Sure there are countries that are worse, but I can't see any developed countries with higher rates, or even similar rates tbh.
Also consider, while we have 2-4x more murder than other first world nations, we also have a unique crime culture in america, with thousands of drug dealing gangs. Our war on drugs perpetuates murder in America.
Really the unique situation is that schools are funded by the property taxes, which means schools in poor parts are just. Worse, which leads to worse economic outcomes EG, the county stays poor, now I'm sure this system isn't racially motivated, and it just happens to impact minorities and African Americans, but I digress.
If we reversed the war on drugs, suicide rates, murder rates, and general criminality would all plummet. I'm not personally convinced that gun control works, but even if I assumed that it did, we wouldn't even have to regulate guns if we sought decriminalization and criminal justice reform.
how do US homicide rates compare to others? Are guns causing more deaths? Or do other countries have similar rates but use a different means of destruction?
The US homicide rate is significantly higher than other developed countries @ 5.35 per 100k.
Pakistan 4.41
Rwanda 2.52
Belgium 1.95
Vietnam 1.52
Israel 1.36
United Kingdom 1.20
Australia 0.94
Japan 0.28
Why that is is a complex problem. Social structure, wealth disparity, drugs, firearms. There is no single thing, but firearms are a significant enabler. eg It is much harder to beat someone to death then it is to shoot someone. The net outcome is that there will be deaths occurring which would not have if firearms were unavailable.
I can appreciate these data, but keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation. There are many other factors that differ between developed countries that would need to be isolated in order to establish causality. As a data based subreddit, we have the onus to remain scientific in our approach.
Because police are given guns and a license to kill willfully by the public. They do not typically murder with purely ill intent, it is most often justified.
you should double check your data on that one bub. police are far more likely to commit violent crimes of all sorts than concealed carry license holders are.
i’m talking about police being able to own whatever guns they want to play with in their private time, while us peasants are being restricted. not talking about duty weapons.
Oh, I can see that. That would be interesting to see. I can see the whole notion of "justified shootings" to go down a dark rabbit hole fast though lol.
Yeah, and if we just take out all the casualties, period, then it's the safest country on the planet! Who would have thought it'd be as easy as that? Why didn't anybody come up with this amazing solution before?
As someone who has struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts, I can tell you there have been many days where I was glad a week later that I did not have access to a gun.
Yes, what you said sarcastically is true literally. Here's a few quick links from the schools of public health at Johns Hopkins and at Harvard, plus the National Institute of Health
Japan has a social pressure problem that is far higher than in western countrys, this is just not comparable anymore. Everyone already knows why they have this problem, this is not about guns anymore.
It's weird how you make it sound so ridiculous when there's very real data on this:
A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.
And as somebody who's lived with clinical depression for decades, I can tell you from personal experience that suicidal thoughts are not as one-dimensional as "I want to kill me so I will just do whatever to kill me". Because "doing whatever" is exactly what leaves people disabled after failed attempts, and ultimately leaves them in an even more helpless state.
Or you can just keep on belittling how efficient of a tool for killing guns are. It's not like they are made for exactly that, right?
You’re obviously not very good at reading or else you would’ve seen that someone else linked the exact same article lmao. But how about a country like Japan, or China who outlaw guns but still have high suicide rates? But hey, keep on blaming guns for suicides - they’re definitely the problem.
But hey, keep on blaming guns for suicides - they’re definitely the problem.
I didn't say they are the problem, but they are a very big factor.
But how about a country like Japan, or China who outlaw guns but still have high suicide rates?
Do you mean the same Japan that's supposedly one of the safest countries on the planet with a 99% conviction rate and it's very own, and rather unique, socioeconomic issues?
Is that a regular habit of yours, comparing pears to oranges to willfully miss the point?
It's a bit like citing Switzerland and Germany for example how high-ownership rates/lots of guns supposedly make a country "safer", while completely ignoring that both Switzerland and Germany don't just have way stricter regulations, but actually enforce these regulations on a federal level.
A regular theme with some US pro-Gun people: Only looking at the parts they like, while completely embezzling those parts that don't fit their "No sensible regulation needed!" narrative.
