Here's something for gun grabbers to ponder

[jet57]

There's a lot of talk about protecting the public from guns and how people who own guns are so much more prone to injury or death by a gun. Well, this study may well show that there's some validity to those concerns though, once again, it doesn't appear that guns themselves are actually the problem.

Transgender Suicide Attempt Rates Are Staggering


Now, assuming that this study is assessment of the facts, should we add gender identity to the NICS database and make "non-conforming" individuals prohibited persons? Seems to me that doing so would save some lives and that's what these "common sense" laws are all about, right?

Transgender Suicide as a pro gun topic of conversation...



You've just demonstrated everything we need to know about the "pro gun" mind.

Thank you for that.

 

[Hari Seldon]

a guy I grew up with (a few years older than me) was the #1 at columbia and the Ivy player of the year and I believe he lost to Tanner in the NCAA finals. He was good enough to be #1 on a team that had Vitas Geruliatis behind him (Vitas turned pro not long after starting college). This guy's son plays for a D-III school (Brandeis) and he is really good. back when I was in HS, this boy would have played for a major league D-1 school but in the last 30 years the competition has become so fierce that even small colleges are stocked. another guy I grew up with had a son ranked about 80th nationally and this boy went to the #2 D-III school (Claremont California) a former touring pro noted that lots of really good players are ending up in D-III schools so they can start 4 years rather than playing second fiddle to the foreigners who tend to dominate the top level slots at places like Illinois or Florida etc

You are right about the foreigners. My 2nd year at community college the #1 was from Yugoslavia (he knew Goran Ivanisevic). At Pace (D3) we would play local colleges like Concordia and they were stacked with South Americans who were really good. All on scholarships while we were lucky to get court time over the women. Our coach was a bartender so there were certain advantages. I was at a summer clinic once and the number 2 or 3 from Baylor was teaching. Very good, super steady and fit. I could hit forehands with him but that was about it.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I know, I know, dems wouldn't want to alienate any part of their base with "common sense" gun control.

Transgender Suicide as a pro gun topic of conversation...

View attachment 67191681

You've just demonstrated everything we need to know about the "pro gun" mind.

Thank you for that.

I told you the libbos wouldn't want to alienate any of their voter base. Boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LagerHead]

Actually having access to the gun makes suicide easier thereby resulting in more deaths. In Australia where they did ban guns the suicide rate went down significantly. Along with mass shootings I believe.

Guns are not banned in Australia.

 

[jet57]

I told you the libbos wouldn't want to alienate any of their voter base. Boom!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you believe that transgender / gay suicide rates are a measure that should be considered for gun control... Well then, divorced people should have guns confiscated as well. So should police, doctors and homes with mentally ill people in them.

So, you and your gun pundit friends in this thread believe that law abiding citizens should be denied the right to keep and bear.

And you don't see socially vulnerable people being targeted for a "get back at them" gun control argument as sick...

Interesting

 

[Lutherf]

So you believe that transgender / gay suicide rates are a measure that should be considered for gun control... Well then, divorced people should have guns confiscated as well. So should police, doctors and homes with mentally ill people in them.

So, you and your gun pundit friends in this thread believe that law abiding citizens should be denied the right to keep and bear.

And you don't see socially vulnerable people being targeted for a "get back at them" gun control argument as sick...

Interesting

Well, you managed to completely miss the point of this whole thread but in the process of doing so reinforced my point for me. Thanks.

 

[jet57]

Well, you managed to completely miss the point of this whole thread but in the process of doing so reinforced my point for me. Thanks.

Haven't missed it all; nailed it actually, and your premise is rather sick in my view.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Guns are not banned in Australia.

I explained in a subsequent post, poor choice of words on my part. Buyback program is what I should have said.

 

[LagerHead]

I explained in a subsequent post, poor choice of words on my part. Buyback program is what I should have said.

Do you have a link that shows a causative relationship and not just a correlative one?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Do you have a link that shows a causative relationship and not just a correlative one?

What you see is what you get. I guess the buyback program and the reduction in deaths could be a coincidence. I doubt it but could be.

