Donald Trump running for president

"In the United States, firearms are the most common means of suicide,15 with a suicide attempt with a firearm more likely to be fatal than most other means.16 In a study of case fatality rates in the northeastern United States, it was found that 91% of suicide attempts by firearms resulted in death.17 By comparison, the mortality rate was 84% by drowning and 82% by hanging; poisoning with drugs accounted for 74% of acts but only 14% of fatalities. Many studies have shown that the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. A systematic review of 90 studies following patients after an event of self-harm found that only two percent went on to die by suicide in the following year and that seven percent had died by suicide after more than nine years.18"

Quote directly from one of the pubmed articles I posted. The numbers at the ends of the sentences are footnotes, sorry.
 
Misfit28 said:
"In the United States, firearms are the most common means of suicide,15 with a suicide attempt with a firearm more likely to be fatal than most other means.16 In a study of case fatality rates in the northeastern United States, it was found that 91% of suicide attempts by firearms resulted in death.17 By comparison, the mortality rate was 84% by drowning and 82% by hanging; poisoning with drugs accounted for 74% of acts but only 14% of fatalities. Many studies have shown that the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. A systematic review of 90 studies following patients after an event of self-harm found that only two percent went on to die by suicide in the following year and that seven percent had died by suicide after more than nine years.18"

Quote directly from one of the pubmed articles I posted. The numbers at the ends of the sentences are footnotes, sorry.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't care about preventing the other 50% of suicides, only ones performed with a gun. You want to prevent suicides by restricting firearms, but they only account for 50% of successful suicides. Far more suicide attempts are made by other means.
 
Misfit28 said:
"In the United States, firearms are the most common means of suicide,15 with a suicide attempt with a firearm more likely to be fatal than most other means.16 In a study of case fatality rates in the northeastern United States, it was found that 91% of suicide attempts by firearms resulted in death.17 By comparison, the mortality rate was 84% by drowning and 82% by hanging; poisoning with drugs accounted for 74% of acts but only 14% of fatalities. Many studies have shown that the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. A systematic review of 90 studies following patients after an event of self-harm found that only two percent went on to die by suicide in the following year and that seven percent had died by suicide after more than nine years.18"

Quote directly from one of the pubmed articles I posted. The numbers at the ends of the sentences are footnotes, sorry.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't care about preventing the other 50% of suicides, only ones performed with a gun.
 
Jiigzz said:
Countries focus on reformation, not condemnation. Reoffenders get progressively longer sentences, however countries don't have resources to lock up humans forever. Look at what happens in countries that do lock up crims forever. Jails get overcrowded and the inmates feel like caged dogs. 20 years later for a minor crime they are released and reoffend because they are treated like animals.

Treat someone like an animal, and watch them behave like one
Click to expand...
Armed robbery, which inherently comes with the very real possibility of shooting and killing people, is not a minor crime by any means, but one of the most heinous crimes possible. I agree with your point, particularly for nonviolent and especially drug-related crimes, but showing repeated insistence on using guns in violent crime is a different issue entirely.

Anyway, like I said, I need a break from this tread haha.
 
Misfit28 said:
"In the United States, firearms are the most common means of suicide,15 with a suicide attempt with a firearm more likely to be fatal than most other means.16 In a study of case fatality rates in the northeastern United States, it was found that 91% of suicide attempts by firearms resulted in death.17 By comparison, the mortality rate was 84% by drowning and 82% by hanging; poisoning with drugs accounted for 74% of acts but only 14% of fatalities. Many studies have shown that the vast majority of those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. A systematic review of 90 studies following patients after an event of self-harm found that only two percent went on to die by suicide in the following year and that seven percent had died by suicide after more than nine years.18"

Quote directly from one of the pubmed articles I posted. The numbers at the ends of the sentences are footnotes, sorry.
Click to expand...

look how long it took to finally make it mandatory to put bitters in anti-freeze...a lot of lives would have been saved if they had been quicker to do this. many people were murdered by using anti-freeze
 
youngandfree said:
I guess you don't care about preventing the other 50% of suicides, only ones performed with a gun.
Click to expand...

