Nonsense. No nation has ever enacted gun control and seen their death rates decrease. No. The 2nd is about protecting the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, with the idea of making sure that the populace will always be part of a well regulated - i.e. properly equipped and functioning as expected - militia.
The above statement is factually incorrect. Many locations in the united states remain remote and isolated, where help is not readily available to those that are in need. In many ways the united states has not changed since its founding.
While at the same time outlawing the use of firearms for the purpose of self defense, and making it clear that protection is not a legitimate reason to actually own a firearm.
Such implements do not constitute arms, they are ordnance, and not standard issue equipment for military personnel.
Refrain from making such a generalized statement unless there is a willingness to elaborate. Provide an easy to cite, exact round number of how many firearm-related deaths are regarded as being acceptable in the united states each year. No vague statements about lowering the current number, an exact number of what amounts to being acceptable.
Demonstrate precisely how such is the case. Show how the matter is so easily done, that there is no reason for such not actually being done.
According to the untied state supreme court, such is not the case. Firearms ownership is not connected to fulfilling any duty or requirement to government, such as taking part in a government run organization.
The supposed findings, and the methodology utilized in determining them, are factually incorrect. No matter how many times they are relied on, they are still factually incorrect.
Then if it is indeed a matter of multiple factors, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that restricting firearms in any manner will potentially be instrumental in actually making a difference in the matter.
Chortle, chortle, that's a strong argument! When are you going to publish your "stick cheese in your ears" approach?
Such is more appropriate for the member Vegas Giants than it is for myself. A more relevant and appropriate question, or perhaps questions, would be why the united states society should make an effort at reducing the annual number that occur in the country every year? What exactly is the societal cost that stem from suicides, that gives society standing to dictate that others have to go on living, rather than ending their own existence in the time and manner that they see fit to do? What is the justification for society at large attempting to prevent others from ending their own existence? How exactly is society affected in a negative manner by individuals partaking in such actions? There is a great deal of talk about trying to reduce the annual number of suicides, but no explanation as to why there is either a need or justification for taking such a course of action. If someone, or even tens of thousands of someones, decide that they no longer wish to exist, why should their decision on the matter be questioned and regarded as invalid?
You want to demonstrate how regression works? Fire up Excel or SPSS for simple stuff. Researchers mind you, given the methods used to ensure robustness, will prefer a package such as STATA
Such does not answer the question. What is the expertise on the part of yourself that allows for the claim being made, with absolute certainty, that it is supposedly very easy to account and control for numerous suicide-motivating factors and variables through the process of regression? Such suggests that any therapist is capable of doing such without even exerting effort. And yet despite this supposed ease of doing such, the concept of spontaneous suicide was coined by therapists who failed to detect and recognize suicidal tendencies in patients, in an effort to cover up the fact that they are incompetent at actually doing such.
You asked me to demonstrate how regression can control for numerous variables. I went further and gave you the means to test it yourself. I appreciate that you won't. That's an unfortunate trait of blinkered thinking!
Such still fails to answer the question of how regression can account control for numerous variable factors that may motivate one to end their own existence. Are they accounted and controlled for all at once? One at a time? How long does the process take to discover the variables that must be controlled for? Even if factors that may motivate the commission of suicide can be uncovered, how long does it take for such to be recovered from? There are too many unanswered questions to make the above statement a viable claim pertaining to either expertise, or ease of execution.
LOL, you have completely lost the argument, but as usual are too stubborn to admit it and will just make a fool of yourself.
