Deaths due to terrorist attacks vs gun homicides in the U.S.

You're the supercilious ass that ignores that in cases of suicide, eliminating one method does not equate to preventing suicide, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Oh, but it does, you hare-brained moron. I remember ripping your ass in two on this very point in the past.

First, lets admit that the topic is very subjective; how will you ever know that a person who killed himself using a firearm would necessarily have killed himself using other means if firearms were not available?
I know common sense is not your strong suit, but you gotta learn sometime....

With that established, what should you NOT do?
well, the answer would be to NOT look at a subjective "memorandum" written by a former competitive shooter (aka pro gun-nut), in the hopes of influencing pro gun sentiment in the UK. That's your Colin Greenwood.

The thing you would do is look at something written by an esteemed publication whose authors use a statistical comparison to establish a connectivity between gun availability and suicides.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/

1. Across states, more guns = more suicide(1988-1997, 1999-2001, 1981-2001, Northeast)



2. Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.

3. Gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners

4. Gun owners are not more suicidal than non-owners

5. Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun

6. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods

7. The public (INLCUDING IBCHICKENSHIT) does not understand the importance of method availability


8. Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence

9. The main factor explaining differences in suicide rates across states is gun ownership


and on and on.

What's the matter? is the HARVARD SPH just a "grubered" odumbo minion?

Yes, you will die from something, but does it make sense to hasten the motherfucker along? Originally Posted by WombRaider

In many cases yes it does.

You're the supercilious ass that ignores that in cases of suicide, eliminating one method does not equate to preventing suicide, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.





Furthermore, the CDC reports that each year approximately 16,651 individuals now die by overdosing on "legal", prescription pain killers; yet, no one is running around trying to impose a wholesale ban.





And when the CDC factors in illicit drugs and misuse of alcohol, that number climbs to 80,000.





So take your supercilious ass and diddle yourself into oblivion, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Where did anyone argue in this thread that removing guns would somehow lower the suicide rate? You've built another straw man, you stupid fucking cocksucker.

In many cases yes it does. Originally Posted by Budman

You need anger management.

we put all that effort, money and war into combatting terrorism, yet weve done almost nothing to combat gun deaths. . . seems a bit of an unbalanced response when u compare 74 to 150,000 murdered.

http://readersupportednews.org/opini...by-the-numbers

these numbers are from 2002 up to 2011, during that time frame the numbers are 30 compared to 115,997 Originally Posted by southtown4488

I'm all for getting rid of guns to stop killing, but we need a constitutional amendment for that.

Since black people commit half the killings, perhaps we should pay them to leave the country? That would drastically cut down on murders.

Oh, but it does, you hare-brained moron. I remember ripping your ass in two on this very point in the past.

First, lets admit that the topic is very subjective; how will you ever know that a person who killed himself using a firearm would necessarily have killed himself using other means if firearms were not available?
I know common sense is not your strong suit, but you gotta learn sometime....

With that established, what should you NOT do?
well, the answer would be to NOT look at a subjective "memorandum" written by a former competitive shooter (aka pro gun-nut), in the hopes of influencing pro gun sentiment in the UK. That's your Colin Greenwood.

The thing you would do is look at something written by an esteemed publication whose authors use a statistical comparison to establish a connectivity between gun availability and suicides.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/fi...rship-and-use/

1. Across states, more guns = more suicide(1988-1997, 1999-2001, 1981-2001, Northeast)



2. Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.

3. Gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners

4. Gun owners are not more suicidal than non-owners

5. Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun

6. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods

7. The public (INLCUDING IBCHICKENSHIT) does not understand the importance of method availability


8. Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence

9. The main factor explaining differences in suicide rates across states is gun ownership


and on and on.

What's the matter? is the HARVARD SPH just a "grubered" odumbo minion? Originally Posted by shanm

people who are depressed with suicidal thoughts are more likely to actually kill themselves if a gun is accessible, if theres no gun they have more time to come out of that low point.

as well, women who live in a household with a gun are much more likely to killed with a gun than those who live in households without a gun.

Of all of the deaths due to gun violence, what racial or ethnic group suffers the most?

I'm all for getting rid of guns to stop killing, but we need a constitutional amendment for that.

Since black people commit half the killings, perhaps we should pay them to leave the country? That would drastically cut down on murders. Originally Posted by DSK

not really, every right has its limits. . .we have freedom of speech yet slander is not protected.

the right to bear arms does not include owning a nuclear bomb, for example. . . u can get a gun in England but you have to show proof that u need it. . . im not saying we should follow them exactly but looking at other western nations with MUCH less gun violence is a smart way to start.

Tsk, tsk. That pesky old Second Amendment...

Tsk, tsk. That pesky old Second Amendment...

] Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Do you not think are not restrictions on the second amendment?

Tsk, tsk. That pesky old Second Amendment...

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

every right has its limits, I know republicunts can only see black and white and are blind to shades of gray that make up the real world.

Do you not think are not restrictions on the second amendment? Originally Posted by WTF

Even for you, that is poor sentence construction...ijs

Do you not think are not restrictions on the second amendment? Originally Posted by WTF

Five different firearms.
Everything from up close to intermediate to long range.
A thousand rounds for each.

Nope. No restrictions here.

Come and take'em.... If you can.

Even for you, that is poor sentence construction...ijs Originally Posted by DSK

Wonder if he builds houses as well as he does sentences ?

Firearms caused 84,258 non fatal injuries 11,208 homicides and 33,169 deaths in the USA last year.