well of course the number of 'defensive' gun incidents was a steaming pile of BS

[dank69]

So people who have a gun are more likely to shoot themselves in the head than those who don't have a gun?

Have you ever tried shooting yourself in the head without a gun?

Do you realize 50% of suicides are not done using a gun right?

What does that have to do with Matt's hilarious question? Those who don't have a gun have a 0% likelihood of shooting themselves in the head.

 

[corwin]

I'm sorry but it's hard to see how that makes any sense or relates to your prior complaint. You stated an incorrect conclusion for these studies and then denigrated that wrong conclusion.

1. Owning a gun does not appear to affect your odds of attempting suicide that I am aware of.

2. People who attempt suicide once often do not do so again.

3. Having access to a gun makes it more likely you will use it in a suicide attempt.

4. Suicide attempts undertaken with guns are much more likely to succeed than with any other 'tool'.

5. Therefore, ownership of a gun translates to substantially higher suicide risk.

I am not sure how, given those set of facts, that people could possibly argue that the tool is not relevant or why this is not important information.

OH FFS...your jump from 4 to 5 is in direct opposition to 1! To be at a "substantially higher risk of suicide" you have to have an increased risk of attempting suicide, which simple ownership of a gun does not cause, therefore your premise is FUCKED. You have better odds of succeeding with a gun and THAT'S IT!

Now I'm really done...if you can't connect those dots your mind is warped beyond comprehension

 

[SlowSpyder]

I'm sorry but it's hard to see how that makes any sense or relates to your prior complaint. You stated an incorrect conclusion for these studies and then denigrated that wrong conclusion.

1. Owning a gun does not appear to affect your odds of attempting suicide that I am aware of.

2. People who attempt suicide once often do not do so again.

3. Having access to a gun makes it more likely you will use it in a suicide attempt.

4. Suicide attempts undertaken with guns are much more likely to succeed than with any other 'tool'.

5. Therefore, ownership of a gun translates to substantially higher suicide risk.

I am not sure how, given those set of facts, that people could possibly argue that the tool is not relevant or why this is not important information.

1 - Agree, probably very likely that having a gun in the house does not make one more or less likely to attempt suicide.

2 - Disagree. This study shows 42.2% chance or repeat. I guess it depends on how you define 'often'. This study also shows a much higher rate of 73.7% of people who live in a large family repeat their attempts. Are large families a danger?

3 - Possibly.

4 - Disagree. Guns probably have a very high success rate, but so do other methods.

5 - Meaningless stat that means nothing other to inflate the 'dangers' of owning a gun. Do you really think anyone who buys a gun looks at the suicide rates with firearms to determine if they should buy one or not?

These stats oversimplify the issue to the point that they are meaningless, no matter how much you try and place meaning behind it. And putting suicide into the mix only inflates the numbers to make guns look bad but in reality have absolutely no meaning to ~99.999801% of gun owners (~100,000,000 gun owners, 19,990 firearm suicides.

Even if I were to go so far as to agree with you 100% (which I don't), it doesn't matter. The stats have zero meaning in any real practical terms.

 

[dank69]

OH FFS...your jump from 4 to 5 is in direct opposition to 1! To be at a "substantially higher risk of suicide" you have to have an increased risk of attempting suicide, which simple ownership of a gun does not cause, therefore your premise is FUCKED. You have better odds of succeeding with a gun and THAT'S IT!

Now I'm really done...if you can't connect those dots your mind is warped beyond comprehension

If your chances of success are higher then you are at a higher risk. Period. You aren't at a higher risk of attempting suicide, but you are at a higher risk of successfully committing suicide. This is the distinction that eskimo has been trying to explain to you for what looks like a long time now.

 

[corwin]

If your chances of success are higher then you are at a higher risk. Period. You aren't at a higher risk of attempting suicide, but you are at a higher risk of successfully committing suicide. This is the distinction that eskimo has been trying to explain to you for what looks like a long time now.

Once again, how to lie with statistics...

For an object or action to put you at "higher risk" of something you have to show causation. Smoking puts you at higher risk for cancer, drinking puts you at higher risk for sclerosis of the liver. See, those have documented causation to go along with the correlation that they increase your risk. You have a higher risk of suicide if you have mental problems or other factors that would influence you to decide to kill yourself, all a gun does is increase your chance of success...that is NOT CAUSATION!

 

[rudeguy]

If your chances of success are higher then you are at a higher risk. Period. You aren't at a higher risk of attempting suicide, but you are at a higher risk of successfully committing suicide. This is the distinction that eskimo has been trying to explain to you for what looks like a long time now.

And it has nothing to do with the thread.

Can I have a gun in the house and be safe? Yep
Can I not have a gun in the house and not be safe? Yep
Can I have a gun in the house and not be safe? Yep
Can I not have a gun in the house and be safe? Yep

This thread is based on some windbag declaring that he is right and everyone else is wrong, then the libtard army coming out to try to create statistics to back him up. The fact is that my house is more safe with guns in it than without guns in it. The fact is that any house is more safe with guns in it as long as people are trained on how to make guns safe. The fact is the government has convinced so many people that guns are evil that taking said training makes you some kind of right wing extremist who is out to kill everyone.

