Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

Your emotive response indicates that the VPC must be hitting a raw nerve with their credible facts.

 

Re:

That's among the most absurd delusion I've read in some time.
What a sheltered & privileged life you must live.
I, alone, have had 3 DGUs & can immediately think of 10 other people who have had at least 1. None of them have been recorded or reported so in a country of over 300 million people, it is safe to assume that there are at least a few million in the US per year.

You should get out & see the world before dismissing those who have.

 

It's amazing what these people make up, isn't it?

Using the numbers from the rabidly-anti gun VPC...
- For every gun used to commit murder, 7.3 are used in self-defense.
- For every gun used to commit suicide, 3.6 are used in self-defense.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf

If defensive gun uses are so RARE as to be nonexistent for all intents and purposes, then how should we characterize the number of times guns are used to commit murder/suicide?

 

It does not matter how many dozens or even hundreds of articles are referenced and mentioned when they are all subject to the same logical and factual shortcomings in both their presentation and execution. If one is factually incorrect in their position, they remain factually incorrect no matter how many sources they cite in defense of their position. And as has already been demonstrated, the peer review process is equally devoid of credibility, based on the number of papers and studies that have been revoked long after the review process.

 

My "emotive response" comes from my disgust that someone would think themselves credible for citing the VPC... when the VPC's dishonesty is well documented.

The VPC is discredited.... and so are you.


New
https://gunculture2point0.wordpress...center-or-the-new-york-times-editorial-board/

"Knowing the VPC was founded in 1988 by Josh Sugarmann helps. Sugarmann is well-known for: (1) working as the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (which became the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence); (2) his book, Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns; and (3) his 1988 memo on Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, in which he wrote: “The semiautomatic weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semiautomatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

So, there is ample reason to be skeptical of “research” produced by the VPC. And, in fact, year after year when the VPC publicizes its “Concealed Carry Killers” “data,” people of the gun jump in to poke holes in the “research.” Clayton Cramer already effectively criticized this work 2.5 years ago. It was more recently taken down by Bob Owens on Bearing Arms and Miguel Gonzalez at Gun Free Zone."

 

Just repeat of your post-truthing!

 

The lack of an actual legitimate response on the part of yourself has been noted.

 

Neither study being presented by yourself can actually be viewed online unless an individual purchases and downloads the study. Therefore they cannot be subject to independent review. It cannot even be determined who funded the studies, as everything is hidden behind a paywall.

Come back with something that is accessible to everyone in support of the argument being presented by yourself.

 

It was already shown how the peer-view process is devoid of credibility.

 

And that is nonsense! Scholarly research has to be used. Hiding from it is just post-truth guff.

 

The number of supposedly peer-reviews papers being withdrawn after being subject to review and certified as credible, is evidence that the process is devoid of legitimacy.

 

None of the papers I have referenced have been withdrawn. Nor, despite the data being available to anyone, can you refer to a credible critique. Your post-truthing is making Trump look cunning!

 

Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on other matters, however, have indeed been withdrawn. Such a fact is indicative of the peer-review process overall being devoid of legitimacy and credibility, regardless of what the topic of discussion may be.

 

1.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.

I had to cite 2 of your posts to understand what precisely your opinion is. One of your opinions (Quote #1) is twofold:

I have already agreed that a suicidal individual with a firearm is, naturally, more likely to use a gun to commit suicide than a suicidal individual without access to a gun however the presence of a gun, alone, does not make one more suicidal.

However, if strict gun control laws had anything to do with lower suicide rates, then countries like Japan & S. Korea would have among the lowest suicide rates in the world rather than the highest.(1). The US ranks at 38th in global suicides(2) following France, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium & Russia in addition to other countries with strict gun control laws.

The simple reality remains that citizens in countries with draconian gun laws are NOT less likely to take their lives in spite of the pseudoscientific chicanery espoused by those who work so hard to eviscerate America's 2nd Amendment.


(1) "Ezra Klein Is Wrong: Gun Control Doesn’t Reduce Suicide Rates"
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/gun-control-suicide-rates-ezra-klein/

EXCERPT "Japan has long had one of the world’s most restrictive national gun-control policies.