 

[TurtleDude]

I explained in a subsequent post, poor choice of words on my part. Buyback program is what I should have said.

you were actually somewhat correct: australia banned SOME types of guns and FORCED the owners to "sell" them back to the government and banned anyone from possessing or obtaining those types of firearms in the future including some semi auto rifles, pump action long arms and some pistols with a caliber greater than say 38 special (.357 bore) or with barrels shorter than 100/120 mm (depending on pistol or revolver)

so yes here was a ban but stuff like Side By Side shotguns, bolt action rifles, lower caliber handguns with longer barrels etc are legal somewhat and I have been told that the actual NUMBER of firearms has increased though you cannot own say a GLOCK 20 in 10mm or a Colt AR 15 semi auto rifle or a Benelli M2 Semi auto combat shotgun

 

[LagerHead]

What you see is what you get. I guess the buyback program and the reduction in deaths could be a coincidence. I doubt it but could be.

Then I can only assume that you feel the same about the increase in gun ownership and carry permits with respect to the dramatic decrease in crime in this country. Or does correlation equal causation only when it supports your foregone conclusions?

 

[TurtleDude]

Then I can only assume that you feel the same about the increase in gun ownership and carry permits with respect to the dramatic decrease in crime in this country. Or does correlation equal causation only when it supports your foregone conclusions?

the problem is that the suicide rates started declining the same year as the forced buy back (1996) but that buy back didn't deal with handguns which are by far the most common suicide weapon. That 1996 buy back dealt with magazine fed semi auto rifles, pump shotguns and semi auto combat style shotguns. Those weapons are rarely used for suicides and obviously multi capacity rounds is irrelevant for a suicide

 

[LagerHead]

the problem is that the suicide rates started declining the same year as the forced buy back (1996) but that buy back didn't deal with handguns which are by far the most common suicide weapon. That 1996 buy back dealt with magazine fed semi auto rifles, pump shotguns and semi auto combat style shotguns. Those weapons are rarely used for suicides and obviously multi capacity rounds is irrelevant for a suicide

Dammit Turtle, what have I told you about injecting facts into emotional debates? [emoji6]

 

[Hari Seldon]

Then I can only assume that you feel the same about the increase in gun ownership and carry permits with respect to the dramatic decrease in crime in this country. Or does correlation equal causation only when it supports your foregone conclusions?

Depends on the correlation. Do you have a time frame and some stats to back up that conclusion? I have read the Freakonomic books and the authors make a good case for the legalization of abortion as a major contributing factor. I would have to go back a reread to get the actual figures. I don't believe here in NYC the reason for reduced crime / homicide is related to increased gun ownership. More like a tougher police presence, booming economy (Times Square as a prime example) and legalized abortion would be my bet. You of course are free to believe as you wish.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

I freely admit I am no gun expert and you are probably correct about hand guns and suicide. Nevertheless there was a significant drop in deaths from guns after the buyback program. Maybe the total amount of guns stayed the same, I really don't know. Do you have a better explanation for the drop?

Long day? I knew there was a reason you didn't post sooner.

No expert but youre concluding this based off of correlation without looking at any other factors that could have contributed to this drop.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Dammit Turtle, what have I told you about injecting facts into emotional debates? [emoji6]

Could you show me where I was making an "emotional debate"? All I did was mention the conclusions related to the article I posted. If you a better reason why homicides went down after the buyback program lets see it. The author was very careful to explain a similar program would probably not go over well in the US. Doesn't mean it would have no effect.

 

[LagerHead]

Depends on the correlation. Do you have a time frame and some stats to back up that conclusion?

Oh no you don't. You don't get to suggest a causative effect and then refuse to back it up with data and then turn around and demand data when I present a similar correlative effect and suggest it might be causative. You either value data or you do not, and you have already made it clear that you do not. Therefore, if you accept the correlative relationship in Australia as being causative, disregarding TurtleDude's analysis that shows that even the correlative effect may not exists, then you must similarly accept my correlative effect as causative as well. Otherwise you are admitting to being a hypocrite and invalidating your own argument.

Can't have it both ways. So which do you want, to equate correlation with causation or to only promote arguments that are backed by data? Your choice.