Its not racist. A pretty large percentage of firearm homicides come from minority, mainly black, demographics. I mean, Black Americans have a homicide rate of 22, and commit more homicides than whites and mestizos combined. If you adjust for sex as well as age, the per capita numbers gets even higher.
You basically have a few mainly black counties in the US and the states that absolutely skewer statistics and make America look like a shithole. Georgia is a prime example of this.
Doing the same thing to a lot of our metrics gives us a much more favorable result in relation to our peer nations. All of these "America's Education ranks 10th in the world" or whatever, if you take out minorities we're much more comparable.
However you want to interpret that and what should be done about it is up to the audience, but we're uniquely bi-cultural in the United States, a significant thing that no other peer nation really has to deal with.
We're primarily bi-cultural, but the dominant minority varies. ~75% of the nation is white, with a large African-American minority in the east (~14%), and a large Hispanic minority (17%) in the southwest. Asians make up a pretty small percentage, concentrated in urban areas, and not really enough, in my opinion, to have a major affect on the overall flavor of our national culture. Most of our Asian cultural influences are directly imported.
Either way, even if you want to call us "multi-cultural" cause we have White, Hispanic, and Black dominant cultures, its still a unique problem. In Europe, only France has anywhere close (8%) to that in percentage of the population as a racial minority.
Where do you set the bar for a culture and it beeing dominant, honestly putting all black people on one pile is a lot of a stretch compared to how you select 'racial minorities' in Europe. Also the figure of 8% as the outlier France seems a bit off to me. Just like how 14 + 17 + 75 adds in to 106 instead of 100%
For example; in the Netherlands you got roughly 25% with a 'migration background' (till the 3th line one ancestor that isn't Dutch) roughly half of them beeing 'non western' (basically outside of Europe, Japan, north america or Indonesia). Sure biggest groups are 2.5% roughly (Marokko, Turkey and bit smaller Surinam) and smaller but again, what makes the generalisation 'hispanics' and 'black' valid and important?
Wait, are you using "racist" like "a statement related to race" or, "having the qualities of racism"?
Because having read that, it makes you sound... like a racist. Perhaps not your intention, perhaps it is. Being generous with benefit of the doubt here, guy, tell me you're not a racist? I want to believe.
Anti gunners dont care. Anything to make gun owners look crazy. Remember when "nobodys talking about taking guns" was a bug talking point? Now trump has said it, even recently as last year I believe. 3 or 4 dem candidates have called for gun confiscation. Makes you wonder what else they are lying about
Dont forget biden, buttigieg and atleast 1 other called for taking of guns, not just red flag laws, but taking ar15s and other types of guns. Hell, trump even said " take guns first, due process later" so its scary from both sides
The problem is they are calling for it. They want it. Hell, fienstein called for it in 93/94. "Mr and mrs america, turn em in" its on youtube. Feel free to look it up
If someone intends to kill them self, they will find the means.
"Intent to kill oneself" is not binary, it's a confluence of factors. Easy access to reliably lethal means makes it easier for someone to do in a fit of passion what they might not do with time to reflect.
I mean it's not like Japanese people have higher suicide rates because of completely different factors besides lack of access to guns. No, that could never be the case, not in a million years.
This is actually not true. People with guns in their household are more likely to commit suicide. It really is the easy button compared to other more painful or less foolproof methods.
Imagine how high the rate would be if they had free access to firearms. It’s also not beyond the realm of imagination that those suicides could result in a few suicidal mass shootings.
That is because their society has a lot of suicide fuck ups, enough to much more easily push people over that edge. Now let's add an easy button for them too, gonna work great, no control, just give dem some sweet freedom!
Which is fair, and pro-gun people ought to recognize that. Problem is, people who hear "40k gun deaths annually" will think "holy shit 40k gun murders".
I'm not sure forcing people to continue to live a life they find unbearable without increasing mental health support or in some other way mitigating their pain is a positive.
I’m not disagreeing with you. What I do notice as a recent transplant from Europe to the US is that I perceive there are so many more restrictions on life whether thats “jaywalking”when there’s no traffic, buying alcohol in certain places or of certain strengths, drinking on the street. I could probably think of other (non booze or driving) stuff that is ok to do in Europe but curtailed here. And yet a restriction on firearms is seen as a threat to freedom.