Hard to regulate every toxic substance or method to kill yourself. Firearms seem to be the "lowest hanging fruit", so to speak. Not to mention the almost certain nature of fatality with firearms.

I never said that I don't care about preventing all suicides. You really are an all or nothing kinda guy, aren't you?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Armed robbery, which inherently comes with the very real possibility of shooting and killing people, is not a minor crime by any means, but one of the most heinous crimes possible. I agree with your point, particularly for nonviolent and especially drug-related crimes, but showing repeated insistence on using guns in violent crime is a different issue entirely.

Anyway, like I said, I need a break from this tread haha.
Click to expand...
I do agree by the way. Tougher sentences for violent offenders, but they don't tend to work in actually reducing crime, just getting rid of some who do it.
IMO violent criminals deserve to be locked up for life.
 
Misfit28 said:
And you know what, **** you for saying that. I've had personal experience with family members committing suicide.
Click to expand...

when I was in high school there were 2 separate guys who hung themselves...i'm pretty sure one of my uncles intentionally over medicated himself because of pain from dying of prostate cancer. I've always suspected my aunt and uncle who were both terminally ill overdosed themselves before setting their house on fire...don't think I've personally ever know anyone who shot themself.
 
Misfit28 said:
Hard to regulate every toxic substance or method to kill yourself. Firearms seem to be the "lowest hanging fruit", so to speak. Not to mention the almost certain nature of fatality with firearms.

I never said that I don't care about preventing all suicides. You really are an all or nothing kinda guy, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Restricting guns won't prevent all the other attempts, so it's not low hanging fruit. I'm sorry a family member killed themself, but youre making the argument that restricting them will drastically curb suicides. Preventing the attempts, which are done with other means at a higher rate, should be the goal.
 
youngandfree said:
Restricting guns won't prevent all the other attempts, so it's not low hanging fruit. I'm sorry a family member killed themself, but youre making the argument that restricting them will drastically curb suicides. Preventing the attempts, which are done with other means at a higher rate, should be the goal.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. I still think guns need to be more restricted than they are.

Honestly, the culture around guns needs to change. Some people seem to treat them with such casual disregard that I think they see them as toys, which is dangerous. And yes, I realize that responsible owners don't.
 
Dont get me wrong guys, like I said the choice is yours. It won't stop all crime, but can dramatically reduce who has access to weapons.

I get that a lot of you are responsible gun owners and these laws may make it seem like they target people like you who don't intend to do wrong. But they are not put there because of you, they are put there because people abuse their right to own guns. They are put there to prevent officers shooting unarmed people they assume have guns. They are put there to make people have a sense of security and safety.

It's easy to see how it only villifies you personally. But it's done to protect the lives of those who can't protect their own. It's done to keep guns away from those who intend to cause you or a loved one harm.

I don't see NZs lack of guns as a punishment against me as a person. I see it as a way to greatly reduce the harm that a firearm can cause.

Sure, people may resort to knives, machetes and other instruments in the place of a firearm, and it won't stop violent offenders.

But it will reduce the scale of harm it can cause.

Again, you guys might not know what it's like to live in a world without firearms so you make up complex scenarios that you think will happen if they're taken away. Or that you won't feel safe without them.

Travel overseas and you'll see what I mean
 
Invalid Link Removed
Check this compilation of posts out and tell me what you think. Obviously it's all hearsay but these are alleged accounts from people who were there. Also, this is the first I've heard of there being shootings at various hotels in the area on the same night.
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong guys, like I said the choice is yours. It won't stop all crime, but can dramatically reduce who has access to weapons.

I get that a lot of you are responsible gun owners and these laws may make it seem like they target people like you who don't intend to do wrong. But they are not put there because of you, they are put there because people abuse their right to own guns. They are put there to prevent officers shooting unarmed people they assume have guns. They are put there to make people have a sense of security and safety.

