U.S. Gun Death Rate Jumps 17 Percent Since 2008 Supreme Court District of Columbia v. Heller

I've shown that within the US states with higher gun ownership rates have higher suicide rates. Comparisons between states are more valid than comparisons with foreign nations. Comparisons with foreign countries are more likely to be clouded by confounding variables such as cultural differences.

 

Have you shown a causal effect? Is that any reason to restrict access to firearms by law abiding citizens?

Who exactly had increased access to firearms due to Heller, per the OP?

 

Looking at CDC WISQARS data for the suicide rates from 2008 to 2016, we see that the overall suicide rate increased by 15.59%; the firearm suicide rate increased by 15.46%; the non-firearm suicide rate increased by 15.71%; and the hanging/suffocation suicide rate increased by 28.7%.

From this analysis, it would be hard to support a claim that Heller had an impact on gun suicides, unless it also had the same growth affect on non-firearm suicides, too.

https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html

 

It should be clear by now: The anti-gun left isn't concerned with reality.

 

strict gun laws disarm good guys, don't really impact bad guys

 

YAWN.

 

Strict gun laws prevent unnecessary deaths, and do not harm the "good guys".

 

That's another way to describe your post, yes.
Fact remains: you conclusion does not logically follow, and is wholly unsupported.

 

You cannot show this this be true.

 

Gun deaths jumping corresponds with the new drug epidemic.

 

that is bs unless your idea of strict gun laws are laws that punish those who use guns criminally

magazine bans, semi auto bans, waiting periods, machine gun bans, license requirements ONLY harass lawful gun ownership

 

its either a faith based belief or more likely , a known falsehood

 

More likely it's want he wants to be true, even though he knows it isn't.

 

which should edify the gun banners that banning guns would be even more stupid than the current war on drugs

 

Which ones, and how?

 

Difference is intent. Suicide is either a choice or it's caused by mental illness. They are not caused by another person.

 

Of course they harm the good guys. Good guys are the only ones that follow strict gun laws. The bad guys ignore them.

Please give an example of a strict gun law that doesn't harm the "good guys."

 

Interesting since it has been shown that gun deaths have risen since the Heller decision, and the lack of regulation especially when it comes to mental health restrictions.

Anyway, this kind of conversation becomes boring since neither side is going to agree, and the right wing is oblivious to common sense.

 

why don't you tell us what additional laws you want and why they would make a difference

 

Yes... a post hoc argument, and a fact that does not support your statement.
Nice.

Ah.
Running away because you know you cannot support your statements.
Noted.

 

Easily done. No gun law has eliminated ownership of a gun. The "good guys" love to use hunting, target shooting, self defense, as an excuse to own guns. No gun law has ever prevented the "good guys" from participating in said activities. They do allow the authorities to confiscate guns from the "bad guys".

 

You say this as if the only way the law abiding can be harmed by strict gun control laws is by the denial of a gun.
Why do you think this is true?

 

The only ones I would want are restrictions on the mentally ill to own guns, or even ones for "bump stocks", or other tools to make a semi-auto into a "full auto" like was used in Las Vegas. Then too, I favor open carry laws over conceal carry. There are several I would do away with since their only purpose is to make outlaws of what may be lawful citizens such as felons owning guns, or even voting. The Founders never considered such actions, and they are rarely enforced save in particular circumstances.

In other words, I would prefer the attitude of the Founders, and their time.

 

This has been covered by federal law for 50 years. You;re all set.

Prior to LV you had never heard of a bump-stock; now that -one- has been used to commit a crime, you want them banned?
How emotionally reactive of you.

Really.
What do you think they meant by "shall not be infringed"?

 

Because that is what the gun supporters are fighting over. What they ignorantly ignore is that if the government wants to get your gun they can easily do so by just getting the membership rolls of the NRA, or Gun Owners of America, and other similar groups.

Even Scalia agreed in the Heller decision that the government had the right to regulate guns. So, the question goes back to you as "If you can hunt, defend yourself, and target shoot, how are you being harmed"?