Abortions vs. Guns

[Symmetry]

Love to see some data to back up that obscure statement. For instance, are the metally ill averse to, say, jumping in front of a UPS truck? Or off'n a bridge? Or taking the old Estwing E3 to the head??

Sure, it's counter- intuitive, but that's what makes it interesting http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/ma ... erer=&_r=0

I have trouble posting links from my phone, so hope that works.

TLDR version, suicidal people fixate, and removing easy means of suicide doesn't mean that they just kill themselves differently.

[Phatscotty]

Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

Yup, first thing I thought about is how few people probably belong to either group, as stated.

Just want to add, it's also proven that increasing the amount of firearms carried in public is also proven to preserve life. If everyone was carrying for all the right reasons, the mere possibility of a mass shooting taking place would be reduced by 99%. Stay at home parents, practicing Christianity, living a healthy lifestyle, respecting life, and homeschooling also have been proven to preserve life. Also proven to preserve human life.... never leaving your house.

It's the human nature that needs to be addressed more than anything. Mankind has virtually unlimited potential to commit evil. Same goes for demonstrating tremendous good.

[mrswdk]

That's the argument that proves people are missing the point. If you are living a Christ-centered life, you have no need for guns or abortions.

Especially due to the possibility that your infant was immaculately conceived.

[KoolBak]

Yeah Dukky, I totally agree...the down side is the statistically few (what percent of gun owners have bad shit happen? less than a tenth of one percent?) ruin it for the rest of us. In my extremely large circle of acquaintances, friends and family (spanning 4 generations), there isnt ONE "bad" gun thing...

Agree however, that if I was to off myself, a bullet to the head would be the tickie....

Appreciate that point re: open carry Phatty.

Yoshi...what a stupid statement

[jimboston]

I don't like guns at all and I don't support "no guns for people on no fly lists." Those lists are despicable violations of due process rights.

are you joining the mrswdk group???

[jimboston]

That's the argument that proves people are missing the point. If you are living a Christ-centered life, you have no need for guns or abortions.

so in my Christina centered life...

*This means I can't enjoy hunting?
Christians are now equivalent to vegetarians???

*As a Christians I immediately give up the right to self-defense???

You know, that if wars were not fought to preserve Christianity... then the religion would have died out hundred of years ago. You understand this, right? If past Christians didn't defend themselves, they would have been killed or converted. There's no way around this fact.

(i.e. If everyone who identified as a Christian also became pacifist, Europe would have been overrun by other groups who were NOT Christians, and who would not have tolerated Christianity. The first "Christian Empire"... i.e. Rome... was very militaristic.)

[tzor]

Restricting gun ownership would uncountably drive down the suicide rate of the mentally ill in society. I know they're an unfashionable group to advocate here, but it is a truth nevertheless.

Here is some stats I found ... AFSP's latest data on suicide is taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Data & Statistics Fatal Injury Report for 2013.

In 2013, firearms were the most common method of death by suicide, accounting for a little more than half (51.4%) of all suicide deaths. The next most common methods were suffocation (including hangings) at 24.5% and poisoning at 16.1%

That's a solid data point, but how does tweaking the data change the result? Without firearms, would these people not commit suicide or would they just fold their numbers into the suffocation or poisoning categories?

[SARCASM]But hey, consider this fact ... White males accounted for 70% of all suicides in 2013. Just saying, all that privilege and all that.[/SARCASM]

[tzor]

One of the strangest numbers I hear is how there are so may more guns in the United States than there are people. This is a strange number, and I'll tell you why. Consider the number of gold clubs owned in the United States. Why every golfer has a dozen or so of them and that doesn't count the ones they bought ages ago and no longer use. I don't think anyone keeps this stat. (Try to google this and you get confused with the term "club" also means an establishment.) The fact is that a golfer has a number of clubs for a purpose, each club does a slightly different thing. He just can't distribute his golf clubs to 11 other players and play a game of golf.

This is the same is true for guns. Let's take a typical "hunter" for example. He has one rifle for deer in the country, one shotgun for deer in suburbia, another for bear, another for trap shooting, and that doesn't count the number of weapons he just has for "collector's items" which he probably never uses at all. This is completely different from the use of guns for self protection as one generally only needs one weapon to protect oneself.

[notyou2]

Yeah Dukky, I totally agree...the down side is the statistically few (what percent of gun owners have bad shit happen? less than a tenth of one percent?) ruin it for the rest of us. In my extremely large circle of acquaintances, friends and family (spanning 4 generations), there isnt ONE "bad" gun thing...

