Serious question. If a person might decide briefly to kill themselves, then not do it, why do you think it's a good idea for them to do it when that moment of decsion arrives. This is not a gun question.
You seem to take the position that If people decide once in their lives to do it, that's a good idea. why is that?
Can you please reconstruct that bolded sentence. It's confusing as hell.
[ and the article is in fact simpy an anti-gun propaganda piece, but that's ok, we'll discussthe suicide part. ]
"Suppose somebody decides to kill themselves, doesn't immediately find a convenient tool for doing so, and then changes their mind. Raid -- you seem to be saying it's bad that they couldn't find a tool. Why?"
"Suppose somebody decides to kill themselves, doesn't immediately find a convenient tool for doing so, and then changes their mind. Raid -- you seem to be saying it's bad that they couldn't find a tool. Why?"
That will work, thank you.
I imagine all the mental health professionals and family and friends of people who seriously attempted suicide, but went on to get help or otherwise live somewhat happy lives believe that the person was being irrational at one moment in time.
Unless you think death is better than life, in which case i have no argument.
I've got binders full of women
and a one point plan.
How big an effect that that program have on gun ownership? Trivial, like US programs? Massive? Somewhere inbetween? Was there a mandatory aspect to the buyback, or did people self-select whether to accept it?
1. Massive effect on gun ownership
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes, it was mandatory.
Other bits...
Guns per capita, USA: 0.888 (#1 baby)
Guns per capita, Japan: 0.006 (164th in world)
Avg Annual Suicides per 100k people, USA: 12 (34th in world)
Avg Annual Suicides per 100k people, Japan: 21.9 (8th in world)
Also, our suicide rate is pretty similar to both Canada's, and England's despite having a gun ownership rate nearly triple their own.
1. Massive effect on gun ownership
2. No.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes, it was mandatory.
Other bits...
Guns per capita, USA: 0.888 (#1 baby)
Guns per capita, Japan: 0.006 (164th in world)
Avg Annual Suicides per 100k people, USA: 12 (34th in world)
Avg Annual Suicides per 100k people, Japan: 21.9 (8th in world)
Also, our suicide rate is pretty similar to both Canada's, and England's despite having a gun ownership rate nearly triple their own.
If your point is that gun suicides went way down after Australians gave up their guns, but were fully replaced with other forms of suicide (presumably after a few transition years of lowered suicide rates) -- yeah, that would be evidence against the relevance of gun ownership to suicide rates.
From below the article ... "Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter on the environment and health for The New York Times."
What do gun locks have to do with chemtrails? What does an example in Britain, with an infinite # of variables ... thus absolutely no valid and reliable correlation can be based, have to do with health?
Raid was right when he correctly stated that this was a hit piece on guns. Props Raid. You are on your A game.
To quote Rahm Emanuel: "never let a crisis go to waste". Seems the NYT shares the same opinion. Anything to beat the dead horse about guns.
With regard to suicide, there is a reason why every religion frowns upon it. It is a cop out and only a very weak individual would choose such a path. To illustrate this point quite poignantly and to utterly destroy the referenced article, the weakest of the weakest individual who is too much of a coward to kill himself does an assisted suicide, as in, they go after a cop with a weapon.
Thus, as we have seen time and time again, even when people have no outlet, no gun or pills or whatever, they find somebody to fill the void. When they can't find somebody, they use something, as in cars. Surely nobody ever uses carbon monoxide to kill themselves.
Edit: Or a train.
Let's get rid of cars too!
We can all go back to the 1800s and ride around on our bicycles. The belt holding your books? You have to turn it over. You could hang yourself. And you might as well give us your books. We want you stupid. And if you hit yourself on the head enough times, you could kill yourself too. Better yet, hand over the bike. You could drive it very fast into a tree and kill yourself. So, you are walking. But, your hands and feet could be used like a book or a bike and you could run into a tree or hit yourself so maybe it would be wise to chop them off. Let's just cut your arms and legs off and make it easy. Oh wait, you could still bite your shoulders and kill yourself by loss of blood, so your teeth, they go too.
Last edited by Aguilas verdes; 03-11-2013 at 04:46 AM.
"All this worldly wisdom was once the unamiable heresy of some wise man" &
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking the root" &
"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see" - Thoreau
"The creation of a thousand forests is in one acorn" - Emerson
From below the article ... "Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter on the environment and health for The New York Times."
What do gun locks have to do with chemtrails? What does an example in Britain, with an infinite # of variables ... thus absolutely no valid and reliable correlation can be based, have to do with health?
Raid was right when he correctly stated that this was a hit piece on guns. Props Raid. You are on your A game.
To quote Rahm Emanuel: "never let a crisis go to waste". Seems the NYT shares the same opinion. Anything to beat the dead horse about guns.
With regard to suicide, there is a reason why every religion frowns upon it. It is a cop out and only a very weak individual would choose such a path. To illustrate this point quite poignantly and to utterly destroy the referenced article, the weakest of the weakest individual who is too much of a coward to kill himself does an assisted suicide, as in, they go after a cop with a weapon.
Thus, as we have seen time and time again, even when people have no outlet, no gun or pills or whatever, they find somebody to fill the void. When they can't find somebody, they use something, as in cars. Surely nobody ever uses carbon monoxide to kill themselves.
Edit: Or a train.
Let's get rid of cars too!
We can all go back to the 1800s and ride around on our bicycles. The belt holding your books? You have to turn it over. You could hang yourself. And you might as well give us your books. We want you stupid. And if you hit yourself on the head enough times, you could kill yourself too. Better yet, hand over the bike. You could drive it very fast into a tree and kill yourself. So, you are walking. But, your hands and feet could be used like a book or a bike and you could run into a tree or hit yourself so maybe it would be wise to chop them off. Let's just cut your arms and legs off and make it easy. Oh wait, you could still bite your shoulders and kill yourself by loss of blood, so your teeth, they go too.
Rate of "tl;dr" ramblings on the Internet depend upon the availability of convenient Internet access.
"I would not join any club that would have someone like me for a member." - Groucho Marx
"Suppose somebody decides to kill themselves, doesn't immediately find a convenient tool for doing so, and then changes their mind. Raid -- you seem to be saying it's bad that they couldn't find a tool. Why?"
People should have the tools at hand to assist in meeting their needs. We're simply discussing the free will of each human on Earth (or in space :) ). Having tools available is not a BAD thing. People act as if they are not going to die ever.
Can you please reconstruct that bolded sentence. It's confusing as hell.
As defined by the Official Terrorism Training For Law Enforcement:
What Is Domestic Terrorism?
Extreme force and violence perpetrated by
the peoplegovernment of a country, within that country,
for the purpose of coercing its government and populationpublic
into modifying its behavior"
You are either with Our Constitution or you are with The Terrorists!
Government...if it leans to the left it eventually means theft. - tlc
If your point is that gun suicides went way down after Australians gave up their guns, but were fully replaced with other forms of suicide (presumably after a few transition years of lowered suicide rates) -- yeah, that would be evidence against the relevance of gun ownership to suicide rates.
My point was there is a lot of evidence to suggest that suicide rate is largely independent of gun ownership.
If gun access facilitated a higher rate of suicide then japan would be much lower and we would be much higher on the suicide rankings.
I think there are probably cultural/societal factors that have a much heavier hand in the suicide rate equation that simply 'method of suicide'.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RayClay
Bookmarks