>Yes, no-one has denied that.
>>
>>
>>Well then, our conversation appears to be at a close. We agree.
>Good then you agree "that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated
>with increased suicide risk."
Oh heavens no, that's just stupid.