• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3 laws could reduce firearm deaths by 90%...

matchlight said:
I am always happy to see someone reveal his contempt for the Constitution so clearly, so everyone reading can see, and remember. Usually pseudo-liberals try to pretend they like this country and its institutions.

The Supreme Court made clear in McDonald what it had strongly suggested two years earlier in Heller: The individual right to keep and bear arms is fundamental.
Click to expand...

And that the right, nevertheless, is not limitless and that it can still be limited by rational laws that serve the narrowly tailored function of achieving a legitimate governmental interest.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually yes, the study is behind a paywall. The "article" in your link is just a brief summary not the full thing (even if you click on the "full text" tab). You have to pay $31.50 for the full thing.

I took a look at your other links, CNN, Ars Technica, and Forbes and the first two show/admit the problems with the study (which are many and quite significant). The Forbes link didn't even go to an article, just a page with links to a bunch of links to other articles and not one of them about this. Perhaps you can give a direct link to the forbes article?

Since the study is not available to look at (unless paid for) and the articles that you linked to show the problems with the study themselves there's no real way to dispute the findings of this study itself unless I want to shell out money. And since I'm assuming that you read those articles that you linked to I need not repeat the problems with the study according to others that are far more educated on what's in the study than I.
Click to expand...

Threegoofs managed to find a link to the actual paper. You can find it here.

Do you think you could edit my OP to place this link there?
 
joG said:
The article could not be viewed.

But is is obvious that forbidding an instrument and criminalizing ownership will reduce its use just as it does with drugs.
It is also not the question of how expensive ownership is to society. The question is that the measures restrict Constitutional rights. If you want to do that, change the Constitution but don't try to undermine it.
Click to expand...

A link of the article was found by ThreeGoofs. You can find it here if you are still interested.
 
spud_meister said:
The data that would actually prove the accuracy of this study is behind a paywall. We'd need to know which states have which laws, whether it was reducing more homicides or suicides, and what types of homicides were reduced. Without this information, it's pretty useless.

And this is interesting:
Click to expand...

Please find a new link to the full article here
 
Crimefree said:
It's not OK to commit suicide with a gun but it's perfectly OK if you do it any other way..... Then we will be able to crow about our victory and how many lives we have saved. It makes no difference if the conditions which create the desire to commit suicide continue that has nothing to do with us either. Never in the history of man have people been so willing to believe that removal of an object will rehabilitate criminals, prevent suicides and cure the insane.

I do so love such concerned bleeding hearts that have a wake of death following their gleeful cheers of we saved the world. They simply never look back at their handiwork. Gun free zones a perfect example. The place of choice of mass murderers to find the perfect target, our children, unprotected in gun control shooting galleries conveniently provided with live targets. Not one gun control advocate has looked back and seen the twisted bodies of the innocent children ripped apart, bleeding and dead while cops waited outside for it to be safe to enter. Instead of realising what they had done they skip in joy to the next tragedy they wish to exploit. The blood drips from their hands as lies issue from their mouth urging people to give up safety and embrace stupidity.

7 Firearms and Suicide | Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review | The National Academies Press

The risk of suicide is highest immediately after the purchase of a handgun, suggesting that some firearms are specifically purchased for the purpose of committing suicide.

Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.
Click to expand...

I realize interpretation of graphs requires some training and a degree of abstract reasoning, but I'll post this anyway:

450x375x116.gif.pagespeed.ic.2SRSgm51EV.png

Furthermore, every single case–control study done in the United States has found the presence of a firearm is a strong risk factor for suicide. (That’s 24 separate studies).

Will gun control help? Heres data from Austria, which put regulations into place when it joined the EU. Guess what year they went into effect?

GtCiU6RYLh-zgP7qm2kbNA6x6loTelr7WuHCasaTWT4GMyXgZr_v33yC3vs6dWrEL4alkdCYxrhjrBVyiTPtmY78dRxD5Gl9Xo8xmock1-rXlKX_bnkWUuEjWg

Firearm suicide rates before and after the 1997 firearm legislation (Kapusta et al., 2007).

And to top it off:
OXq2a5eYemtcskQTmiNgkF9hoBQAiXlPXxVGoOZdixR0zryh9ebKX6zUCj-Ku1f6uFn0pSRf6hv5hcPJwYah70Xx4wvGSs7Vs66P9M2TxzK8uMYWaDelsiN9Ng
 
MrT said:
And the laws would, at least according to this study, reduce suicides by a gun.

