You keep comparing guns to pills or wrist slashing and avoiding jumping, trains or hanging... is that your idea or you don't realize your sources are manipulative through misleading equivalencies?

Let me be clear, the only things I disagree with you reagrding gun suicide are:
1 - weapons are not significantly different in effectiveness from a piece of rope, a locomotive, gas or a high roof. All of which are certainly more effective than pills or razors.
2 - weapons are not uniquely triggering of suicide in comparison to razors, pills, rope, ovens... Anything that is close by will be more likely for a suicidal impulse than something less likely to be around like a locomotive or a high roof.

Anyway, what the experts and critics believe or not is irrelevant, let's continue to talk among ourselves. If you believe US suicide rates would be much lower without guns, we should be able to find some data correlating suicide rates by US state with the level of gun control yes? Given the number of US states, controlling for population density and demographic variables should even be possible. Up for some science? Make some prediction based on your hypothesis and let's go look for data...

There's nothing nasty in the way you just described the topic. It's rational. I'd say the only problem is that feeling you have that there's something nasty about looking at the topic rationally... and if you think gun safety mechanisms have not been an area of research and improvement you are mistaken.

The mustard powered is concentrated so you end up with what the mixture should actually taste like, unlike regular mustard which is already watered down.... I tried the same thing but with a split pea soup recipe and it needed fresh mint but I over looked that so I added that mint condiment and because it was so little I added what I thought was the correct amount and well it was WAY too minty.... had to throw it out. So best go with the instructions and then on another day try to experiment and see what happens.

About the buns- They're slider buns so there tiny but it doesn't really matter. Think of White Castle burgers that what a slider looks like.... If they were for me I would get the regular size and if I can find them I would purchase wheat.

i think the best gun control law would allow ownwership and usage of every weapon (including nukes) only to me and forbid ownwership and usage to every other person, group, party, cult, gang, state or global corperation!

Then I put to you the same question I put to Brasas, do you think our society is flawed, wrong, or harmed by our gun laws?

In a similar spirit, this is not a loaded question, I'm interested to know.

Sure, I'll play.

If a person or people believe that they have a right to do something, then create a society with laws that violate those rights, either for the benefit of the one or the many... then yes, I find that highly wrong and flawed. Voluntary association isn't a form of government or economy, it is a basic truth to human interaction. If an individual wants to be a part of a group, there are always rules that the group imposes on the individual. It's up to the individual to decide what level of compromise they are willing to endure to be a part of that group.

To me the argument over gun banning is no different than the argument of drug legalization. Can a dangerous person do something violent with a gun? Yes. Can a dangerous person do something violent with a car? Yes. Same goes for table saws, RC copters, 3D printers, cell phones, household cleaning chemicals, knives and sharp sticks. If we deny that axiom and try to re-direct society with best interests in mind, then we're just fooling ourselves with the concept of a 'perfect society.' Our own laws have become ironic symbols of our own delusion. Might as well pass a law banning the wind or a law forcing everyone to believe that 2+2=5.

No need for hyperbole. I never said that. It's still something that can cause severe injury or even death. As it was meant to. The reason I avoided jumping and trains is because they're extremely uncommon methods, like around 2% uncommon. (can't be done in the privacy of one's own home and risk collateral damage as well as severe trauma of the driver in case of the train method) Hanging is slightly more common, but still doesn't even reach half of the popularity of eating a bullet since a bullet is pretty much instantaneously while hanging has the risk of going wrong and resulting in a very unpleasant end. And yet weapons are used disproportionally often, so obviously there IS a difference. And yet it appears that quite a number of people who don't immediately have a gun on hand don't immediately go for the alternatives. The fact that the article I linked to pointed out that even keeping a weapon locked up in a gun safe can already make a difference ought to be telling enough.

Anyway, I could look up other articles saying the same thing, but I doubt they'll make a difference. Except doing something violent with a gun or threatening to do so is the sole purpose of said device. It's what it was invented for. You can't drive around with a gun, you can't run angry birds on a gun, can't carve bread with it nor is it suitable for removing paint from your window sill and only weirdos running for president try to barbecue with it. The premise of this argument assumes that somebody who just shot up a congregation or movie theater, if deprived of easy access to a gun, would have taken out the table saw and gone to town with that instead. As evidenced by the severe lack of table saw massacres in the rest of the world, this premise is lacking. Not to say nitwits who'd consider that kind of thing don't exist, but for every unstable idiot trying to commit mass murder with an RC copter, there'll be at least 20 slightly less unstable idiots deciding: "Screw that" and give up.

Actually handguns can work well against an attacker armed with an "automatic" especially since the semi-auto mode of fire on a select-fire weapon is the only practical mode of fire in most scenarios. I cannot say if the terrorists who attacked that magazine office had their weapons on full-auto but there is good reason why semi-auto is so popular. I have seen cases of terrorists being stopped (granted it depends on what you call "terrorist") like when a terrorist who beheaded a former co-worker at an office in Oklahoma was stopped by a reserve cop.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/26/police-woman-beheaded-at-oklahoma-workplace/

Also, I have seen cases in which multiple attackers retreated because of gun-carrying individuals or were shot by them which would do well to remember when hearing about another Islamic "grooming" gang.

