Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by signalmankenneth, May 29, 2018.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
    The world average suicide rate is 10.3/100k wit a medin of 9.9/100k
    Developed nations above that average:
    Belgium 16.1
    Japan 15.4
    Finland 14.2
    Sweden 12.7
    United States 12.6
    France 12.3
    New Zealand 12.3
    Iceland 11.8
    Austria 11.7
    Ireland 11.1
    Switzerland 10.7
    Australia 10.4
    Canada 10.4
     
    DoctorWho and Ddyad like this.
  2. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The study being presented by yourself was done by Arthur Kellermann according to the heading. That is more than enough reason for the supposed findings to be completely discounted as being flawed.
     
    6Gunner and Ddyad like this.
  3. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only times other methods of one ending their own existence are not successful, is because the individual in question is not serious in the desire to actually end their own existence. They are merely seeking attention from others.

    The above notion presented by yourself is nothing short of nonsense. If one truly wishes to end their own existence, there are a great many ways to do it. Carbon monoxide poisoning, stepping in front of a motor vehicle, jumping off of a tall building, bridge, or other physical location that provides a great height, hanging, drug overdose, cutting a major blood vessel, combining bleach and ammonia which creates an extremely toxic gas, and countless other methods, all of which are fatal in all instances if the person is truly serious.

    A poor example on the part of yourself. Law enforcement officers in the united states have killed suspects who have supposedly been armed with a fork.

    www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/fort-worth/article68808817.html

    Law enforcement officers in the united states readily kill most everyone that is encountered, under the flimsiest of arguments. Law enforcement will kill suspects simply for not complying with lawful orders. If an individual truly wishes to end their existence by using a law enforcement officer as a proxy, it is quite easy to accomplish.

    Such as what precisely? What are these so-called "genuine safety concerns" being referred to by yourself, that are supposedly held by everyone in the united states that apparently does not own a firearm? Name them, specify them, be specific in what is being referred to. Do not present vague generalities that have no corresponding basis in reality.

    Bear in mind the united state supreme court ruled in Heller that the second amendment was not, and could not, be made subject to a judicial interest balancing test against "public safety" and other vague concept terms that have no defining qualities that can easily be cited.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
    Ddyad likes this.
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113

    What a load of hogwash capped off by a complete and utter fallacy that is FACTUALLY DEBUNKED by Justice Scalia's majority ruling in Heller!

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  5. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can the State impose any restrictions it wishes? Are there any limitations on the power of the State to regulate firearms?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the state cannot arbitrarily deny We the People access to firearms.

    However the state CAN regulate the kinds of firearms that we can possess.

    The state can also regulate that felons and those who pose a danger to themselves and others not have access to firearms. The state can regulate that there are places, like government buildings and airplanes, where firearms cannot be carried.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  7. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can the State ban ownership of any type of firearm? Are there any restrictions on this power of the State at all?
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the state can ban the ownership of "dangerous and unusual weapons".

    The state does have the power to regulate ALL rights and the primary restriction on the state is that is cannot DENY any right that is protected by the Constitution. Where that line is drawn depends largely upon the SCOTUS itself.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  9. BillRM

    BillRM Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2016
    Messages:
    6,792
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The nation with the highest suicide rate I know of is almost completely gun free IE Japan.

    Do not see any firm connection and the mean in the news of late in high profile suicides seems to be hanging for some reason.
     
    DoctorWho likes this.
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    According to Caetano, no legally manufactured firearm sold today is both "dangerous and unusual". Other SCOTUS decisions have affirmed that the Second Amendment extended protections to all firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia". Very few firearms sold today would seem to fall outside of those protections.

    The Second Amendment says "infringed". There's a lot of room between "infringed" and outright "denied".
     
  11. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Suicide is not impulsive. Suicide is the end result of a downward spiral driven by time and events. Once someone seriously starts to contemplate suicide, then they start thinking about a method. They don't think about a method of suicide and then start seriously contemplating suicide (think about it and you will see how ridiculous it is to claim the method motivates suicide).
     
  12. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Why do you get to decide what guns are "required"?

    Do you decide what cars are required? Or medications? Both of those result in far more deaths than guns.
     
  13. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All guns are dangerous. If you don't believe me, pick up a small loaded handgun, point it at your forehead and pull the trigger.
     
  14. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SCOTUS has acknowledged that all guns are dangerous. They also noted that the "dangerous and unusual" description is conjunctive; that is, that a firearm must be both "dangerous AND unusual" to fall outside of Second Amendment protections, and that no firearm legally and commonly sold in the US today can be considered "dangerous AND unusual".
     
  15. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thus ignoring every other point that was raised that undermines the position of yourself. But let us address the foolishness presented by the selective quotation of the Heller ruling engaged in by yourself.

    First and foremost, the united state supreme court would never have gone out of its way to establish what the second amendment does not do unless there was uncertainty about what it did do. It would not have taken the time to specify that the second amendment was not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" unless the second amendment was indeed a right to keep and carry at least some weapons, in some manner, for at least some purposes.

    Second, the so-called "dangerous and unusual" provision does not state what is being claimed by yourself. All firearms, every single one of them, is dangerous by nature of being a firearm. There is not a single firearms that is not considered dangerous, and does not pose a risk of death if used in such a manner where such is the likely outcome. Beyond that, firearms such as the AR-15 cannot, under any standard, be classified as unusual, because the semi-automatic technology upon which it is based dates back to the late nineteenth century, and detachable box magazines have been quite common since the early twentieth century.

    The "dangerous and unusual" provision was revisited in the recent Caetano ruling where the united state supreme court explained, at length, that a firearm was not unusual just because it could not be imagined by the first congress at the time of the ratification of the constitution. The court then further spelled out, in explicit terms, that the prohibition could only be applied to weapons that are dangerous and unusual at the same time, not simply dangerous or unusual. It must be both simultaneously, not simply one or the other.

    Beyond all of that, the united state supreme court still specified, in outright terms, that the scope of the second amendment was not subject to a judicial interest-balancing test where it would be weighed against the vague, poorly defined concept of "public safety" especially when what amounts to "public safety" is not defined in clear, concise, easily cited and referenced terms.
     
  16. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

    The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam
    opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on both grounds.

    As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby
    , 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See
    Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
    Heller defined the “Arms”covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his
    hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons:
    “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Common wealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr.27, cannot be banned on that basis.
     
  17. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The rules of gun safety.
     
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ah common now, that’s how liberals check if a gun is loaded.
     
  19. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hanging has always been number one on the suicide hit parade.
    Not firearms, Liberals do not want you to know that.
     
  20. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is called "suicide" my dear.
     
  21. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That’s why there is so many reported suicides...Lol
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  22. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Gun safety. Shot a cop then your four kids, news just out.

    I have a question, why can't Americans handle guns? I know incidents do happen in all/most countries but why are Americans so unsafe with guns?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
  23. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flaim bait much with cowardly assertions?
     
  24. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Disingenuous deflecting rant does NOT refute what Scalia ACTUALLY wrote in the Heller decision.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.
  25. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for proving my point to be 100% accurate.
     
    Mr_Truth likes this.

Share This Page