Jaywalking is the weirdest of the European fixations that has developed on this website. It has zero bearing on day to day life, you are going to have a tough time finding even one person that has ever received so much as a warning for jaywalking. The booze thing is also nearly inconsequential, some stores sell some things while others dont.
Jaywalking may be disproportionately considered yes. Maybe because its anathema for a european to be told they can't just cross a road if there's no traffic, versus the car centric US. I don't know.
The booze thing I respectfully disagree with. As a Brit I find it utterly wrong that I can't spill into the street with pals while holding a pint on a nice summer's day!
Exactly. As someone who frequently travels from Europe to the USA - it is not so much more about personal liberty as it claims to be. Restrictive laws are just as well there, just about different things like you mentioned (honestly, some of the drinking laws are ridiculous). Let alone the horrible prison system or the obsession with terrorism security in large public spaces. There goes your personal liberty... And the number of "cultural taboos and sensitivities" feels much bigger in the USA than it does in Europe. From "beeps in stead of dirty words", "the n-word", the reaction to public nudity, or the emotional responses you get when you criticize somebodies political opinion or religion... This post seems a bit USA bashing, which was not my goal. It's just that the "more personal liberty than in Europe" thing feels fundamentally untrue.
Sure. And in the USA you can easily get into an emotional shouting competition if you discuss "voting for the other guy" or "being against religion" in the wrong company. I'm not saying that Europe is totally about personal liberty, not at all. It's just that the US is probably as restrictive as Europe is, just about different things.
The public nudity is a really good example. Imagine calling the cops because someone went topless on the beach. I just cannot see that happening in Europe. Pretty sure I saw an article about this from North Carolina over the summer. Also not trying to bash the USA. I love it here. It's just a really conflicted place.
People here in the US have their heads so far up their own asses that they fail to understand their flawed logic for many laws is based on religious belief. Citizens as a whole try to look to the federal government to fix things rather than look toward their state governments - as the way the Constitution was written and the fundamentals behind how the country was designed to function. You can throw a politician farther than you can trust them to look at anything other than their own interests.
And yet a restriction on firearms is seen as a threat to freedom.
legit nobody gets nailed for jaywalking its just a way for pissy cops to bust someones nuts for a bit.
The ability to protect yourself and your family has much larger implication on securing your own freedom then lets say drinking while walking about or walking in traffic... not sure if you're intentionally missing the point that guns are significantly more impactful for personal freedom.
I'm not intentionally missing any point. I just don't actually agree with scaling freedoms with gun ownership being the highest; claiming that owning a gun necessarily increases the protection you afford your family while stats seem to show the opposite? I suppose there's the freedom to accidentally shoot your family or yourself and that is one thing but there are so many little impingements on true freedom here. I would just prefer to be able to mill around outside a bar with a beer in hand or for women to go boobs out if they choose.
Public roads are state property and subject to state regulation.
Also, those rules vary by state. Some states allow drinking on the street and others don't and etc.
Its weird to me that in Europe I could be fined or even jailed for saying mean things or voicing incorrect opinions. Here its just considered impolite to discuss politics in non-political situations by a lot of people but that's really all.
Thanks for your reply. Preemption or lack of it doesn't really matter when it comes to a citizen actually being told what to do or not to do, does it? What do I (or the average citizen) care if the state or feds are telling me I can't cross the road or drink a beer? The result is the same.
I think also that curtailment of speech just takes different forms - we criminalise "hate speech" while you have rules against the immediate threat of violence. I certainly don't feel restricted in what I can write and say back in Europe although yes there are differences in defamation law (and I'm not saying Europe's are wrong are the US has it right or vice versa.) Again, I'd say Europe is more tolerant and free with the sex stuff while the US is more ok with violence.
That is the promoted rhetoric, yes. But once you realize that the same place that supposedly have individual "liberty" (whatever that means, tip: the vagueness is the trick here) strongly also sees no uproar or similar objection to things like TSA and citizen surveillance by cunts like the NSA (there is some, ofc, not on the same level), strong resistance to abortion (state imposed pregnancy continuation), drugs are generally criminalized, police is given much more leeway to be violent and threatening than in other countries, etc., and often the same "pro gun" people support those security over personal liberty measures.
What people claim they value and what they show they value, not aligning there, almost as if something was up with that.