A
Click to expand...

How would "1) Universal background checks (39%), 2) Ammunition background checks (18%), and 3) Laws designed to aim with firearm identification (16%)" stop someone from pointing a firearm at their own head and pulling the trigger? Suicides are self inflicted. Background checks only deter law abiding citizens with past criminal convictions from exercising their constitutional rights legally. Are most of the 20,000 plus suicides law abiding citizens with a past criminal conviction? Because if that was the case then you could argue that those three anti-2nd amendment laws would stop 90% of gun deaths.

AND you just previously claimed that the study was not talking about suicides
MrT said:
Only if the claim being made by this study is that these gun regulations would stop suicides or reduce the number of suicides. That is not the case. It is a study that links these gun regulations to gun deaths.
Click to expand...
And you can't just make the blanket statement about it violating the second amendment when these laws already exist, are already enforced, and were previously ruled Constitutional by numerous courts.
Click to expand...

Many laws were not challenged.It took 30 years for DC vs Heller to happen.And anti-2nd amendment judges ruling that a anti-2nd amendment law is constitutional does not make it constitutional, especially when the 2nd amendment blatantly states shall not infringe. I am sure every lib screamed bloody murder over Citizens United Vs the FEC and uttered the falsehood that corporations were not groups of people.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
How would "1) Universal background checks (39%), 2) Ammunition background checks (18%), and 3) Laws designed to aim with firearm identification (16%)" stop someone from pointing a firearm at their own head and pulling the trigger? Suicides are self inflicted.AND you just previously claimed that the study was not talking about suicides
Click to expand...

It wouldn't. The laws would just make it harder to obtain a firearm without waiting (and thus allowing for a cooling off period where a suicidal person might obtain help), or it might make the obtaining of a firearm harder to the point where it might dissuade a potential suicidal person from using a firearm to achieve their goal. That, in turn, would reduce the number of suicidal deaths by firearms, although it "might" not reduce the overall number of suicidal deaths.

jamesrage said:
Many laws were not challenged.It took 30 years for DC vs Heller to happen.And anti-2nd amendment judges ruling that a anti-2nd amendment law is constitutional does not make it constitutional, especially when the 2nd amendment blatantly states shall not infringe. I am sure every lib screamed bloody murder over Citizens United Vs the FEC and uttered the falsehood that corporations were not groups of people.
Click to expand...

Right, and now one of the authors of both of those pieces of Supreme Court precedent is deceased and his successor is very likely to lean towards the liberal side of the aisle. So I doubt that any new challenges to gun legislation will expand the second amendment so much (after it has sat without expansion for so long), to the point where the reasonable and narrowly tailored laws discussed in this study would be deemed unconstitutional.
 
Threegoofs said:
I realize interpretation of graphs requires some training and a degree of abstract reasoning, but I'll post this anyway:
Click to expand...

Crimefree has a routine habit of claiming that there is zero evidence to suggest that "guns cause crime" or that "gun legislation works" and, when presented with evidence that directly contradicts those statements like this article that notes gun ownership in an area is positively linked to homicides and this article that shows a Connecticut gun legislation being tied to a 40% reduction in homicides, he will dismiss the studies and goes right back to claiming that there is zero evidence to suggest that guns cause crime or that gun legislation works.

I usually just don't bother replying to him anymore, but I applaud you for being willing to try.
 
MrT said:
It wouldn't. The laws would just make it harder to obtain a firearm without waiting (and thus allowing for a cooling off period where a suicidal person might obtain help), or it might make the obtaining of a firearm harder to the point where it might dissuade a potential suicidal person from using a firearm to achieve their goal. That, in turn, would reduce the number of suicidal deaths by firearms, although it "might" not reduce the overall number of suicidal deaths.
Click to expand...
You must be a Trump supporter because you keep flip flopping all over the place.You say one one minute and the complete opposite the next minute. Because the last post you stated according to that study they would stop those deaths and the post prior to that you claimed the study had nothing to do with suicides.

MrT said:
And the laws would, at least according to this study, reduce suicides by a gun.
Click to expand...

MrT said:
Only if the claim being made by this study is that these gun regulations would stop suicides or reduce the number of suicides. That is not the case. It is a study that links these gun regulations to gun deaths.
Click to expand...
 
jamesrage said:
You must be a Trump supporter because you keep flip flopping all over the place.You say one one minute and the complete opposite the next minute. Because the last post you stated according to that study they would stop those deaths and the post prior to that you claimed the study had nothing to do with suicides.
Click to expand...

