Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On July 26 2012 02:46 FakePseudo wrote: There's another point that should be taken in account in this debate: the odds of suicide.
In European countries, in other country where it is forbidden to own a gun, it is far more "rough" to commit suicide than in the USA.
In America, you're going through a tough moment, you get somewhat insane or mad, you just need to open the drawer, pull the gun, shoot. Period. That's it. In European countries though, if you want to commit suicide, there are no easy, quick, clean ways to commit suicide. You have to be far more determined to cut off your veins, jump off a building, kill yourself with medication or lynch yourself. More importantly, all these things take time, and are mostly reversible (save for maybe jumping off a building), so it is really likely that you are going to end up giving up the idea of a suicide
Thank you and sorry for bad english
Practically no one owns a gun in Japan, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
The whole point behind the second amendment wasn't that people would be able to defend themselves from criminals, or even foreign armies, it was that they could defend themselves from a tyrant. The first thing a tyranny will do is try to make sure they can keep the populace down. The founding fathers saw the British doing this before the revolution by trying to take away people's firearms. We saw the Nazi's actually succeed, and take away everyone's firearms. It's also (kinda) how Japan got rid of the Samurai; they banned swords in the 1860's.
Without guns, the people are helpless against a tyrant, our founding fathers saw this and wanted to ensure we'd never be oppressed.
On July 25 2012 22:24 M4nkind wrote: And last words - if someone wants to kill you, maybe you are bad person?
So the storeclerk who gets stabbed in a hold-up gone wrong is a bad person?
On July 26 2012 03:19 CV-Mackh wrote: I think your right, I mean, I live in France and I am scared of being robbed all the time, I mean the crisis and everything all those coloured people running around obviously going to rob me with AK-47, that's what they do you know !
so YEAH GO GUNS !!!
See I even think I should be able to own a tank for self-defence, in case the guy robbing me has a gun since it would be allowed... Selfdefense is my right no ?
,,,,,Wait let me think .... ,maybe I should be allowed to have an anti-tank high penetration rocket launcher if tanks are allowed ... for self-defence of course, in case someone attacks me with one...,
....but wait an anti-tank rocket launcher is not easy to carry around and I can't really shout it against someone attacking me with a gun as those are now allowed...
Hum that's tricky... HOOO I know ! We need to allow combat helicopters ! So I can defend myself against tanks, guns and anti-tank rocket launchers !! Self defence of course ! But what about if someone attacks me with his own combat helicopter ! And what if they are 5 with copters that are now allowed... shit didn't thought of that...
Hummm in fact we should all be able to own personal nukes, no one would EVER try to rob anyone ! they'll be to scared of our nukes !
Ok who will make the petition in order to allow personal nukes ! ?
........... just in case some red-necks didn't get it, that's absurd reasoning and it's highly ironical ....
I am not saying that I hold the ultimate wisdom, but I would say that treating the reason behind crime and preventing it, is always better than threaten to commit one in return
There's a song for that
Let There Be Guns- Arrogant Worms
Kinda funny that banning costume masks seems to have more traction then whether gun laws need an overhaul. But I imagine the costume mask thing will be a temporary fixation and fade out after a bit.
Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
An article I came across today that seemed extremely relevant to our discussion here. Have a look.
This was a clear success story. Im glad the officer was there, and was entrusted with a gun even when off duty. His training and responsibility enabled him to put an end to that shooting before it could get any worse. It's unfortunate that officers cant always be at the right place at the right time. Putting guns and carry permits in the hands of ordinary citizens so that every movie theater or church will have guns in them at all times, as the "if only there had been one armed citizen in that tear gassed crowded room" argument implies, is certainly no solution though.
On July 26 2012 04:31 FakePseudo wrote: Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
The second amendment stuff wasn't really directed at you, just more of a general comment.
I agree with your logic, but only if absolutely all other variables are the same. The problem is that there are simply way too many differences between any two countries to be able to accurately correlate suicide rate with gun ownership rate. Even then, correlation doesn't guarantee causation.
Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
The second amendment stuff wasn't really directed at you, just more of a general comment.