Agree however, that if I was to off myself, a bullet to the head would be the tickie....

Appreciate that point re: open carry Phatty.

Yoshi...what a stupid statement

So there has never been a break in and a weapon stolen?

[Symmetry]

Restricting gun ownership would uncountably drive down the suicide rate of the mentally ill in society. I know they're an unfashionable group to advocate here, but it is a truth nevertheless.

Here is some stats I found ... AFSP's latest data on suicide is taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Data & Statistics Fatal Injury Report for 2013.

In 2013, firearms were the most common method of death by suicide, accounting for a little more than half (51.4%) of all suicide deaths. The next most common methods were suffocation (including hangings) at 24.5% and poisoning at 16.1%

That's a solid data point, but how does tweaking the data change the result? Without firearms, would these people not commit suicide or would they just fold their numbers into the suffocation or poisoning categories?

[SARCASM]But hey, consider this fact ... White males accounted for 70% of all suicides in 2013. Just saying, all that privilege and all that.[/SARCASM]

I posted a link at the top and of this page dealing with that argument. Common sense would say that suicidal people would find an alternative method. Research shows that that isn't the case.

The article cites many examples, but to pick one- the UK used to use coal gas for ovens. Sticking your head in an oven and gassing yourself was a very common method of suicide. Then the UK switched to natural gas, and the suicide rate plummeted. Common sense would suggest that people would find alternatives. But the statistics stayed down.

It's worth a read. I definitely would have shared your view before I looked at the facts.

[thegreekdog]

I don't like guns at all and I don't support "no guns for people on no fly lists." Those lists are despicable violations of due process rights.

So this is totally weird too. No fly lists violate due process rights, but restrictions on guns don't violate 2nd amendment rights?

[thegreekdog]

Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

Yup, first thing I thought about is how few people probably belong to either group, as stated.

Just want to add, it's also proven that increasing the amount of firearms carried in public is also proven to preserve life. If everyone was carrying for all the right reasons, the mere possibility of a mass shooting taking place would be reduced by 99%. Stay at home parents, practicing Christianity, living a healthy lifestyle, respecting life, and homeschooling also have been proven to preserve life. Also proven to preserve human life.... never leaving your house.

It's the human nature that needs to be addressed more than anything. Mankind has virtually unlimited potential to commit evil. Same goes for demonstrating tremendous good.

I'm pretty sure the statement "it's also proven that increasing the amount of firearms carried in public is also proven to preserve life" is not actually true and has not actually been proven. I think there are situations where a gun owner stops a crime because he or she has a gun. I don't know how easy (or hard) it would be to statistically figure that out. For example, there are plenty of people in Philadelphia who own guns; that has not stopped violent crimes being committed with guns in Philadelphia. In fact, I suspect more murders happen because of the proliferation of guns in the city. Obviously, I have no statistics.

[Symmetry]

Group 1 supports the unrestricted freedom to bear arms. Group 1 also supports making abortion illegal.
Group 2 supports the restriction of firearms, up to and including making guns illegal. Group 2 also supports making abortion legal (in any capacity up to and including immediately before birth).

Yup, first thing I thought about is how few people probably belong to either group, as stated.

Just want to add, it's also proven that increasing the amount of firearms carried in public is also proven to preserve life. If everyone was carrying for all the right reasons, the mere possibility of a mass shooting taking place would be reduced by 99%. Stay at home parents, practicing Christianity, living a healthy lifestyle, respecting life, and homeschooling also have been proven to preserve life. Also proven to preserve human life.... never leaving your house.

It's the human nature that needs to be addressed more than anything. Mankind has virtually unlimited potential to commit evil. Same goes for demonstrating tremendous good.

I'm pretty sure the statement "it's also proven that increasing the amount of firearms carried in public is also proven to preserve life" is not actually true and has not actually been proven. I think there are situations where a gun owner stops a crime because he or she has a gun. I don't know how easy (or hard) it would be to statistically figure that out. For example, there are plenty of people in Philadelphia who own guns; that has not stopped violent crimes being committed with guns in Philadelphia. In fact, I suspect more murders happen because of the proliferation of guns in the city. Obviously, I have no statistics.

What did you think of the NYTimes front page editorial on guns?

[KoolBak]

Yeah Dukky, I totally agree...the down side is the statistically few (what percent of gun owners have bad shit happen? less than a tenth of one percent?) ruin it for the rest of us. In my extremely large circle of acquaintances, friends and family (spanning 4 generations), there isnt ONE "bad" gun thing...