 

[dank69]

Once again, how to lie with statistics...

For an object or action to put you at "higher risk" of something you have to show causation. Smoking puts you at higher risk for cancer, drinking puts you at higher risk for sclerosis of the liver. See, those have documented causation to go along with the correlation that they increase your risk. You have a higher risk of suicide if you have mental problems or other factors that would influence you to decide to kill yourself, all a gun does is increase your chance of success...that is NOT CAUSATION!

So you agree that a gun increases your chance of success. I think that's all eskimo is pointing out here. Not sure why you are still arguing.

 

[dank69]

And it has nothing to do with the thread.

Can I have a gun in the house and be safe? Yep
Can I not have a gun in the house and not be safe? Yep
Can I have a gun in the house and not be safe? Yep
Can I not have a gun in the house and be safe? Yep

This thread is based on some windbag declaring that he is right and everyone else is wrong, then the libtard army coming out to try to create statistics to back him up. The fact is that my house is more safe with guns in it than without guns in it. The fact is that any house is more safe with guns in it as long as people are trained on how to make guns safe. The fact is the government has convinced so many people that guns are evil that taking said training makes you some kind of right wing extremist who is out to kill everyone.

The fact is that the data says the opposite of the bolded statement. The fact is that acknowledging that fact does not make someone a gun-grabber.

 

[corwin]

So you agree that a gun increases your chance of success. I think that's all eskimo is pointing out here. Not sure why you are still arguing.

Nope...I've been saying that forever and he, like you, keep trying to equate higher rate of "success" with higher "risk of suicide"...

Once again, correlation of success by method != causation of suicide

That's what I want him to admit, chance of success is (DUH) greater with a gun, but "risk of suicide" is not affected by an inanimate object since there is no causation.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope...I've been saying that forever and he, like you, keep trying to equate higher rate of "success" with higher "risk of suicide"...

Once again, correlation of success by method != causation of suicide

That's what I want him to admit, chance of success is (DUH) greater with a gun, but "risk of suicide" is not affected by an inanimate object since there is no causation.

Seriously, this is basic math.

Risk of suicide = (probability of attempting suicide) * (probability of success)

Assuming probability of attempting suicide remains constant, when you increase probability of success you increase risk of suicide. Access to guns makes gun use more likely, thereby increasing probability of success.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

That's just scratching the surface of the issue and there are other risk factors present, but your continued attempts to argue that access to guns does not increase suicide risk are absurd. The fact that you lied about reading the studies makes it even worse.

 

[dank69]

Nope...I've been saying that forever and he, like you, keep trying to equate higher rate of "success" with higher "risk of suicide"...

Once again, correlation of success by method != causation of suicide

That's what I want him to admit, chance of success is (DUH) greater with a gun, but "risk of suicide" is not affected by an inanimate object since there is no causation.

So you still don't understand the difference between higher risk of suicide and higher risk of attempting suicide?

 

[rudeguy]

The fact is that the data says the opposite of the bolded statement. The fact is that acknowledging that fact does not make someone a gun-grabber.

Again I ask how my guns are going to hurt anyone.

Please tell me. I want to know this.

 

[fskimospy]

OH FFS...your jump from 4 to 5 is in direct opposition to 1! To be at a "substantially higher risk of suicide" you have to have an increased risk of attempting suicide, which simple ownership of a gun does not cause, therefore your premise is FUCKED.

You have better odds of succeeding with a gun and THAT'S IT!

Now I'm really done...if you can't connect those dots your mind is warped beyond comprehension

This argument is based upon you not knowing what the word 'suicide' means.

Suicide is defined as:

suicide
[soo-uh-sahyd]
the intentional taking of one's own life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suicide

Basic math will tell you that in order to be at an increased risk of suicide you do not need to be more likely to attempt suicide. The only way this would not be true is if your odds of attempting suicide were literally zero.

With that in mind, 4 to 5 is exactly in line with 1. You just don't know the definitions of the words you're trying to use.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So you agree that a gun increases your chance of success. I think that's all eskimo is pointing out here. Not sure why you are still arguing.

But it is an almost entirely meaningless stat. I promise you I wouldn't feel better if I came home to a loved one blue and cold dead due to hanging from a belt / rope, pills, poison, a bag over their head, the car running in the garage, finding he / she jumped off a building, etc. vs. coming home to see them dead with a bullet hole and a gun still in their hand. Some other methods may give the person a chance to rethink the situation and call it off, I get that. But the tool isn't the issue. It all depends on the person's willingness to die. If they want to die, I mean really want to die, a gun isn't the problem. In my opinion that statistic carries no weight, it has no real meaning.

 

[fskimospy]

Again I ask how my guns are going to hurt anyone.

Please tell me. I want to know this.

You shouldn't be asking other people questions until you answered the ones posed to you. Especially considering how you declared that you answered all questions people asked you.

Regardless, I don't believe you are knowledgeable enough about gun safety to talk here, considering you declared that guns could be made 100% safe.

