Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

It has indeed been read. Not merely a casual glance, but an in depth reading of what is presented. That is why it is ultimately being dismissed, as it is devoid of actual substance.

 

You forgot to give a rebuke! (I don't expect one as you're playing pretend again). This is particularly pertinent, given dozens of articles have effectively been mentioned. Amazing how you can dismiss all of those articles by just stamping your foot and having a tantrum!

 

Pure purile drivel.
Suicides occur in Japan among 10 - 19 age group without firearms unabated 70 suicides a day.

 

That is your tactic.

 

I'm not referring to opinion. I'm referring directly to the evidence, including international comparison.You've been caught out with your love of education again?

 

See ?

The Suicide rate among people ages
10 - 19 in Japan is not my opinion, it is fact, 70 people in that age group commit suicide every day and no firearms are used, you have bitterly failed.....

 

Do you prefer liquid plumber?

 

No one suggests that only firearms impact on suicide rates. Analysis does show, however, that suicide rates increase with firearm prevalence and that gun control has reduced suicide rates.

Read the evidence! That stops folk from being reliant on uneducated opinion.

 

You are entitled to your utterly fallacious opinion but the thread posts prove the exact opposite to be true.

 

Ironic given how the NRA nefariously distorts the data to fit it's pernicious agenda.

 

Not my problem if you have missed encountering my posts with those factual and credible sources.

 

The above proves once again that FACTLESS kneejerk denialism is based entirely upon fallacious opinion rather than ACTUAL VERIFIABLE DATA!

https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/study-links-red-flag-firearm-law-to-suicide-decrease

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/04/6162...aws-reduce-murders-red-flag-laws-cut-suicides

The CREDIBLE sources above based upon scientific studies are a STARK CONTRAST to the disingenuous opinion that has no factual basis whatsoever.

 

You're wrong. Posting a reading list of Gun Ban group-think & repeatedly referring to "the evidence" as if all evidence reached the same conclusion is a common & transparent evasion ploy.

Yes, a debate forum IS about opinion, ideally fact based opinion. In other words you have to articulate a fact based opinion and support it if you are capable.
So far you have been unable to do so.

Please see Rule #15

15. LINKS, ADVERTISING, IMPROPER QUOTING, AND COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS
"…Quotes, links, and images should be used to support a member's opinion, not to replace it - all posts containing them should also contain the poster's own comments as to their relevance…."

 

You think referring directly to the scholarly research is wrong? Gosh!

Wrong again! I gave you several references that I found by adopting simple literature review methods. That included meta-analysis which shows paper after paper confirms the link between gun prevalence and suicide.

I don't have opinion over guns. I have no ideology over it, ensuring that I can be objective. I simply have an ability to refer to the evidence. I do have opinion over the reaction to that evidence. For example, its certainly the case that gun control measures used elsewhere for public safety rationale cannot be applied to the US. The opinion is over the extent that they can be.

 

They have a preference to the bullet trains.
We should ban trains.

 

What you call "factual and credible sources" I recognize as propagandized, cooked statistic sources.

Just because you call a lie "factual" doesn't make it so.

 

Your confirmation bias in not my problem and it does not refute and/or negate factual and credible sources.

 

It really doesn't matter if states with more legally owned guns have higher homicide or suicide rates. There's not a damn thing you can do about the number of legally owned guns.

 

I don't have "confirmation bias". That's your stock in trade.

 

Strawman deflection duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Oh, the IRONY!

 

The problem with much that is cited as "the research" and "factual and credible sources" is that it is both unwilling and/or unable to accurately account for the innumerable DGUs that occur every day without being either recorded or reported in MSM.

For example:

"VPC Study: Guns Used More to Murder than Defend- If You Cook the Books"
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...r-than-defend-but-only-if-you-cook-the-books/

EXCERPT "The issue here: the Violence Policy Center isn’t being truthful when they say that this is a comprehensive review of defensive gun uses (DGUs). The VPC only counts cases of justifiable homicide — an instance where someone pulled their gun and killed someone and the incident was ruled justifiable by the police and/or the courts — as a legitimate DGU for the purposes of their report.

What about situations where the attacker was incapacitated, but not killed? Those numbers didn’t make it into the VPC’s report. How about situations where a law abiding citizen pulled his gun, and the mere appearance of the firearm was enough to deter the attacker? The VPC doesn’t consider that to be a “legitimate” defensive gun use either. According to the Violence Policy Center, the only legitimate defensive gun use is one in which someone dies.

Out here in the real world, where logic and rational thinking trump ideology and personal biases, that assertion simply doesn’t hold water." CONTINUED

 

That hoary old debunked deflection AGAIN?

Let's take this example;

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/en...age-shoots-family_us_5b243cf8e4b0783ae129550f

Right in the heartland of the mid west we have an instance of brutal murder. Probably only one of several that occurred on the same day given the frequency of firearm murders in the USA today. Needless to say there was no DGU involved because it is so RARE as to be nonexistent for all intents and purposes.

Instead it is just an NRA "invention" to give the gun obsessed a "warm and fuzzy feeling" about owning their guns.

The VPC data is factual and credible because the NRA's BS "studies" about DGU are more full of holes than a rural road sign in Alabama.

 

Every assertion you make is utterly discredited by your citation of the VPC. They are an organization of liars, founded by a liar, who has been exposed as someone willing to lie and manipulate to achieve his goals of civilian disarmament in this country.

In short, sir, your assertions are NOT "factual" OR "credible".

 

muster the militia; we need better aqueducts and better roads, not Men who are unwilling to become, well regulated.