 

[LagerHead]

Could you show me where I was making an "emotional debate"? All I did was mention the conclusions related to the article I posted. If you a better reason why homicides went down after the buyback program lets see it. The author was very careful to explain a similar program would probably not go over well in the US. Doesn't mean it would have no effect.

Well, first, you admitted you didn't have data to back up your assertion. Second, it was suicides you said went down, not homicides. Third, I believe TD is correct, unless you have data to contradict what he said.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Oh no you don't. You don't get to suggest a causative effect and then refuse to back it up with data and then turn around and demand data when I present a similar correlative effect and suggest it might be causative. You either value data or you do not, and you have already made it clear that you do not. Therefore, if you accept the correlative relationship in Australia as being causative, disregarding TurtleDude's analysis that shows that even the correlative effect may not exists, then you must similarly accept my correlative effect as causative as well. Otherwise you are admitting to being a hypocrite and invalidating your own argument.

Can't have it both ways. So which do you want, to equate correlation with causation or to only promote arguments that are backed by data? Your choice.

If only life were that black and white. Believe what you will. I'm sure a tough police presence, the economy and legalized abortion had absolutely hand in reducing crime in NYC.

 

[LagerHead]

If only life were that black and white. Believe what you will. I'm sure a tough police presence, the economy and legalized abortion had absolutely hand in reducing crime in NYC.

Crime has been reducing nationwide for over two decades, not just in NYC. I don't believe what I want. I believe what data tell me. You, on the other hand, have admitted you don't care about data. You should either stop projecting, put up, or shut up. The choice is yours.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Well, first, you admitted you didn't have data to back up your assertion. Second, it was suicides you said went down, not homicides. Third, I believe TD is correct, unless you have data to contradict what he said.

I started with suicides but posted the chart and references the article which had both. Here is a summary posted earlier.

As Australian economist Andrew Leigh found in a 2010 review of the effects of the gun buyback legislation:

• Firearm suicides have dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in 2006.

• Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006.

• These are drops of 65% and 59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals, represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about 300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per year.

• At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27% and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.

If you have an issue with the study you should contact economist Andrew Leigh in Australia.

 

[LagerHead]

I started with suicides but posted the chart and references the article which had both. Here is a summary posted earlier.

As Australian economist Andrew Leigh found in a 2010 review of the effects of the gun buyback legislation:

• Firearm suicides have dropped from 2.2 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.8 per 100,000 in 2006.

• Firearm homicides have dropped from 0.37 per 100,000 people in 1995 to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2006.

• These are drops of 65% and 59%, respectively, and among a population of 20 million individuals, represent a decline in the number of deaths by firearm suicide of about 300 and in the number of deaths by firearm homicide of about 40 per year.

• At the same time, the non-firearm suicide rate has fallen by 27% and the non-firearm homicide rate by 59%.

If you have an issue with the study you should contact economist Andrew Leigh in Australia.

I don't have an issue with the study. What I have an issue with is the fact that you equate correlative relationships with causative ones when it supports your political agenda and not when it doesn't. I just don't like political hackery and boot licking. That's my only problem.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Crime has been reducing nationwide for over two decades, not just in NYC. I don't believe what I want. I believe what data tell me. You, on the other hand, have admitted you don't care about data. You should either stop projecting, put up, or shut up. The choice is yours.

I'm not projecting anything. You got your panties in a twist because I dared to post an article that says reducing the amount of guns reduces gun deaths. It doesn't fit you preconceived notions. You can put up or shut up as you have offered NOTHING in the way of statistics. If you click on the link in the article it shows the actual 49 page analysis the economist prepared.

I'm pretty much done with your nonsense however if Turtledude is watching I would be interested in his opinion of why crime has been reduced in the country as a whole and specifically in cities like NY. He after all knows firearms and the criminal justice system.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I don't have an issue with the study. What I have an issue with is the fact that you equate correlative relationships with causative ones when it supports your political agenda and not when it doesn't. I just don't like political hackery and boot licking. That's my only problem.

So significantly reducing the amount of firearms resulted in a significant reduction in firearms deaths. Thanks, I think so as well.