It's easy to see how it only villifies you personally. But it's done to protect the lives of those who can't protect their own. It's done to keep guns away from those who intend to cause you or a loved one harm.

I don't see NZs lack of guns as a punishment against me as a person. I see it as a way to greatly reduce the harm that a firearm can cause.

Sure, people may resort to knives, machetes and other instruments in the place of a firearm, and it won't stop violent offenders.

But it will reduce the scale of harm it can cause.

Again, you guys don't know what it's like to live in a world without firearms so you make up complex scenarios that you think will happen if they're taken away.
Travel overseas and you'll see what I mean
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
BamBam0319 said:
Invalid Link Removed
Check this compilation of posts out and tell me what you think. Obviously it's all hearsay but these are alleged accounts from people who were there. Also, this is the first I've heard of there being shootings at various hotels in the area on the same night.
Click to expand...

I find it very hard to believe, personally. I don't have time to read it all right now, but will later.
 
BamBam0319 said:
Invalid Link Removed
Check this compilation of posts out and tell me what you think. Obviously it's all hearsay but these are alleged accounts from people who were there. Also, this is the first I've heard of there being shootings at various hotels in the area on the same night.
Click to expand...
Until claims are verified, I take would ANY witness accounts with a grain of salt. Adrenaline and confusion can greatly impact someones ability to recall accurate information, and sometimes even see an event that didnt occur. They never do it intentionally, but it does happen.

To give you an example, I was in a situation where someone had a heart attack at my gym and needed emergency help.

I was there with several staff and members of the facility. At the end of the ordeal, security and management wanting to hear from each person as to what happened, how we responded and what the outcome was.

All of the accounts varied. Every single one.

Some people assumed they played a more crucial role than they did. Some thought they saw blood coming from his nose. Some thought the ambulance took 10 minutes to turn up (verified 2.5mins from call to door).

Those are huge discrepancies in accounts.

Just because someone was there, doesnt mean even they observed it all correctly. Maybe they did, but you can't just blindly trust a witness.

Some will even convince others that it was multiple shooters, and then act like they saw that as well when they didnt.

Its why witness accounts make for terrible evidence in court

Does that mean that that wasn't the case? Not at all. But most of the accounts recall one gun operating at a time. Not multiple guns being fired simultaneously.
 
Jiigzz said:
Until claims are verified, I take would ANY witness accounts with a grain of salt. Adrenaline and confusion can greatly impact someones ability to recall accurate information, and sometimes even see an event that didnt occur. They never do it intentionally, but it does happen.

To give you an example, I was in a situation where someone had a heart attack at my gym and needed emergency help.

I was there with several staff and members of the facility. At the end of the ordeal, security and management wanting to hear from each person as to what happened, how we responded and what the outcome was.

All of the accounts varied. Every single one.

Some people assumed they played a more crucial role than they did. Some thought they saw blood coming from his nose. Some thought the ambulance took 10 minutes to turn up (verified 2.5mins from call to door).

Those are huge discrepancies in accounts.

Just because someone was there, doesnt mean even they observed it all correctly. Maybe they did, but you can't just blindly trust a witness.

Some will even convince others that it was multiple shooters, and then act like they saw that as well when they didnt.

Its why witness accounts make for terrible evidence in court

Does that mean that that wasn't the case? Not at all. But most of the accounts recall one gun operating at a time. Not multiple guns being fired simultaneously.
Click to expand...

That's fair.
But when it's people in those hotels and not at the concert and saw police shoot other armed men, NOT the guy who's being blamed for all this, it makes me question things a little.
 
BamBam0319 said:
That's fair.
But when it's people in those hotels and not at the concert and saw police shoot other armed men, NOT the guy who's being blamed for all this, it makes me question things a little.
Click to expand...

Nowadays I question almost everything.
 
BamBam0319 said:
That's fair.
But when it's people in those hotels and not at the concert and saw police shoot other armed men, NOT the guy who's being blamed for all this, it makes me question things a little.
Click to expand...
While it can make sense, also know that people thrive off making stuff up to create conspiracy.

Why would police shoot other armed men, yet deny doing so? Why couldn't they just say "an organized attack by ISIS" or another group within the US? ISIS already tried to take credit but officials are denying it. Why? That's the easiest narrative in that situation that serves the same purpose. One creates fear of foreign terrorism, and using another group inside the US can provide a case for tighter gun laws.

It doesn't make sense to cover up something if it can be so easily covered up with a better lie.
 
Jiigzz said:
While it can make sense, also know that people thrive off making stuff up to create conspiracy.

Why would police shoot other armed men, yet deny doing so? Why couldn't they just say "an organized attack by ISIS" or another group? ISIS already tried to take credit but officials are denying it. Why? That's the easiest narrative in that situation that serves the same purpose.

It doesn't make sense to cover up something if it can be so easily covered up with a better lie.
Click to expand...
One saying comes to mind when I hear a ton of conspiracy theories, "when you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebra." Granted, I'm not saying that the most likely or obvious solution is always the right one, and that conspiracies and cover-ups don't exist, but that, like I think you said earlier, let's try to get all the facts before jumping to conclusions, and I don't think automatically jumping to some wide-reaching conspiracy theory every time a tragedy occurs is the most accurate approach. Sometimes there are just crazy, evil people in the world, and no deeper, hidden, secret meaning or agenda. That doesn't mean that there is never more than meets the eye, just that I personally think a default reaction of everything being a major conspiracy is the right approach.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
One saying comes to mind when I hear a ton of conspiracy theories, "when you hear hoofbeats, don't think zebra." Granted, I'm not saying that the most likely or obvious solution is always the right one, and that conspiracies and cover-ups don't exist, but that, like I think you said earlier, let's try to get all the facts before jumping to conclusions, and I don't think automatically jumping to some wide-reaching conspiracy theory every time a tragedy occurs is the most accurate approach. Sometimes there are just crazy, evil people in the world, and no deeper, hidden, secret meaning or agenda. That doesn't mean that there is never more than meets the eye, just that I personally think a default reaction of everything being a major conspiracy is the right approach.
Click to expand...

This is spot on.

Some people live with mental illness for decades with no outward signs, and become very adept at covering it up.
 
"Some people just want to watch the world burn".

While half the world yearns for peace. The other half would use peace as an opportunity to create war.

It is the world in which we live that there are genuinely evil people among us. No rhyme or reason, they just thrive off chaos
 
Misfit28 said:
This is spot on.

Some people live with mental illness for decades with no outward signs, and become very adept at covering it up.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It is very accurate.

I'm sure we have all come across those hell bent on screwing over others. Empathy is not something everyone has. A lot of people have very low EQ
 
youngandfree said:
Why would the government lie? Why did Obama's ATF allow guns to illegally go to Mexico so they could bolster their argument that too many US guns where going to the cartels?
Click to expand...

Operation Fast and Furious was in truth a horrible thing to let happen. Why do you feel the need to lie about it when the truth itself is so horrible? It doesn't need it and only makes you appear like a liar.
 
The US government obviously does not exactly have a track record of being honest.

I can see why noone really trusts anything they say.
 
Jiigzz said:
The US government obviously does not exactly have a track record of being honest.

I can see why noone really trusts anything they say.
Click to expand...

They're also an easy target for conspiracies and take note of the hypocrisy. One day somebody is screaming about a kneeling football player disrespecting the country and then the next day is accusing that same country of killing innocent people. You'll also notice that every time the killer is brown it's a slam dunk case, but as soon as the killer is a white guy, it's a huge conspiracy and there is no way that guy did it.
 
Jiigzz said:
"Some people just want to watch the world burn".

While half the world yearns for peace. The other half would use peace as an opportunity to create war.

It is the world in which we live that there are genuinely evil people among us. No rhyme or reason, they just thrive off chaos
Click to expand...

No matter what tool they choose.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
They're also an easy target for conspiracies and take note of the hypocrisy. One day somebody is screaming about a kneeling football player disrespecting the country and then the next day is accusing that same country of killing innocent people. You'll also notice that every time the killer is brown it's a slam dunk case, but as soon as the killer is a white guy, it's a huge conspiracy and there is no way that guy did it.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Note the distinct lack of silence on Trump's part in calling for immediate reforms. He's awesome at telling NFL players and other countries what to do, though.
 
youngandfree said:
See my reference to the guy in China that single handedly killed 18 or 19 with a knife and injured 45 more.
Click to expand...
Recheck your facts. 8 knife wielding people. Not one person
 
ax1 said:
Prescription drug issue if not government false flag or MKUltra.

Majority of mass shootings involve people using SSRIs. Usually this is my very first thought, 2nd being Government.
Click to expand...
I still think that's a cultural issue, a culture that promotes ignorance.
Jiigzz said:
Of course it's social issues (not culture), but a gun gives someone access to kill alot of people from a distance.

It's also a gun issue
Click to expand...
Well wouldn't social constructs be a product of culture? Also I don't think so, improper regulations would be the issue. The idea is to limit undesirables from obtaining firearms without it effecting law abiding citizens.

The argument that they can kill people from a distance is irrelevant, bow and arrows can do the same, a vehicle can be way more effective, a knife in a crowd would yield more casualties. Its the gun culture that is the reason they are used so much, guns are tools of the liberal and equality is their God.
 
Jiigzz said:
Recheck your facts. 8 knife wielding people. Not one person
Click to expand...

I was just about to say that.

From the article:

"“Some workers were sleeping, while others were preparing to work when the attackers raided the building after killing the security guards.”
 
CJNator said:
I still think that's a cultural issue, a culture that promotes ignorance.

Well wouldn't social constructs be a product of culture? Also I don't think so, improper regulations would be the issue. The idea is to limit undesirables from obtaining firearms without it effecting law abiding citizens.

The argument that they can kill people from a distance is irrelevant, bow and arrows can do the same, a vehicle can be way more effective, a knife in a crowd would yield more casualties. Its the gun culture that is the reason they are used so much, guns are tools of the liberal and equality is their God.
Click to expand...
You cannot be serious man. A bow and arrow?

Let me get this straight, your equating a bow and arrow to a gun and bullet?

Lets say I have a 30 round magazine and 10 magazines. That's 300 rounds. I can shoot 30 rounds in 15 seconds or less. How long does it take to load and fire a bow? How long would it take to fire 300 arrows? Don't be an idiot.

A knife can wield more casualties?!?!?! According to who?!

Your logic is terrible.
 
CJNator said:
I still think that's a cultural issue, a culture that promotes ignorance.

Well wouldn't social constructs be a product of culture? Also I don't think so, improper regulations would be the issue. The idea is to limit undesirables from obtaining firearms without it effecting law abiding citizens.

The argument that they can kill people from a distance is irrelevant, bow and arrows can do the same, a vehicle can be way more effective, a knife in a crowd would yield more casualties. Its the gun culture that is the reason they are used so much, guns are tools of the liberal and equality is their God.
Click to expand...

What does that last sentence even mean?

Also, I seriously doubt one dude with a knife would have caused more casualties in the situation under discussion. Bow and arrow? We're talking an estimated 9 rounds per second versus a bow and arrow?
 
youngandfree said:
How about you read the 6 different articles I posted about different incidents.
Click to expand...
I cannot find where.you posted all the links. What post #?
 
Jiigzz said:
Dont get me wrong guys, like I said the choice is yours. It won't stop all crime, but can dramatically reduce who has access to weapons.

I get that a lot of you are responsible gun owners and these laws may make it seem like they target people like you who don't intend to do wrong. But they are not put there because of you, they are put there because people abuse their right to own guns. They are put there to prevent officers shooting unarmed people they assume have guns. They are put there to make people have a sense of security and safety.

It's easy to see how it only villifies you personally. But it's done to protect the lives of those who can't protect their own. It's done to keep guns away from those who intend to cause you or a loved one harm.

I don't see NZs lack of guns as a punishment against me as a person. I see it as a way to greatly reduce the harm that a firearm can cause.

Sure, people may resort to knives, machetes and other instruments in the place of a firearm, and it won't stop violent offenders.

But it will reduce the scale of harm it can cause.

Again, you guys might not know what it's like to live in a world without firearms so you make up complex scenarios that you think will happen if they're taken away. Or that you won't feel safe without them.

Travel overseas and you'll see what I mean
Click to expand...
You do realize that "most" people who use guns inappropriately. "Normally" do not obtain those weapons by legal means. How will gun control curb those obtaining their weapons illegally. Most of the people killing people in the streets here in America did not buy their gun from a store and register that weapon with the local authorities. They bought it from some guys trunk, in a dark alley. And it doesnt even have a serial number anymore. Just saying. But, I can agree with being safe overseas. I never had to carry when I lived in Germany, nor felt the need to. But here I dont carry either. It stays in my house, for home protection, and I go to the range and qualify with my weapon once a month.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
You do realize that "most" people who use guns inappropriately. "Normally" do not obtain those weapons by legal means. How will gun control curb those obtaining their weapons illegally. Most of the people killing people in the streets here in America did not buy their gun from a store and register that weapon with the local authorities. They bought it from some guys trunk, in a dark alley. And it doesnt even have a serial number anymore. Just saying
Click to expand...

Edit: read my response below.
 
youngandfree said:
Really huh, how about the numerous mass stabbings in China?

Invalid Link Removed

Once again, not a lone attacker: "Reports from the city suggest a group of people armed with knives entered the train station at about 9pm local time on Saturday and attacked travellers with knives indiscriminately."

Invalid Link Removed

All children and one elderly woman. Can't see much of a fight being put up here....

Never heard of this one, 50 stabbed to death.
Invalid Link Removed

Already addressed. Not a lone attacker.

18 injured here..
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

All non-life threatening injuries, no deaths.
 
DemntedCowboy said:
You do realize that "most" people who use guns inappropriately. "Normally" do not obtain those weapons by legal means. How will gun control curb those obtaining their weapons illegally. Most of the people killing people in the streets here in America did not buy their gun from a store and register that weapon with the local authorities. They bought it from some guys trunk, in a dark alley. And it doesnt even have a serial number anymore. Just saying. But, I can agree with being safe overseas. I never had to carry when I lived in Germany, nor felt the need to. But here I dont carry either. It stays in my house, for home protection, and I go to the range and qualify with my weapon once a month.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I mean btw. Keep the guns at home! Have them, but keep them at home to protect family and property.

That's something i can 100% get behind. I draw the line (personally) at carrying them in public.

But you're example is exactly what i think is appropriate
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

1 guy, 19 dead, 45 stabbed.
Click to expand...

What is your point though? Im pro-second amendment, but I really don't understand how this proves your point that equal damage can be done by other means. So 1 guy killing 19 people and injuring 45 is the same thing as 1 guy killing 56 people and injuring over 500? Its about 3x as many killed and over 10x as many injured.
 
youngandfree said:
Invalid Link Removed

1 guy, 19 dead, 45 stabbed.
Click to expand...

In a facility for handicapped and disabled people. Once again, not much of a chance of being stopped there either, I would assume. These are all apples to oranges comparisons.

strawman-full.jpg
 
jswain34 said:
What is your point though? Im pro-second amendment, but I really don't understand how this proves your point that equal damage can be done by other means. So 1 guy killing 19 people and injuring 45 is the same thing as 1 guy killing 56 people and injuring over 500? Its about 3x as many killed and over 10x as many injured.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's not like anyone is saying that if you remove guns you remove all violent attacks with other weapons.

But it's foolish to think that a gun is not the most effective tool that is readily accessible to cause a lot of harm. A bomb is as well, but im talking accessibility here.

In Columbine, fortunately the bombs for the most part didn't explode. The guns were what caused the damage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top