I agree with your logic, but only if absolutely all other variables are the same. The problem is that there are simply way too many differences between any two countries to be able to accurately correlate suicide rate with gun ownership rate. Even then, correlation doesn't guarantee causation.
Sorry i refreshed the page but i was stuck at page 148 ><", thats why my post may seem a little bit off
So basically you're saying exactly what im saying, the discrepancy of suicide rates doesnt make my reasoning false. To me it seems pretty obvious that suicide with a gun is far more tempting than suicide by jumping of a building or with medication. What do you guys have to say about that?
On July 26 2012 04:31 FakePseudo wrote: Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
The second amendment stuff wasn't really directed at you, just more of a general comment.
I agree with your logic, but only if absolutely all other variables are the same. The problem is that there are simply way too many differences between any two countries to be able to accurately correlate suicide rate with gun ownership rate. Even then, correlation doesn't guarantee causation.
What you just wrote doesn't make much sense. You agree with his logic only if all the other variables are the same. His logic was that because guns make killing yourself easier, more people will do it. So you think that there are variables that can take values so that owning a gun, on average, can make people in a country less likely to commit suicide?
Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
The second amendment stuff wasn't really directed at you, just more of a general comment.
I agree with your logic, but only if absolutely all other variables are the same. The problem is that there are simply way too many differences between any two countries to be able to accurately correlate suicide rate with gun ownership rate. Even then, correlation doesn't guarantee causation.
Sorry i refreshed the page but i was stuck at page 148 ><", thats why my post may seem a little bit off
So basically you're saying exactly what im saying, the discrepancy of suicide rates doesnt make my reasoning false. To me it seems pretty obvious that suicide with a gun is far more tempting than suicide by jumping of a building or with medication. What do you guys have to say about that?
Like I said, it IS more tempting, but there are so many other things involved that I don't think you can pin higher suicide rates on gun ownership.
On July 26 2012 04:31 FakePseudo wrote: Well you seem to be right, but that doesnt make the reasonning in itself false. I personnaly find it very convincing, but i am willing to discuss about it if you want to.
The second amendment stuff wasn't really directed at you, just more of a general comment.
I agree with your logic, but only if absolutely all other variables are the same. The problem is that there are simply way too many differences between any two countries to be able to accurately correlate suicide rate with gun ownership rate. Even then, correlation doesn't guarantee causation.
What you just wrote doesn't make much sense. You agree with his logic only if all the other variables are the same. His logic was that because guns make killing yourself easier, more people will do it. So you think that there are variables that can take values so that owning a gun, on average, can make people in a country less likely to commit suicide?
No, I think that there's more to suicide rates than just owning a gun. For instance, a big reason why suicide rates in Japan are so high is that their culture heavily emphasizes personal honor, and suicide is seen as a somewhat acceptable way to redeem one's own honor, and his/her family's honor if they've made a grievous mistake.
Gun ownership isn't the only contributing factor, or even a major one. Cultural and socioeconomic conditions are far more important.
If country A and country B have the same exact cultural and socioeconomic conditions, but many people in A have guns, while few in B have guns, I would expect A to have more suicides. But that's only because everything else is the same.
Uhhh Suicide with medication sounds a lot easier to me. Take some pills and fall asleep and refrain from calling someone to leave them a guilt trip parting shot and you're good to go. A lot easier than putting a cold hard gun barrel against your temple and pulling the trigger, which I imagine is as hard as putting your hand to a burner due to the innate human aversion to directly physically destroying yourself. At the cusp of pulling the trigger some insidious part of your mind is proly wondering about the chances of winding up In a permanent coma or what if my hand slips etc.
Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
Uhhh Suicide with medication sounds a lot easier to me. Take some pills and fall asleep and refrain from calling someone to leave them a guilt trip parting shot and you're good to go. A lot easier than putting a cold hard gun barrel against your temple and pulling the trigger, which I imagine is as hard as putting your hand to a burner due to the innate human aversion to directly physically destroying yourself. At the cusp of pulling the trigger some insidious part of your mind is proly wondering about the chances of winding up In a permanent coma or what if my hand slips etc.