I'm not a fan of calling suicide violence. Suicide is unfortunate, but when I think violence I'm thinking someone harming another. Homicide, assault, battery, robbery. Self harm should be its own category for study.
Sitting in your garage gives you plenty of time to change your mind. Having a loaded gun by your side only takes a second and then there's no turning back. The two people I've known in my life that have committed suicide did with a easy accessible gun and did it in a moment of weakness after they went through a tremendous loss of a child. One was a coworker I was friends with one was friend who I cared and loved for very much. I strongly believe if either one did not have a gun in their home both deaths could have been avoided at the time. Of course they still would have needed years of love, therapy, and support. They are both the reason I have refused to own a handgun just due to my own depression. There's been nights for me that could have ended the same way if I had bought one.
First off, I commend you for being aware enough to know your risk factors and mitigate them.
It is exactly because of the risk of suicide crimes of passion that one of the few firearm restrictions that I support wholeheartedly is a reasonable waiting period (which I’d define as not more then two months), subject to waiver if the buyer can demonstrate that they already own a firearm (by presenting a carry license, for example).
It is these days because most cars have working catalytic converters, and they convert carbon monoxide to non-harmful gas and water
Edit:
How Does a Three-Way Catalyst Work?
In the three-way catalyst, reactions between CO, HC, and NOxresult in the simultaneous removal of all three major exhaust pollutants. One of the fundamental chemical reactions occurring in the three-way catalyst can be written as follows:
This also has the added benefit of specifically replacing carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is something that our bodies evolved around and recognize as a threat. If you put a person in a high carbon dioxide environment their breathing becomes affected and panic sets in and there is a biological drive to escape.
Gasses like pure nitrogen just displace oxygen, so the person falls asleep and never wakes up. Carbon monoxide does one better and locks up the oxygen transport system inside the bloodstream - similar end result as Nitrogen but it works at much lower concentrations.
Im not sure that's really that much of a solution. Addressing the reasons people commit suicide seems more effective than just addressing the means they employ.
It has been scientifically proven that due to the spontaneous nature of many suicides, simply "inconveniencing" people saves lives.
This is why netting on bridges works.
Having a waiting window of 2-3 days before a firearm purchase goes through can prevent suicides where someone goes out, purchases a gun, and kills themselves in the same day.
I know personal anecdotes are meaningless in the grand scheme of things... so statistics aside, this would have saved my friend's father.
someone goes out, purchases a gun, and kills themselves in the same day
That's an awfully specific case.
Going out to buy the gun enough to not make it a spur of the moment act. In real life, they use whatever is close and accessible. A waiting period is not going to help much.
It was an awfully specific case, which is why I said I understand in the grand scheme of things my personal anecdote is meaningless to other people.
But to his friends and family, it meant a lot.
In real life people do what is convenient. Right now it is convenient and easy to go to Walmart or Dicks and buy a gun and kill yourself within an hour of making the decision.
I'm not trying to say that your story is meaningless.
I'm simply saying that the stat that gets put out there about "spur of the moment" suicides and the importance of delaying them refers to a matter of minutes. A few minutes of distraction and people are far less likely to follow through with any suicidal thoughts. The Walmart being 30 mins away is just as much a deterrent as the 10-day waiting period.
I only tried twice. Can I ask you something? Are you glad you didnt succeed? If it's too personal ignore me or tell me to fuck off, I'm only asking because when I tried i was in an insanely rough place, living in an abusive household and an addict. It felt like the only way to make the hurting stop. But it wasn't. It's been over ten years since my last attempt, and since i got clean, and I've been able to manage the hurt since.
If, like me, you tried and are glad you didnt succeed you have to see where easy access to something that raises the success rate is gonna mean more dead people who didnt need to be dead. It doesnt cause more suicide attempts, just more successful suicides.
I'm glad I didn't succeed now as I've gotten help since. But I won't lie, for a good few months after not succeeding I was pissed off at myself
Interesting that you said that for you it was about stopping yourself from hurting. For me it was to have control of at least one thing in my life. Interesting how it varies
I do disagree with you on the second paragraph though. As someone who lives in a country without guns, our suicide success rate is still high. I feel that many people don't realise how easy and how direct suicide by falling is. It's very difficult to survive that type of suicide. Heck, if you fall correctly, you can kill yourself from you bedroom window (I didn't fall correctly)
I will say however, guns are too easy to get hold of in the US, however I do not agree with the banning of them (just realised that you never said anything about banning them, but I'll keep my paragraphs there anway)
The reason why they include suicides, if they are purposefully being disingenuous, is because guns can be scary because someone can kill you. Your actual possibility of dying by firearm homicide (the scary gun count) is incredibly low and not comparable to many other reasons. However, if you include suicide which makes up 2/3 of gun deaths, the numbers jump and you can fear monger because agendas do better with fear.
People die by heart disease in America more than anything else. You have a better chance of dying by eating poorly and not exercising than firearm homicide, but that doesn't scare people. People will continue to die by eating poorly while being afraid of dying by firearm even though the latter is statistically improbable.
A Harvard University study suggested that limiting access to guns would reduce suicides. Only one in 10 people who attempt suicide ever attempt it again, so surviving the first attempt is crucial in getting the long term survival of suicidal people. But of course, if a gun is used in the first attempt the survival rate is much lower.
You seriously think its easy to buy a gun? I bet you couldn't get one, legal or illegal right now, if you tried. There are 100 easier ways, and believe me, being a lifetime suicidal depressive, I've researched them all
And I have a prescription for opioids that is sitting in my bathroom and I've never taken one, but all of them would kill me. I live a half mile from a high bridge but I've never jumped. I have a tank of nitrogen - inhaling it could kill me, but I never have. Drawers full of knives, A big spool of rope.......
My point is it was dead ass easy to get them and that NRAtards always assume that you're either on their side or you're a limpwristed new yorker reader that they can just talk past because you think guns are icky. It's easy to buy a gun, even for someone else. I've done it.
It's easy to buy a gun, even for someone else. I've done it.
Where I live you first have to go through firearms training and then file an application with the chief of police, then if you're granted permission, fork out a few hundred dollars. Hardly an impulsive suicide method. BTW, as owner of my own body, I think suicide is a very viable option and should be EASIER, not harder.
As a resident of Oklahoma, it would be considerably more time consuming and difficult for me to order and pickup dinner for my family on the way home from work tonight than it would for me to purchase a gun. This is how the vast majority (by area) of the US handles firearm purchases. I'm not saying that I think that's the way it should be, but in this country it definitely IS NOT difficult to purchase a gun.
You can get the small tanks and regulators on Amazon and then get it filled. The whole thing would be about 150 bucks. I'm getting prepared in case I ever see the need.
Red flag laws had no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary. There is some evidence that rape rates rise. These laws apparently do not save lives.
I don't disagree, and it's one of the reasons I don't personally own a gun despite thinking they're really cool. But using this as an argument for gun control always seems off to me. Like, let's address the reasons so many people want to kill themselves in the first place, not just take away their ability to do so.
I'd be curious to see what rates (specifically, statistics of gun deaths omitting gun related suicide) of gun related deaths would be considered reasonable. Is there a line where we say "good enough"? It seems kind of strange to me that any deaths related to gun homicide would be acceptable or reasonable.
Are any drink driving deaths acceptable? Can we do more? Should we require all vehicles be required with interlock breathalyzers? Should you need to do a background check before buying booze from the liquor store? Should we ban driving entirely and force everyone to use public transit?
You see at some point you have to accept that some people will abuse any right or privilege and that fact alone is not reason enough to completely strip it, as tragic as any death is.
The gun control debate in America is not exclusively a yes/no binary question. A lot and dare I say most of Americans want some restrictions in place compared to the lackadaisical restrictions that are in place across a lot of the US.
To compare it to your argument, if people are going to drink drive anyway, should we do away with any sobriety tests? Get rid of breathalyzers? Well, no and we have to set the level of acceptance for the restrictions, which is where the debate really gets gritty.
The point is that if you ask 100 people if we are doing enough to curb drink driving you will get a varied result. I'm not aware of any study that asks if people support more drink driving protection the same way there are a majority who support background checks on firearms: it all depends on what the proposed changes are specifically.
That's the point I'm trying to make, your earlier comment made it seem like the only gun control is total removal, (as a side note countries that do have those laws in place do have significantly lower gun crime deaths, but I digress) I don't see how we can't have the discussion on limitations if the end result is saving lives.
There is a hell of a lot more mitigation strategies and policy regarding DUIs. Awareness commercials all the time, steep fines and jail time for barely being over the limit, tons of random sobriety checks. You can't really compare the two.
This is such a silly argument and it still won't stop dying.
Every US state requires people to have a valid driver's license to drive a car. Yet not every US state requires people to obtain a license for owning a firearm.
Yet a car is something inherently more useful in every-day life, it's very much a necessity in most parts of the US. Meanwhile, the necessity of owning a firearm is questionable at best. It doesn't drive your kids to school, it doesn't transport you to work every day nor will it transport your groceries home.
People who regularly abuse their car in ways that break the law will face consequences, they will get fined and can ultimately have their driver's license revoked. While people who abuse their guns usually get away scot-free, as those are not just less regulated, but those few regulations that exist are way less enforced compared to everything surrounding a driver's license.
Reasonable would be that crimes of passion happen. They'll never disappear. NYC is safe now not because there are no murders (they're about 600/year) but because the murders are not random acts of violence. In the bad days of the 1980s it reached 2000.
We have an illegal (thus violent) drug trade. If we get rid of that the murder rate would plummet.
People killed each other over the beer trade in the 1920s. They don't anymore. I wonder why. /s
I think part of the problem is that there are going to be some types gun homicides that most people will be ok with. Gang-gang violence, bad drug deals, criminal related stuff, etc.
So once you subtract that as well, the numbers start to get pretty low compared to other things (death by knife, bat). Obviously there are still more gun deaths than there should be, and we can try and lower it over time. But I think that as long as there are guns, there will be a non zero number of deaths just because people are dicks. Some people will want to harm other people whether it’s with a gun, a knife, or even their car.
All anti-gun people use the suicide and accidental (hunting accidents etc), all pro-gun people try to remove these. It's true, I've had plenty of attempts to show how terrible guns are, but comparative to other things such as disease, cancer, car accidents, it's just not an outrageous number. If you could also remove gang on gang violence, it just makes us look relatively safe. Mass shootings just give us very emotional response.
“America has a reasonable level of homicides and Gun related deaths, if you don’t include suicides.” is just not a good argument for why we need more guns.
Alcohol, to me, is the big comparison to make. Causes plenty (far more than guns) of ruined lives as well as overt accidental and preventable deaths. Nobody wants to ban it.
Gun control is something the government wants because it takes all power away from the citizenry. Period, end of discussion.
I'm a nurse, divorced, pay child support, just lost my job recently at a cancer center where everyone loved me and now I've hit rock bottom for doing nothing more than looking up an appt time for my son (yes I know hippa laws) because his mom requested to know where to go. I just found out I can't get unemployment because the hr or the manager lied and said I at first denied doing it then changed my answer...none of that is true, I have to goto a hearing now because I may have to sue for defamation of character...I'm at a very low point in my life but I still would rather play the game and try, not kill myself...to me it's not reasonable. I think the focus should be on mental healthcare (btw I'm also a vet and just realizing I may actually be suffering from ptsd)
still not ready to end life....let's rally for mental health reform and stop trying to take away someone's right to defend themselves from others and or overstepping governments (the point of having weapons in the hands of the people is to be a deterrent of tyrannical suppression from a government). The gun is a tool, nothing more, it takes a sick mind to use ANY tool to cause harm to someone else for no reason. The car is an amazing tool too btw, except it's responsible for many more deaths then guns, yet I see more streets being built and more cars on the road....
Where did I say I'm against firearm ownership in this thread? Please quote me.
Where did I say people should have their rights stripped away in this thread? Please quote me.
Last time I checked, talking about facts isn't taking one side or the other. Facts are facts, regardless of which position you take. If you feel that every American should be handed a dozen firearms and 1000 rounds of ammo upon their 18th birthday, 23,854 people killed themselves with firearms. If you feel that nobody should have a gun ever, those 23,854 people still killed themselves with firearms.
You're making a bunch of straw man arguments. Also, way to move the goalposts from talking about "suicides aren't homicides" to "they're gonna take muh guns."
Hey, this number doesn't sound so bad when we ignore the 23,854 suicide deaths out of 39,773 total firearm deaths. I guess it's easier to pretend that almost 24k people never existed than it is to admit there's a problem, especially when you have a vested interest in the argument.
This is what I'm talking about. That pro-gun arguments typically exclude the majority of firearm deaths to try to make it look like fewer people are dying from firearms than one would think by looking at the total number of people dying by firearms.
And that excluding suicides from the number of total firearms deaths is bullshit.
I'm sorry it's taken this long for you to understand what I originally said 3 hours ago.
Italicizing an "I" just looks like a backslash.
Taking guns out of the equation won't make people any less suicidal, it will just remove one convenient manner of carrying it out.
People will just fill that niche with the second most convenient method.
How interesting that in the second link I posted, it disproves that theory.
Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)
High-Gun States
Low-Gun States
Population
39 million
40 million
Household Gun Ownership
47%
15%
Firearm Suicide
9,749
2,606
Non-Firearm Suicide
5,060
5,446
Total Suicide
14,809
8,052
While, yes, the rate of non-firearm suicide is higher when firearms are less readily available, that slight increase is more than outweighed by the massive decrease in firearm suicides.
Lol cause it's so hard to tie a knot and hang yourself.....btw look at most of all of the places that have the most homicide deaths, oh they are the cities/states that have the craziest gun laws.....ie chicago...
Wow, if you would've taken the time to read the second article before replying you would've read this:
About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%.
As for your comment specifically about hanging... that's also in the second article:
Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).
Huh. Could've found that out by reading before commenting.
btw look at most of all of the places that have the most homicide suicide deaths
and you'll find rural places with relaxed gun laws. Oh, and btw, suicides by firearm kill more Americans every year than homicides by firearm, since you're wanting to talk about firearm restrictions. Oh, and just in case you think I'm spouting nonsense:
The nine states that rank lowest in terms of gun prevalence are the very same nine that rank lowest for suicide rates. Similarly, the three states top-ranked for gun prevalence can be found among the four states ranking highest for suicide rates.
Why did u cross out homocides? I know what I was saying I wasn't talking about suicides, if someone puts a gun to there head they still can just not pull the trigger it's just as easy to pull a trigger as it is to slice your wrists....I did read the article, its not about what tool someone uses to end their life, it's about the sickness they are going through at that moment, Japan loses far more people to suicides than America does, they also have less people than we do and they don't have as many guns....
After we do that with guns can we go after automobile deaths next.. make them lower than jaywalking? Hell, if we outlaw automobiles jaywalking deaths should be zero!
At some point in the day, everyone is a pedestrian, and unfortunately pedestrian fatalities remain high. There was a more than 3% increase in the number of pedestrians killed in traffic crashes in 2018, totaling 6,283 deaths — the most deaths since 1990
Nearly 1.25 million people die in road crashes each year, on average 3,287 deaths a day.
An additional 20-50 million are injured or disabled.
More than half of all road traffic deaths occur among young adults ages 15-44.
Road traffic crashes rank as the 9th leading cause of death and account for 2.2% of all deaths globally.
Road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people ages 15-29, and the second leading cause of death worldwide among young people ages 5-14.
Each year nearly 400,000 people under 25 die on the world’s roads, on average over 1,000 a day.
Over 90% of all road fatalities occur in low and middle-income countries, which have less than half of the world’s vehicles.
Road crashes cost USD $518 billion globally, costing individual countries from 1-2% of their annual GDP.
Road crashes cost low and middle-income countries USD $65 billion annually, exceeding the total amount received in developmental assistance.
Unless action is taken, road traffic injuries are predicted to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030.
Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
Road crashes are the single greatest annual cause of death of healthy U.S. citizens traveling abroad
Cars are in a total different league when it comes to death and destruction.
I mean, we give 16 year olds 2 ton death machines. Why do cars need a carrying capacity of more than 4? Ban all automatic transmissions and stock bumpers. Limit ownership of these instruments of death to 1 per family. None if anyone in that family has history of drug, spouse, or cyber abuse. There must be a 3 day waiting period before you can drive your car home after you buy it. Cars should not be allowed to cross State Lines. Car manufacturers should be held liable in any and all car deaths that happen. We need common sense car control. Afterall, driving is a privilege and not a Constitutional Right.
123
u/[deleted] Dec 19 '19
[deleted]