No, my statements are consistent. You are having a difficult picking up on the distinction between "suicides by firearm," which these regulations would reduce and "suicides (regardless of the method used)," on which these regulations might or might not have an impact.
 
MrT said:
And that the right, nevertheless, is not limitless and that it can still be limited by rational laws that serve the narrowly tailored function of achieving a legitimate governmental interest.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish please quote from the constitution where it says limited to. Who give a rats rear end what some government lackey says? In case you did not know the constitution is the law even government lackeys must obey.
 
jamesrage said:
You must be a Trump supporter because you keep flip flopping all over the place.You say one one minute and the complete opposite the next minute. Because the last post you stated according to that study they would stop those deaths and the post prior to that you claimed the study had nothing to do with suicides.
Click to expand...

That is because the suicide rate would not change only the instrument used. Possibly. Fact is guns do not cause suicide and therefore cannot change the rate, only the method. It's gun control trying to fool everyone again with smoke and mirrors. NO LIVES are being saved. The cause is not being addressed. A grade two can do better than this research.
 
Orly? said:
To me the right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment, is more important to our country than saving a few lives...

Who's lives would be saved by this? People that want to kill themselves and gangsters for the most part..

Nope.. Our 2nd amendment is more important than their lives.
Click to expand...

To me the right to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment, is more important to our country than saving a few lives...
Click to expand...

And there's the problem.
 
Threegoofs said:
I realize interpretation of graphs requires some training and a degree of abstract reasoning, but I'll post this anyway:

View attachment 67198637

Furthermore, every single case–control study done in the United States has found the presence of a firearm is a strong risk factor for suicide. (That’s 24 separate studies).

Will gun control help? Heres data from Austria, which put regulations into place when it joined the EU. Guess what year they went into effect?

GtCiU6RYLh-zgP7qm2kbNA6x6loTelr7WuHCasaTWT4GMyXgZr_v33yC3vs6dWrEL4alkdCYxrhjrBVyiTPtmY78dRxD5Gl9Xo8xmock1-rXlKX_bnkWUuEjWg

Firearm suicide rates before and after the 1997 firearm legislation (Kapusta et al., 2007).

And to top it off:
OXq2a5eYemtcskQTmiNgkF9hoBQAiXlPXxVGoOZdixR0zryh9ebKX6zUCj-Ku1f6uFn0pSRf6hv5hcPJwYah70Xx4wvGSs7Vs66P9M2TxzK8uMYWaDelsiN9Ng
Click to expand...

Firearm suicide rates before and after the 1997 firearm legislation isn't the same as overall suicide rates falling. If a person wants to commit suicide they will find a way.
VoxAustralia.jpg
 
Crimefree said:
That is because the suicide rate would not change only the instrument used. Possibly. Fact is guns do not cause suicide and therefore cannot change the rate, only the method. It's gun control trying to fool everyone again with smoke and mirrors. NO LIVES are being saved. The cause is not being addressed. A grade two can do better than this research.
Click to expand...

Actually there's some research out there showing that the availability of certain methods of suicide does impact overall suicide rates. Lacking immediate access to an instant, irreversible method, a lot of people change their minds because they have long enough to think about it. The will to survive is a powerful thing, and even a broken mind still has that will buried somewhere in it. People take a handful of pills and then run to the bathroom to vomit. People cut a vein and then call an ambulance. A really interesting case study was a city that had a particular bridge that was commonly used for suicide. They put up some kind of netting to stop that, and discovered that suicide-by-jump rates dropped even though there was another bridge. Even that extra few minutes driving to a farther bridge turns some people around. Sometimes they just need a little more time.

The human brain is a fascinating thing.
 
ThaiBoxer said:
Or the best way to end 90% of firearm deaths?

Ban guns
Click to expand...

So criminals would stop killing? If safety is the end all and be all, repealing the fourth amendment would be a big step in that direction. Random house, vehicle and person searches could uncover illegal items.
 
ThaiBoxer said:
Or the best way to end 90% of firearm deaths?

Ban guns
Click to expand...

That should work about as well as the ban on pornography worked
The ban on drugs works
The ban on alcohol worked

What we really need to ban is stupidity. That way we will not keep repeating failed policy and interventions going around in circles reinventing the wheel because some people just cannot learn from history.

It's really worked well in Jamaica, Mexico and about dozen more places.
 
It's interesting to me that the counter opinions offer up nothing in the way of substantive solutions to an obvious problem. All they want to focus on is running down the source study and the facts that it presents.