This is medical assisted death, not suicide. Actually, at home, you dont have the kind of medicines that can have this kind of effect. People tend to commit suicide by taking a huge amount of aspirin, or sleeping medicins, or whatever medications they have at home. The result is that you end up waiting for you death while feeling very uncomfortable. So if at any point your determination goes down by a bit, you will most probably force yourself to throw up or call an ambulance
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So could banning cars, or alcohol, or electricity.
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So your not saying it, but your saying it.
Make up your mind. It's absurd to make an assumption out of thin air, with something as stupid as "people wouldn't commit as many suicides if there weren't guns around".
It seems like every argument against gun ownership from people in this thread is based off some ignorant assumptions they make and then justify to themselves. Big circle jerk.
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
Its perfectly fine to pin a part of it on it. I think your logic is sound. I think gun ownership could only ever explain a small part of the variance in suicide rates. I would also think it is almost impossible to prove a satistically significant relationship, due to the severely limited data, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss it enitrely.
On July 26 2012 05:04 Leth0 wrote: It seems like every argument against gun ownership from people in this thread is based off some ignorant assumptions they make and then justify to themselves. Big circle jerk.
You read any of the links I posted to statistics showing how assault weapons ban during the 90s led to reduced usage of them in crimes and reduced total gun homicides? Or how there are vastly more gun homicides using legally purchased guns than there are justified (defense) killings?
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So could banning cars, or alcohol, or electricity.
Well it is a question of how it serves humanity and how it doesnt, because with your reasonning, we wouldnt do anything that could save lifes
Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So your not saying it, but your saying it.
Make up your mind. It's absurd to make an assumption out of thin air, with something as stupid as "people wouldn't commit as many suicides if there weren't guns around".
It seems like every argument against gun ownership from people in this thread is based off some ignorant assumptions they make and then justify to themselves. Big circle jerk.
Im not making an assumption, im just sharing with you my ideas because i think they can come up in this debate, and add up to the many reason why we should ban weapons. And im ready to discuss about this reasonning, but i dont think it only based on thin air
Also i edited my previous message regarding to medications
On July 26 2012 05:04 Leth0 wrote: It seems like every argument against gun ownership from people in this thread is based off some ignorant assumptions they make and then justify to themselves. Big circle jerk.
You read any of the links I posted to statistics showing how assault weapons ban during the 90s led to reduced usage of them in crimes and reduced total gun homicides? Or how there are vastly more gun homicides using legally purchased guns than there are justified (defense) killings?
Ofcourse he did. But those things seemingly did not support his views, so why would he believe them? It is clear that everyone that doesn't agree with him is ignorant and making assumptions ''out of thin air''. There can't possibly be downsides to anything he supports.
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So could banning cars, or alcohol, or electricity.
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So could banning cars, or alcohol, or electricity.
So they're comparable?
Alcohol is, I agree cars and electricity were probably pushing it though.
Both alcohol and guns main uses are to have fun and socialize. People get drunk with their friends, and people go to the range or shoot clays with friends.
Both alcohol and guns are also dangerous to one's self and others nearby when used irresponsibly.
On July 26 2012 04:57 FakePseudo wrote: Im not pinning higher suicide rates on gun ownership, i'm just saying that first of all, in every country, regardless of the suicide rate, banning firearms could save some lifes
So could banning cars, or alcohol, or electricity.
So they're comparable?
Alcohol is, I agree cars and electricity were probably pushing it though.
Both alcohol and guns main uses are to have fun and socialize. People get drunk with their friends, and people go to the range or shoot clays with friends.
Both alcohol and guns are also dangerous to one's self and others nearby when used irresponsibly.
A gun's main use is NOT to have fun with and socialize with. A gun's use is for self-defense, or killing, war, and the likes. That is the design of it, it is a weapon. Cars are not weapons by design, neither is alcohol or electricity.
using guns too shoot clay, is not it's intended purpose, just like using a car too kill someone is not it's intended purpose either.
Unfortunately at this point, all american gun laws are for naught, as everyone has a gun anyway, criminal or not. And any speculation is pointless, when it is already way too late to make a change.
EPT