Agree however, that if I was to off myself, a bullet to the head would be the tickie....

Appreciate that point re: open carry Phatty.

Yoshi...what a stupid statement

So there has never been a break in and a weapon stolen?

Correct. Had there been a break in, there would be a dead perp

[Metsfanmax]

I don't like guns at all and I don't support "no guns for people on no fly lists." Those lists are despicable violations of due process rights.

So this is totally weird too. No fly lists violate due process rights, but restrictions on guns don't violate 2nd amendment rights?

Of course restrictions on guns violate second amendment rights.

[warmonger1981]

One who seeks death shall find it.

[Dukasaur]

Yeah Dukky, I totally agree...the down side is the statistically few (what percent of gun owners have bad shit happen? less than a tenth of one percent?) ruin it for the rest of us. In my extremely large circle of acquaintances, friends and family (spanning 4 generations), there isnt ONE "bad" gun thing...

Agree however, that if I was to off myself, a bullet to the head would be the tickie....

Appreciate that point re: open carry Phatty.

Yoshi...what a stupid statement

So there has never been a break in and a weapon stolen?

Correct. Had there been a break in, there would be a dead perp

So all your friends stay at home 24/7? Nobody goes to work, to church, to the movies, or even to the grocery store?

[Symmetry]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

Gun owners in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot than those who don't. You should not generalize from this to other environments; perhaps things are much different in rural Kansas, in fact I suspect they are.

[Symmetry]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

Gun owners in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot than those who don't. You should not generalize from this to other environments; perhaps things are much different in rural Kansas, in fact I suspect they are.

I'm happy to look at your evidence if you feel that it contradicts the research I provided.

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

Gun owners in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot than those who don't. You should not generalize from this to other environments; perhaps things are much different in rural Kansas, in fact I suspect they are.

I'm happy to look at your evidence if you feel that it contradicts the research I provided.

That's not how science works. You don't get to generalize from one study in one location that the same thing holds true everywhere. In the absence of any other evidence, this might be a reason to suspect that guns don't make you safer even in Kansas, but you should absolutely not make a statement about likelihoods as if they are universalizable. Even if guns increase your chances of getting shot everywhere, there's very little reason to suspect that it's 4-5 times as likely outside of Philadelphia. It could be more, or it could be less, or it even could be the same, but you don't know that without doing more studies.

[Symmetry]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

Gun owners in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot than those who don't. You should not generalize from this to other environments; perhaps things are much different in rural Kansas, in fact I suspect they are.

I'm happy to look at your evidence if you feel that it contradicts the research I provided.

That's not how science works. You don't get to generalize from one study in one location that the same thing holds true everywhere. In the absence of any other evidence, this might be a reason to suspect that guns don't make you safer even in Kansas, but you should absolutely not make a statement about likelihoods as if they are universalizable. Even if guns increase your chances of getting shot everywhere, there's very little reason to suspect that it's 4-5 times as likely outside of Philadelphia. It could be more, or it could be less, or it even could be the same, but you don't know that without doing more studies.

So you're not going to present any evidence? That's ok , I never really thought you had any in the first place.

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association

Gun owners are much more likely to be shot than those who don't. 4-5 times as likely.

Gun owners in Philadelphia are more likely to be shot than those who don't. You should not generalize from this to other environments; perhaps things are much different in rural Kansas, in fact I suspect they are.

I'm happy to look at your evidence if you feel that it contradicts the research I provided.

That's not how science works. You don't get to generalize from one study in one location that the same thing holds true everywhere. In the absence of any other evidence, this might be a reason to suspect that guns don't make you safer even in Kansas, but you should absolutely not make a statement about likelihoods as if they are universalizable. Even if guns increase your chances of getting shot everywhere, there's very little reason to suspect that it's 4-5 times as likely outside of Philadelphia. It could be more, or it could be less, or it even could be the same, but you don't know that without doing more studies.

So you're not going to present any evidence? That's ok , I never really thought you had any in the first place.

...I'm not making a counterargument. I'm saying that you shouldn't be as confident in your statement as you seem to be. One study does not a scientific law make.

I swear that liberals are just as bad at understanding science as conservatives. The liberals just do it wrong on slightly less important issues.

[Symmetry]

I swear that liberals are just as bad at understanding science as conservatives. The liberals just do it wrong on slightly less important issues.

Can you offer at least a bit of scientific evidence to back up your oath?