Almost forgot, this might go along with the idea of stopping terrorism with private gun ownership and deals with South Africa...

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Farmers-wife-shoots-at-attackers-2-dead-20140807

Gun control is hitting your target.

I agree with your completely. I made one logical reply on this forum and was going to make a second but decided against it considering the point of view of the audience. No other country today has the same set of protections in constitutional form as the United States (granted some have variants of ours) and some countries responding still revere "Royalty", and so are used to be ruled and not being able to provide for themselves and their families safety and security.

The common argument from (primarly) European countries is that the government is inherently good and their citizens should defer to good bureaucratic judgement as to how to live their lives and what they need. They can keep their "utopias" and I will stick with being able to take (while unwanted) necessary actions to protect myself and my family when seconds count and the government is only minutes away!

This is the perfect thread for sharing this Youtube video.

10 Funniest Gun FAILS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPJVF-w0We8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kayla_Rolland

Some fun with a Uzi:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfMzK7QwfrU
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-28948946

usa is full of such and even sadder dramas, i remember that last year a mother was killed by its baby, the baby did find a small revolver in her handbag and accidently fired it.

Last post - Believe whatever you like. Isn't freedom fun!

For the (selective) Youtube lovers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH9OOdl9JEI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jafkVM-jnbE


For those who can/do read:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/mass-shooting-mass-hysteria-mass.html

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/17/new-research-mass-shootings-shows-increase-frequency-assault-weapon-use-rare/

http://www.mauinews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/4664/A-mass-murder-without-a-gun.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2012/07/29/mass-murder-without-guns

http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2008/10/23/the-butcher%E2%80%99s-bill-%E2%80%93-non-gun-mass-murders/

Dude, I hadn't read the article. And by the way, did you? Seems strange to me you didn't reply saying the state by state analysis I proposed was kind of there already...

Whatever, your comment about gun safes making a difference got me curious and I'm glad I read the article. Good enough, for what it is... especially how it implicitly points a lot of the arguments for gun control are emotionally manipulative. :p

1 - you brought them up, so ill point out zero data about gun safes, it's an anecdote being offered without quantification... but well it's a newspaper in Boston... care to guess their gun control politics? So yeah I agree articles are indeed not the appropriate source for the level of argumentation we can go...

2 - what are the percentages of methods for suicide in countries with gun control? No one is disputing guns are chosen if available... hence that 2% is misleading.

3 - obviously guns are both easy to use AND effective, that's the difference. The other methods are usually "flawed" in one or the other. Still does not prove guns cause suicides... yet is more than enough to explain the correlations. Which I never disagreed exist.

4 - the graphic with the results by state seems very noisy to me. There's three outliers AK (Arkansas?), MT (Montana?) and WY (pretty sure Wyoming). Though Nevada and New Mexico look close. Basically, I don't think this is strong enough to prove what you want, I could take exact same data and present it with a summary "low prevalence of guns does not significantly reduce suicide" and it would also be true... Also where is the control for other factors?

5 - one of the data points, about Israeli soldiers and weekend carry is the most interesting (but see point one) but the obvious problem is that in a normal situation you don't know when people are at high risk, maybe it would be good to have a looksee at the why of suicide instead of the how for that... Anyway, soldiers probably stressed returning home certainly experience a sort of unreality and might have PTSD... this is classic and well known and a lot of support structures around soldiers returning home exist, or should exist. I have zero issue with soldiers being forced to take home leave without being allowed to take their weapons. Of course military readiness in Israel is a touchy topic, and the net value might be ok for them... Suicide rates might be low enough even 40% is very low in absolute terms.

Now, as you started going there but now haven't continued in that direction, I want to ask you two things before proceeding into moral considerations rather than utilitarian ones, as you can see, we're not getting anywhere at this level...
What is your opinion about euthanasia / assisted suicide? For or against? Under what conditions?
What is your opinion of preemption of outcomes over prevention of outcomes in any other policy area? Like say profiling...

My hypothesis is that you dislike guns and the suicide topic is mainly a rationalisation to justify said dislike. Maybe I am wrong and if so you will probably be against suicide more broadly... and for pre-emptive intervention more broadly... comment please?

I don't think there's a need to prove guns *cause* suicide. What's more important is that easy access to a gun dramatically raises the chances of a person going through with it and succeeding during a vulnerable moment instead of reconsidering. I'm actually for it in the case of situations involving prolongued suffering with no hope of relief. Which is looked into by an external party and not just by the person him/herself. It wouldn't be a first resort or a decision made in the heat of the moment. I'm against racial profiling. Generic profiling, like keeping an eye on folks who seem overly nervous at an airport or keeping a closer eye on a teenager over a 68-year old lady, I can get behind.

A little note about the suicide part, it's not necessarily the gun owner himself who might impulsively eat a bullet during a vulnerable moment, his teenage kids run the same risk.

My positions on the suicide angle and the homicide angle are two sides of the same coin. Someone who's really, really determined to either take his own life or someone else's will be willing to jump through as many hoops as it takes. But by keeping the hoops in place, impulse can be largely removed from the equation and those who persist have a greater chance of either failing or be found out by their surroundings before they can go through with things.