There is no "total ban" on individual gun ownership in the UK. Repeating misinformation that can be disproved with a simple Google search does nothing to help preserve American gun rights.
Firearm Report from Centers for Disease Control Now In (Interesting Results)
- Thread starter NickEllis
- Start date
- Status
rodregier
Member
Probably outside their brief, but suicide rates tend to be cultural and means-independent.
However, to compare that would require looking at other countries.
However, to compare that would require looking at other countries.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Not to focus exclusively on Japan, but Dave Kopel has written extensively on their culture as related to firearms and other civil rights. I have some questions about some of his statements in this particular selection from 1993, but it is an interesting read.
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm
Back to topic.
Terry 230RN
Note: "This article is condensed from the law review article Japanese Gun Control, 1993 Asia-Pacific Law Review 26."
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm
Back to topic.
Terry 230RN
Note: "This article is condensed from the law review article Japanese Gun Control, 1993 Asia-Pacific Law Review 26."
Last edited:
Archaic
Member
I wish they would parse out suicide as a 'violence' statistic. One does not do 'violence' to ones self. The 30k per year fatality numbers that get thrown at us always includes those 18k suicides. How many of them would have killed themselves even if a gun were not available to them.
Dean Weingarten
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 423
Firearms Homicides is a propaganda term. What matters is overall homicides. If reducing "firearms homicides" results in higher overall homicides, then you have created more problems than you have solved.
Dean Weingarten
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2012
- Messages
- 423
Virtually all of them. The overall suicide rate does not decrease when guns are restricted.
Dframe
Member
I still think USING the CDC as a tool for firearms study is WRONG. What the hell do firearms have to do with Disease? The answer of course, is they want guns to be thought of that way!
GrOuNd_ZeRo
Member
There are still millions of ways to die when you don't have firearms available, suicidal people can jump infront of a bus/train/semi-truck etc and will not inhibbit their desire to die, my wife attempted suicide by taking an overdose of the medication that was supposed to HELP her.
People who want to kill or die will always find a way, gun or no gun.
People who want to kill or die will always find a way, gun or no gun.
JustinJ
Member
On what basis can you make that conclusion? What is your knowledge of suicidal ideation and it's causes? Do you seriously doubt that using a firearm increases the likelihood of a successful attempt over other commonly used methods?
It is of little question that the readily available means to commit the act is a significant risk factor. The decision to kill one's self or the obsession with the idea can certainly be influenced external factors, such as the availability of a gun. Also, the likelihood of success of using a gun, as well as the avoidance of pain, are certainly influential factors as well. For some people there may be some other readily available means, such as living next to a giant cliff, that provides the straw to break the camels back but there is no question that a gun in the house can also be the straw.
I certainly don't believe my our your right to self defense should be limited so fewer people will commit suicide but we should still keep our facts straight.
So if a scientific paper or study were written that used the term "chemical agents" you would accuse them of blaming chemicals, not people? Because the word "agent" is regularly used in scientific literature and it has nothing to do with bias or "blaming the agent".
The cdc studies all sorts of things that are involved in injury or death. Referencing other papers or studies is also common practice in such scientific studies.
Last edited:
Librarian
Member
The paper we are discussing purports to offer direction for further research.
Public health research 'agents' are uniformly and unequivocally 'bad' - we never see PH research remarking on the positive aspects of sewage in our drinking water, or the ecological benefits to predators of the Anopheles mosquito. The concept that an 'agent' might have any beneficial effects is foreign to the discipline; I believe the paper's mention of studying such benefits about as much as I believe a member of the current administration when he or she claims support for the Second Amendment.
Noting Kellerman/Reay or Hemenway research with approval is equivalent to citing the Brady Campaign for criminological research. It is a bad sign for the future.
The CDC has no right to study or interpret any crimes. They need to just stick to "disease control". The budget and staff should be lowered accordingly. Because they obviously have more time and money than they need to work on medical issues.
I stated this in public over 35 years ago at an emergency medical conference in Nashville.
A doctor from the CDC Started his session with a large picture of an AR on the screen and proceeded to push his agenda of confiscation and control needed because of the violence of the inner cities. His next slide was of a Barrett with the statement that the police had been facing criminals on a regular basis in the projects using them.
It was just too much ****e for me to listen to and not speak out.
Cheers,
ts
I stated this in public over 35 years ago at an emergency medical conference in Nashville.
A doctor from the CDC Started his session with a large picture of an AR on the screen and proceeded to push his agenda of confiscation and control needed because of the violence of the inner cities. His next slide was of a Barrett with the statement that the police had been facing criminals on a regular basis in the projects using them.
It was just too much ****e for me to listen to and not speak out.
Cheers,
ts
silicosys4
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 3,692
Sure, strengthened immune system, and an ability to drink funky water.
What is it....hmmmm....there was recently something that closed this door....
Oh, yeah.
Heller.
JustinJ
Member
As papers often do.
That is just completely untrue.
Referencing data gathered in other studies is not "approval".
mgkdrgn
Member
Interesting you post this from the UK, 'cause you are NEVER going to see this in any major media coverage here.
Librarian
Member
Counter examples, please? I'm willing to learn.
JustinJ
Member
This one even says "beneficial agent" in the title:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/7673866...elivery-Of-Beneficial-Agent---Download-as-PDF
OP
OP
NickEllis
Member
The term 'agent' is typically used in any context where the device (or more commonly the substance) is responsible for acting transitively upon something else. So:
'A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect: agents of change; bleaching agents.'
Unless there is a direct, transitive role being performed by the object, we should probably speak in terms of 'instrument'. That is, an object by which an agent acts.
I agree with the opinion above that the report have been more accurate in using the language of 'instrumentality' rather than 'agency' in describing the use of weapons.
'A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect: agents of change; bleaching agents.'
Unless there is a direct, transitive role being performed by the object, we should probably speak in terms of 'instrument'. That is, an object by which an agent acts.
I agree with the opinion above that the report have been more accurate in using the language of 'instrumentality' rather than 'agency' in describing the use of weapons.
danez71
Member
But then you say the following which doesn't really support the above.
Then you go on to say:
Which would support that a "gun" doesn't increase the risk as the are tons of other ways to kill yourself.
Further support below that people will find a way... any way... regardless if ther are guns around.
According to the following links, hanging and OD/poisoning are 2 of the top 4 methods in both the US and in 'England & Wales
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/england-wales-methods-suicide
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide
Yes.. the CDC does; Including suicide. The links used data from the CDC that shows that people will find a way.
In 'England & Wales' where firearms are all that accessible, they found 7 other ways besides firearms to kill themselves indicating that if they are determined, they will find a way.
I have a (step) bother that killed himself with a gun and a uncle that used the running car in the garage method. He lived in rural MN and had hunting rifle(s) and shotgun(s).
Gaucho Gringo
Member
A parallel study on automobile suicides should be done to gun suicides. The dirty little secret is that a fairly large percentage of automobile deaths are actually suicides but never get reported as such. It has been known for the last 100 years, just not acknowledged as such. So lets outlaw automobiles, they are known killers. It's for the children you know is the biggest lie ever perpetuated.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