According to Vox’s theory, Japan should have a similarly low suicide rate — but that’s not what you see at all. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, nearly twice the U.S. rate. Just last month, the BBC reported that nearly 25,000 Japanese took their own lives in 2014 alone, more than 70 people every day.

But while shooting incidents “are rare,” South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the developed world according to the World Health Organization."CONTINUED



(2) "Crude Suicide Rate by Country 2018"
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/suicide-rate-by-country/

 

The quality of your efforts isnt improving. I didn't give opinion. I referred to what the evidence shows. You whined 'what evidence?'. I've given numerous examples, including meta-analysis and review.

Your agreement isn't interesting. The evidence shows that, there is an increase in suicide rates. You've had numerous references to show that. I also referred to papers that conclude gun control has reduced suicide rates.

This is a very ignorant comment. No one suggests that only firearms effects suicides. What the evidence shows, however, is that there are statistically significant effects and those effects are not minor.

Notice the difference in our approaches. I refer to scholarly international evidence. You look for spurious conclusion from raw data. Please up your game, as these are very basic errors.

 

delete

 

Your pompous condescension is rivaled only by the vapidity of your posts.

Whether you admit it or not, you are simply asserting your own opinion based on cherry picked, Gun Ban groupthink "research"

Briefly put, your claim is that countries with stricter gun control laws have a lower suicide rate when readily available facts show otherwise (1)

The facts remain the same regardless of the source. Your attempt to obfuscate the simple topic at hand through pseudo-intellectual academic jargon is amusing however it is getting tiresome.

 

The 2 CDC studies recently released agree with the NRA regarding defensive gun uses. I've already explained this to you, with links to the CDC data.

You deliberately ignore the facts. When a person is presented with facts to correct their false claims, and later presents the same false claims, its called lying.

You not only FAIL, you now lie.

 

I adopt a very simplistic approach. I start with no bias. I allow the evidence to determine my conclusion. Its a shame that you don't. You're clearly an ideologue

Every reference provided I have found and read. Literature review methods really aren't that difficult. Why can't you adopt them?

This is a very poor comment. I've referred directly to evidence showing otherwise. You have merely made the very poor spurious mistake. You would know the stupidity of that if you had bothered to read the research.

I'm certainly no intellectual. Too practical for that malarkey. However, even a school kid knows the importance of adopting an evidence based approach.

 

Yes, I quite agree.
Hence your constant references to
Anti Intellectualism, now we know the reason why.

 

Pulling out you gun to show your buddies is not a DGU!

Furthermore ANECDOTES are NOT evidence.

There are two glaring flaws in what you are alleging. #1 is that NONE of it is documented and there were no attempts to have these anecdotes VERIFIED as actual DGU's. #2 is that it is all too easy for someone to brag and exaggerate about their "prowess" with their guns. Again, no verification means that all you have is anecdotal and that carries absolutely no weight whatsoever.

As far as "seeing the world" goes I am willing to bet that I have seen far more of it than the average gun owner.

Yes, I can dismiss what is anecdotal because the source has an agenda and a motivation to promote DGU and has absolutely no means whatsoever to substantiate it. Your lack of credible factual data on this point is not my problem.

 

Needless to say that happens to anyone and everyone who wants the FACTS about firearms made available to We the People. The NRA nefariously shut down the CDC from being able to study gun violence because it is scared that We the People will discover the FACTS about guns.

Now the NRA is being DISCREDITED as well as all of the GOP lapdogs who do it's bidding.

The tide is turning and no amount of hissyfit footstomping on the part of gun owners is going to stop that from happening.

 

Yet another massive load of bovine feces!

The links provided have their own links to the ACTUAL STUDY itself that is NOT behind a paywall.

Here is the link to the STUDY itself.

https://media.tenor.com/images/37b0e37b7029aa54900c418a721042b4/tenor.gif

And here are some of the FACTS it contains;

It is only if you want to read the entire text of the study that reach a paywall however the article links provide more than sufficient context to make that redundant.

The source is credible and factual and no amount of naysaying can change that REALITY.

 

Only for those who devoid of comprehending how science actually works.

 

Can't stop PROJECTING, can you?