 

[dank69]

Again I ask how my guns are going to hurt anyone.

Please tell me. I want to know this.

We aren't talking individual houses here. Maybe you are the most responsible gun owner in the world and that is great. The fact is that many gun owners are irresponsible and statistically that leads to more people getting hurt. That is all.

 

[corwin]

Seriously, this is basic math.

Risk of suicide = (probability of attempting suicide) * (probability of success)

Assuming probability of attempting suicide remains constant, when you increase probability of success you increase risk of suicide. Access to guns makes gun use more likely, thereby increasing probability of success.

I can't make it any simpler for you.

That's just scratching the surface of the issue and there are other risk factors present, but your continued attempts to argue that access to guns does not increase suicide risk are absurd. The fact that you lied about reading the studies makes it even worse.

So you still don't understand the difference between higher risk of suicide and higher risk of attempting suicide?

I have to admit, you both have Doctorate's in how to lie with statistics, you should offer your services to the Brady foundation or Mayors Against Illegal Guns, they love these lies

 

[fskimospy]

1 - Agree, probably very likely that having a gun in the house does not make one more or less likely to attempt suicide.

2 - Disagree. This study shows 42.2% chance or repeat. I guess it depends on how you define 'often'. This study also shows a much higher rate of 73.7% of people who live in a large family repeat their attempts. Are large families a danger?

3 - Possibly.

4 - Disagree. Guns probably have a very high success rate, but so do other methods.

5 - Meaningless stat that means nothing other to inflate the 'dangers' of owning a gun. Do you really think anyone who buys a gun looks at the suicide rates with firearms to determine if they should buy one or not?

These stats oversimplify the issue to the point that they are meaningless, no matter how much you try and place meaning behind it. And putting suicide into the mix only inflates the numbers to make guns look bad but in reality have absolutely no meaning to ~99.999801% of gun owners (~100,000,000 gun owners, 19,990 firearm suicides.

Even if I were to go so far as to agree with you 100% (which I don't), it doesn't matter. The stats have zero meaning in any real practical terms.

You're admitting that both my stats are correct and my logic is correct and then declaring them meaningless based on nothing.

There's really no arguing with that because you aren't making any points to be refuted. You're just declaring the fact that you are many times more likely to commit suicide if you have access to a gun not important.

I wonder if you apply the same logic to other risk factors in life. I find it highly unlikely that you do.

 

[rudeguy]

We aren't talking individual houses here. Maybe you are the most responsible gun owner in the world and that is great. The fact is that many gun owners are irresponsible and statistically that leads to more people getting hurt. That is all.

So the thread should be "untrained gun owners are more likely to injure others than trained gun owners".

Your problem is training, not guns.

 

[dank69]

But it is an almost entirely meaningless stat. I promise you I wouldn't feel better if I came home to a loved one blue and cold dead due to hanging from a belt / rope, pills, poison, a bag over their head, the car running in the garage, finding he / she jumped off a building, etc. vs. coming home to see them dead with a bullet hole and a gun still in their hand. Some other methods may give the person a chance to rethink the situation and call it off, I get that. But the tool isn't the issue. It all depends on the person's willingness to die. If they want to die, I mean really want to die, a gun isn't the problem. In my opinion that statistic carries no weight, it has no real meaning.

That's nice that these stats are meaningless to you but again, the fact is that most of those other options have a lesser degree of success. This means that there is a better chance of you walking in in time to save them. They are also less convenient in a moment of depression.

 

[fskimospy]

I have to admit, you both have Doctorate's in how to lie with statistics, you should offer your services to the Brady foundation or Mayors Against Illegal Guns, they love these lies

This is how deep the denial goes. When backed into a corner he can't escape from he just declares everyone part of a conspiracy to trick him.

Some people prize their ideology so highly that there's no amount of factual evidence that will penetrate the bubble. Corwin and Rudeguy here seem to be exhibits A and B.

 

[dank69]

I have to admit, you both have Doctorate's in how to lie with statistics, you should offer your services to the Brady foundation or Mayors Against Illegal Guns, they love these lies

You admitted yourself that guns increase the likelihood of success. Why are you shifting the discussion back into the validity of stats you already admit you agree with instead of admitting you misunderstood the definition of the phrase "risk of suicide"?

 

[dank69]

So the thread should be "untrained gun owners are more likely to injure others than trained gun owners".

Your problem is training, not guns.

What, you think you can solve the problem of human error? Fantastic.

 

[fskimospy]

What, you think you can solve the problem of human error? Fantastic.

He declared earlier in this thread that he could personally eliminate the risk posed by firearms in his life.

Considering that, apparently the answer is yes, he believes he can solve the problem of human error.

 

[rudeguy]

He declared earlier in this thread that he could personally eliminate the risk posed by firearms in his life.

Considering that, apparently the answer is yes, he believes he can solve the problem of human error.

I did? Where?

You really have no reading comprehension. You twist every single word you read to try to fit your pre-conceived notions on what is good and what is bad. You live in a world of fear and have absolutely zero clue on what happens in real life.

You are what is wrong with this country.