It's not about problem solving with respect to the social and political issues, so "Gun Control" is the wrong forum heading: it's about fun with guns. So maybe we can get the heading changed.
 
Crimefree said:
Absolute rubbish please quote from the constitution where it says limited to. Who give a rats rear end what some government lackey says? In case you did not know the constitution is the law even government lackeys must obey.
Click to expand...

Well, Scalia said that the second is not unlimited ion the Heller decision, so maybe you should read it. The second is limited in all kinds of ways, so reality proves you wrong.
 
MrT said:
No, my statements are consistent. You are having a difficult picking up on the distinction between "suicides by firearm," which these regulations would reduce and "suicides (regardless of the method used)," on which these regulations might or might not have an impact.
Click to expand...

Suicides account for a little over 60% of firearm deaths.The three anti-2nd amendment laws proposed in the article that would stop 90% of firearm deaths will not stop or even deter those people because most are law abiding citizens with no past criminal convictions.Meaning a background check will not stop them from legally purchasing a firearm and weapon tracking would do nothing to stop those either. This is assuming that these people are using a gun they purchased themselves and didn't inherit, borrow or steal from someone else.


You claim in one post suicides had nothing to do with it and then in another post you claimed it would reduce suicides.
 
Deuce said:
Actually there's some research out there showing that the availability of certain methods of suicide does impact overall suicide rates. Lacking immediate access to an instant, irreversible method, a lot of people change their minds because they have long enough to think about it. The will to survive is a powerful thing, and even a broken mind still has that will buried somewhere in it. People take a handful of pills and then run to the bathroom to vomit. People cut a vein and then call an ambulance. A really interesting case study was a city that had a particular bridge that was commonly used for suicide. They put up some kind of netting to stop that, and discovered that suicide-by-jump rates dropped even though there was another bridge. Even that extra few minutes driving to a farther bridge turns some people around. Sometimes they just need a little more time.

The human brain is a fascinating thing.
Click to expand...

Well I did not say if and but, in general people who commit suicide have already abandoned anyone who can help. Without some kind of assistance few are going to change their mind. You seem to neglect and completely disregard that such a person will spend some time thinking of a suitable method. For example woman normally will not use a firearm becasue of the mess. If a firearm is chosen then so will the acquisition also be worked out. Make it more difficult simply brings substitution into effect. The net result is no change in rate. Suicides are PLANNED not spur of the moment things. One reaches a point of no return and no desire to live. It means they have exhausted all they know and see no point in continuing. A day running around looking for a firearm is not going to happen nor will they say oh! dammit can't find one, tomorrow I will be OK. The idea that given time to reflect is utterly false. What have the got to reflect on that has not been examined already?

People locked up still manage and there is not much one can do other that pull nails and teeth. Objects do not solve the problem do they?

You are right the brain is fascinating.
 
jet57 said:
It's interesting to me that the counter opinions offer up nothing in the way of substantive solutions to an obvious problem. All they want to focus on is running down the source study and the facts that it presents.

It's not about problem solving with respect to the social and political issues, so "Gun Control" is the wrong forum heading: it's about fun with guns. So maybe we can get the heading changed.
Click to expand...
A obviously anti-2nd amendment article is not going to be taken serious by 2nd amendment advocates. The three laws that it claims will stop 90% of firearm deaths will not do anything because background checks on deter law abiding citizens with a past criminal conviction, meaning most people who committed suicide with a firearm will not be stopped by those laws. Even if you required everyone to visit a quack to see if they a suicidal, it still will not stop those people from killing themselves,one only has to look at Japan for example which has a higher suicide rate than the US. SO the 90% argument is a load of horse meant to push for more anti-2nd amendment laws.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Firearm suicide rates before and after the 1997 firearm legislation isn't the same as overall suicide rates falling. If a person wants to commit suicide they will find a way.
View attachment 67198640
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most suicides aren't committed with semiautomatic weapons, which was what the Aussie gun ban entailed. Handgun ownership actually rose after 96.

But it's a graph, so you must think it's made by people who are smart.
 
jet57 said:
Well, Scalia said that the second is not unlimited ion the Heller decision, so maybe you should read it. The second is limited in all kinds of ways, so reality proves you wrong.
Click to expand...

Absolute rubbish please quote from the constitution where it says limited to. Who give a rats rear end what some government lackey says? In case you did not know the constitution is the law even government lackeys must obey.

Reading is required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom