9 dead, 9 wounded, shooter killed at Oregon community college

[fskimospy]

Because usually the argument is about saving lives, and cars kill far far far far more people then guns do. Cars are also used more for crimes then even guns.

That's not even close to true. US traffic fatalities and US gun deaths are about equal each year at around ~32,000 people.

Its not an argument I would make, but its logical if you start off of the presupposition that we need to save lives.

It's not really logical at all, because even if cars killed more people than guns do (and they don't), that argument would only make sense if protecting lives was literally the only thing that mattered. Cars have vastly more economic and social utility than guns do. Ask the average person in the US what they could more easily do without, their car or their gun. The vast majority would say their car is more important.

 

[realibrad]

That's not even close to true. US traffic fatalities and US gun deaths are about equal each year at around ~32,000 people.

If you include suicides which makes up about 21,000 of the gun deaths you can get close to cars. If you take out suicides, you are left with just over 11,000. If it was not a gun used for suicide, it would be something else like pills. I don't think its really fair to include that but I see why you might make the argument.

It's not really logical at all, because even if cars killed more people than guns do (and they don't), that argument would only make sense if protecting lives was literally the only thing that mattered. Cars have vastly more economic and social utility than guns do. Ask the average person in the US what they could more easily do without, their car or their gun. The vast majority would say their car is more important.

This is why I don't make that argument. Cars offer a lot of different benefits that guns to not. Cars are used in almost every facet of American life.

Many people do try to frame the gun issue about saving lives that only saving lives. I think that is misguided, but it is very common.

 

[fskimospy]

If you include suicides which makes up about 21,000 of the gun deaths you can get close to cars. If you take out suicides, you are left with just over 11,000. If it was not a gun used for suicide, it would be something else like pills. I don't think its really fair to include that but I see why you might make the argument.

I think it is entirely fair to include suicides. The vast majority of people who attempt suicide never do so again, regardless of the method used, which means the likelihood of someone committing suicide strongly depends on how effective the method they elect to use is. The major difference between gun suicide and other methods of suicide is that guns are HUGELY more effective at committing suicide. (orders of magnitude more effective) If guns were not available, logic dictates suicide rates would dramatically decrease. This is borne out the empirical evidence on suicide rates in areas that have enacted gun control.

Traffic fatalities also represent some of the inherent risks of travel of any type. If people didn't use cars they would have to walk, or bike, etc, all of which carry their own risks.

This is why I don't make that argument. Cars offer a lot of different benefits that guns to not. Cars are used in almost every facet of American life.

Many people do try to frame the gun issue about saving lives that only saving lives. I think that is misguided, but it is very common.

I agree that only saving lives is badly misguided. The phrase 'if it saves only one life' is one of the dumber ones. It sounds so wonderful as an idea, but nobody actually believes it in practice.

 

[realibrad]

I think it is entirely fair to include suicides. The vast majority of people who attempt suicide never do so again, regardless of the method used, which means the likelihood of someone committing suicide strongly depends on how effective the method they elect to use is. The major difference between gun suicide and other methods of suicide is that guns are HUGELY more effective at committing suicide. (orders of magnitude more effective) If guns were not available, logic dictates suicide rates would dramatically decrease. This is borne out the empirical evidence on suicide rates in areas that have enacted gun control.

Traffic fatalities also represent some of the inherent risks of travel of any type. If people didn't use cars they would have to walk, or bike, etc, all of which carry their own risks.



I agree that only saving lives is badly misguided. The phrase 'if it saves only one life' is one of the dumber ones. It sounds so wonderful as an idea, but nobody actually believes it in practice.

Even if you include suicide, there are far more dangerous things out there that kill far more people.

The rate of overdose suicide is vastly higher than guns. Further if you include all deaths by guns and compare it to all deaths by legal medication, then we get the picture that we should be focusing on medication more than guns, but we dont.

I think the point that most gun advocates try to make is that we have much bigger things to deal with then guns. I am for some gun regulation, so I am not the one to argue their stance, but I do agree that if the argument is protecting society, we are better off focusing on other things then guns.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if you include suicide, there are far more dangerous things out there that kill far more people.

The rate of overdose suicide is vastly higher than guns. Further if you include all deaths by guns and compare it to all deaths by legal medication, then we get the picture that we should be focusing on medication more than guns, but we dont.

Your image does not show overdose suicide, it shows all suicide (guns included). The only breakout of guns is gun homicide, which of course excludes suicide. Your chart also shows unintentional drug overdose is definitely a big problem however, I agree. If you go look at the percentage of suicide attempts that are successful by 'weapon' used, guns top the list by a country mile. They are a uniquely effective method of suicide. They comprise some very small percentage of suicide attempts, but more than half of all suicide deaths. If you took the gun suicide part of the suicide statistic and combined it with the gun homicides, you'd have about an equal number to the overdose stat.

I would also say the US spends an enormous amount of effort trying to regulate medications and drugs of all types.

I think the point that most gun advocates try to make is that we have much bigger things to deal with then guns. I am for some gun regulation, so I am not the one to argue their stance, but I do agree that if the argument is protecting society, we are better off focusing on other things then guns.

I don't think it's an either/or. I also don't think that gun advocates are actually engaging in a cost/benefit analysis as to what would be the most effective way to help public safety, they are simply looking for a reason not to regulate guns.

 

[Blackjack200]

Even if you include suicide, there are far more dangerous things out there that kill far more people.

The rate of overdose suicide is vastly higher than guns. Further if you include all deaths by guns and compare it to all deaths by legal medication, then we get the picture that we should be focusing on medication more than guns, but we dont.

Yeah, I mean, it's common knowledge that drugs are not regulated or controlled in any way.

Gun makers, on the other hand, need to prove that their guns are safe and effective. People wanting to buy guns need the permission of a licensed expert, and can only purchase guns of the type and quantity that the licensed expert "prescribes". There are also databases to track which guns are being prescribed to which patients at the federal level.

 

[realibrad]

Yeah, I mean, it's common knowledge that drugs are not regulated or controlled in any way.

Gun makers, on the other hand, need to prove that their guns are safe and effective. People wanting to buy guns need the permission of a licensed expert, and can only purchase guns of the type and quantity that the licensed expert "prescribes". There are also databases to track which guns are being prescribed to which patients at the federal level.

Its common knowledge that guns are regulated too. Regulation does not always give the outcomes we want.

Medication kills far more people vs guns. A lethal amount of medication is far easier to get than a gun. You can get guns at shows and that is pretty easy, but you can get lethal amounts of drugs at just about any store with out ID. Some medication you need ID for, but many you do not. I could go right now to the store and buy a bottle of painkillers and take them. Costco sells huge ass bottles of the stuff.

The point is that we get so wrapped up in one topic over another and it builds to a political movement, and we never stop to think about the cost/benefit.

 

[Genx87]

Bleh I wouldnt count suicides in with gun violence debates. People who want to kill themselves find a means to do it. A gun is easy, but it affects the person killing themselves. Restricting gun rights based on a persons wish to end their life is ludicrous.

If we want to get serious about gun violence deal with the failed drug war. A lot of the gun violence is centered around that. Second is poverty in general. Banning a gun or gun types doesn't stop the violence associated with these two major issues.

 

[realibrad]

Bleh I wouldnt count suicides in with gun violence debates. People who want to kill themselves find a means to do it. A gun is easy, but it affects the person killing themselves. Restricting gun rights based on a persons wish to end their life is ludicrous.

If we want to get serious about gun violence deal with the failed drug war. A lot of the gun violence is centered around that. Second is poverty in general. Banning a gun or gun types doesn't stop the violence associated with these two major issues.

I would copy what was done in Portugal. That would cost less and save a crap ton of lives.

 

[fskimospy]

Bleh I wouldnt count suicides in with gun violence debates. People who want to kill themselves find a means to do it.

This is demonstrably at odds with the evidence. Suicide rates and gun ownership rates are significantly negatively correlated, meaning that people without access to guns often do not 'find a means to do it'.

More guns = more suicides. The evidence is pretty unequivocal on that.

A gun is easy, but it affects the person killing themselves. Restricting gun rights based on a persons wish to end their life is ludicrous.

We restrict access to things all the time based on their capacity for abuse. Why are guns special?

If we want to get serious about gun violence deal with the failed drug war. A lot of the gun violence is centered around that. Second is poverty in general. Banning a gun or gun types doesn't stop the violence associated with these two major issues.

Those would be good things to address as well, but that's no reason not to address the gun problem. It's like if you tell me the cure to a disease is behind door #1 or door #2. What do you do? You open both doors, silly.

 

[BoberFett]

This is demonstrably at odds with the evidence. Suicide rates and gun ownership rates are significantly negatively correlated, meaning that people without access to guns often do not 'find a means to do it'.

More guns = more suicides. The evidence is pretty unequivocal on that.

That's simply a lie. Japan has a suicide rate 50% higher than the US while having essentially zero firearm deaths.

 

[realibrad]

This is demonstrably at odds with the evidence. Suicide rates and gun ownership rates are significantly negatively correlated, meaning that people without access to guns often do not 'find a means to do it'.

More guns = more suicides. The evidence is pretty unequivocal on that.

The question is what would the suicide rates be in a world without guns, and nobody can really answer that. There are lots of methods to commit suicide and many are very easy. If you think about from an economic perspective, people choose guns because its easier to do that right now. Take away guns and the desire for suicide is still there, they will find something else. If the alternatives are still easy, you wont see much of a drop.

It seems logical to expect a reduction, but I bet it would be small.

 

[jackstar7]

We restrict access to things all the time based on their capacity for abuse. Why are guns special?

You refuse to the connect the dots, man.

Spoiler

race war!

 

[jackstar7]

The question is what would the suicide rates be in a world without guns, and nobody can really answer that. There are lots of methods to commit suicide and many are very easy. If you think about from an economic perspective, people choose guns because its easier to do that right now. Take away guns and the desire for suicide is still there, they will find something else. If the alternatives are still easy, you wont see much of a drop.

It seems logical to expect a reduction, but I bet it would be small.

You're saying all that as if we cannot compare suicide rates in places that don't have guns easily available.

We're not talking about Narnia. Those places exist.

 

[fskimospy]

The question is what would the suicide rates be in a world without guns, and nobody can really answer that. There are lots of methods to commit suicide and many are very easy. If you think about from an economic perspective, people choose guns because its easier to do that right now. Take away guns and the desire for suicide is still there, they will find something else. If the alternatives are still easy, you wont see much of a drop.

It seems logical to expect a reduction, but I bet it would be small.

It turns out the idea that 'people will find a way' is almost entirely wrong.

There's actually a lot of research on this and the reduction is dramatic. Your risk of dying by suicide increases by about 300% if you own a gun (+/- some depending on the study). What makes this statistic more telling is that suicide attempts are not statistically significantly affected by gun ownership, which means the difference is likely almost entirely due to the fact that guns are much, much, much more effective as an instrument of suicide than any other readily available method.

Here's an article that serves as an overview, but there's actually a lot of academic literature on gun ownership rates and suicides. There is a huge link.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._causes_higher_suicide_rates_study_shows.html

 

[LegendKiller]

Bleh I wouldnt count suicides in with gun violence debates. People who want to kill themselves find a means to do it. A gun is easy, but it affects the person killing themselves. Restricting gun rights based on a persons wish to end their life is ludicrous.

If we want to get serious about gun violence deal with the failed drug war. A lot of the gun violence is centered around that. Second is poverty in general. Banning a gun or gun types doesn't stop the violence associated with these two major issues.

Don't forget that eski doesn't think that a multicultural society and poverty have any major correlative impact on arrests, violence against cops, or cop shootings. He thinks it is such a small statistical impact thst it shouldn't even be considered when pondering what causes police shootings. It is just we have a force of violent thugs and all of the perps are near 100% innocent.

 

[jackstar7]

Also, here's something fun to be dismissed:
http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/chattanooga-shooter-mental-illness-alcohol-drugs-data-gun-violence/

The substance most often associated with violent crime is alcohol.

 

[Genx87]

This is demonstrably at odds with the evidence. Suicide rates and gun ownership rates are significantly negatively correlated, meaning that people without access to guns often do not 'find a means to do it'.

More guns = more suicides. The evidence is pretty unequivocal on that.

As far as I can tell nobody is complaining about suicides via guns. People complain about the ability of people to attain weapons to go and shoot more than one person and gun violence in general. Including suicides within the gun death toll is to make gun death totals look worse. It is pointless imo to bring it into a debate about gun violence.

In the United States you may be correct there is a correlation. But that doesnt begin to explain why Japan has twice the suicide rate with no access to firearms. Which leads me to believe if we banned guns, many people would still find a way. It is just in this country with access to guns. It is a preferred method. Again imo ludicrous to restrict the majority based on a tiny fraction that kills themselves.

We restrict access to things all the time based on their capacity for abuse. Why are guns special?

So restricting 300 millionish peoples rights to guns because 21,000 people kills themselves? Ludicrous imo.

Those would be good things to address as well, but that's no reason not to address the gun problem. It's like if you tell me the cure to a disease is behind door #1 or door #2. What do you do? You open both doors, silly.

Focusing on those two issues would be the thing to do if anybody is serious about gun violence in this country. But given when a mass shooting happens with a hand gun the first thing the left does is go after an AR-15. I wont hold my breath. Nobody is serious about it. They would rather beat their chests, ask why it happens, propose a gun ban, and bomb another hospital.

Until we focus on the root cause of the violence. Restricting the tool is pointless. And in the end will infringe on the majority's right to bear arms.

 

[fskimospy]

That's simply a lie. Japan has a suicide rate 50% higher than the US while having essentially zero firearm deaths.

Boberfett, stop playing with statistics if you don't know how to use them. More guns = more suicides means an increase in gun ownership leads to more suicides, all other things being equal.

 

[BoberFett]

Boberfett, stop playing with statistics if you don't know how to use them. More guns = more suicides means an increase in gun ownership leads to more suicides, all other things being equal.

So you're saying Japan would have twice as many suicides as they do now if they were allowed to own guns?

 

[fskimospy]

As far as I can tell nobody is complaining about suicides via guns. People complain about the ability of people to attain weapons to go and shoot more than one person and gun violence in general. Including suicides within the gun death toll is to make gun death totals look worse. It is pointless imo to bring it into a debate about gun violence.

In the United States you may be correct there is a correlation. But that doesnt begin to explain why Japan has twice the suicide rate with no access to firearms. Which leads me to believe if we banned guns, many people would still find a way. It is just in this country with access to guns. It is a preferred method. Again imo ludicrous to restrict the majority based on a tiny fraction that kills themselves.

Haha, I'm most certainly complaining about suicides! See my previous link, but if you'd like I can supply you with a lot of literature on the issue. The correlation is extremely strong.

So restricting 300is million peoples rights to guns because 21,000 people kills themselves? Ludicrous imo.

By your logic there's no reason to restrict prescription drugs either, as far more people take them each year than own guns, but the deaths aren't really that much higher. Should we remove regulations on prescription drugs?

Focusing on those two issues would be the thing to do if anybody is serious about gun violence in this country. But given when a mass shooting happens with a hand gun the first thing the left does is go after an AR-15. I wont hold my breath. Nobody is serious about it. They would rather beat their chests, ask why it happens, propose a gun ban, and bomb another hospital.

Until we focus on the root cause of the violence. Restricting the tool is pointless. And in the end will infringe on the majority's right to bear arms.

I'm pretty sure fixing the root causes and restricting the tool would both be pretty helpful. I'd say the historical evidence backs me up on that one.

 

[jackstar7]

So restricting 300 millionish peoples rights to guns because 21,000 people kills themselves? Ludicrous imo.

Why do we even have laws anyways? Most people are going to be good Christian people.

Spoiler

Wheeeeee!

 

[LegendKiller]

Boberfett, stop playing with statistics if you don't know how to use them. More guns = more suicides means an increase in gun ownership leads to more suicides, all other things being equal.

No, sick minded people equals more suicides. Period. The method is immaterial no matter how often you'd love to think otherwise.


If your correlation were correct then japan would have our same suicide rates for all other methods as a ratio of total population and there would be no rolling of gun suicides into other methods. That isn't the case, as he proved.


You fucking fail at statistical analysis, again.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're saying Japan would have twice as many suicides as they do now if they were allowed to own guns?

No, I'm saying that Japan would be very likely to have a higher suicide rate than it does now if its gun ownership rate was higher. That's how statistics work.

 

[BoberFett]

You're saying all that as if we cannot compare suicide rates in places that don't have guns easily available.

We're not talking about Narnia. Those places exist.

You're right. And when we compare those magical places without guns, we find that some actually have much higher suicides rates than the US.

But eskimospy ignores evidence that doesn't fit his preconceived ideas. I'll give that smug bastard credit, wrong or right he sticks to his opinions.