6 ms·

better solution would be not having guns at all, you don't see these suicides in Europe or very rarely due to limited access

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I see this as on par with banning alcohol to drastically reduce drunk driving. People tend to not support that one because they see, though they would likely never formulate the thought in such a fashion, that having the freedom to buy and consume alcohol is worth the trade off of people drunk driving and the lives ruined by it. Of course, other actions are done to reduce the harm of drunk driving, but people are not willing to give up alcohol for it. Many people, especially in the USA, view guns in the same manner. I do find it odd that some people who hold the first view concerning alcohol find the second view as being immoral.
- Markoff 8y ago
  i don't find these comparable, at least not in Europe, drink driving cause very few deaths in car accidents statistics which are already drastically better than they have been and pretty much everyone adult drinks at least occasionally, I seriously doubt pretty much every adult in US shoot gun occasionally let alone own it but I don't see problem with ban on alcohol even if it would save only few people killed by drunk drivers, because it would decrease cases of domestic violence and violence in general and most importantly for me we would get completely rid off those hordes of drunk Britons roaming our cities, also no drunks (homeless) in streets and cleaner public transport and streets would be nice, so it sounds like great trade off, not because of drunk drivers deaths which are really rare to ban alcohol from majority of adult population, but because of other factors, so great idea and I say this as someone who was basically alcoholic for a year in my first job in China where we drink spirit (baiju) during lunch break and then after work, then after switching jobs basically stopped drinking completely and now back in Europe me and wife consume maybe 1-2 bottles of wine per month so it's not like we are abstainers that it would not affect me, although i think charging like 500-1000% tax on alcohol and raising agree limit to 30-40 years and strictly enforcing it would seem more realistic regarding voters than complete ban, after all those people with alcohol issues started usually very young
jbob2000 8y ago
Oh 100%, I agree. But good luck having that conversation in the US.
sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.
- bsder 8y ago
  > You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. > And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around. As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
  - sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
    >You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many. >As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved. You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
    - bsder 8y ago
      > What a hilariously arrogant statement. Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. > Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. Your statements are not helping your case.
adventured 8y ago
Countries in Europe with higher suicide rates than the US: Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria. Countries with nearly as high of a suicide rate: Germany, Czech, Portugal, Iceland Countries in Europe with high suicide rates, but solidly below the US: Slovakia, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Romania, Norway All of these nations have higher suicide rates today than the US did in the late 1990s. So is the premise that the US would have a far lower rate of suicide than European nations if guns were more tightly controlled, or would people in the US commit suicide in other ways as they do in European nations?
- bsder 8y ago
  Your statements match neither raw data nor standardized rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
  - _delirium 8y ago
    Unless I'm misreading, the data you link suggests that the correct interpretation is that the US has basically middle-of-the-road suicide rates by European standards, no? Going by the age-standardized rates, it's sandwiched between Sweden and France in the list. Some European countries are significantly higher (Belgium, Poland), while others are significantly lower (Spain, UK), but the US doesn't seem to be a real outlier.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      The linked page says you can't compare suicide rates across countries. For example, the UK statistics would tend to over count deaths. Here's the definition we use: ---begin The National Statistics definition of suicide includes all deaths from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over, and deaths where the intent was undetermined for those aged 15 and over. This definition was revised in January 2016 and further information on the impact can be found in the 2014 suicide registrations bulletin. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent in 10 to 14 year-olds are not included because although for older teenagers and adults we assume that in these deaths the harm was self-inflicted, for younger children it is not clear whether this assumption is appropriate. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent cannot be applied to children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse. ---end I'm unable to find the definition used by the CDC, but I think it's likely to include language like "with the intent to end life".
DanBC 8y ago
It's difficult to compare rates of suicide across countries because there are different ways of counting deaths, and there are different ways of ruling that something is a suicide.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

I see this as on par with banning alcohol to drastically reduce drunk driving. People tend to not support that one because they see, though they would likely never formulate the thought in such a fashion, that having the freedom to buy and consume alcohol is worth the trade off of people drunk driving and the lives ruined by it. Of course, other actions are done to reduce the harm of drunk driving, but people are not willing to give up alcohol for it. Many people, especially in the USA, view guns in the same manner. I do find it odd that some people who hold the first view concerning alcohol find the second view as being immoral.

Markoff 8y ago
i don't find these comparable, at least not in Europe, drink driving cause very few deaths in car accidents statistics which are already drastically better than they have been and pretty much everyone adult drinks at least occasionally, I seriously doubt pretty much every adult in US shoot gun occasionally let alone own it but I don't see problem with ban on alcohol even if it would save only few people killed by drunk drivers, because it would decrease cases of domestic violence and violence in general and most importantly for me we would get completely rid off those hordes of drunk Britons roaming our cities, also no drunks (homeless) in streets and cleaner public transport and streets would be nice, so it sounds like great trade off, not because of drunk drivers deaths which are really rare to ban alcohol from majority of adult population, but because of other factors, so great idea and I say this as someone who was basically alcoholic for a year in my first job in China where we drink spirit (baiju) during lunch break and then after work, then after switching jobs basically stopped drinking completely and now back in Europe me and wife consume maybe 1-2 bottles of wine per month so it's not like we are abstainers that it would not affect me, although i think charging like 500-1000% tax on alcohol and raising agree limit to 30-40 years and strictly enforcing it would seem more realistic regarding voters than complete ban, after all those people with alcohol issues started usually very young

jbob2000 8y ago

Oh 100%, I agree. But good luck having that conversation in the US.

sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago

You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.

bsder 8y ago
> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there. You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. > And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around. As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
- sDlEzAtyoNAz 8y ago
  >You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you. What a hilariously arrogant statement. >Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal. Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many. >As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved. You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
  - bsder 8y ago
    > What a hilariously arrogant statement. Ad hominem attack required because factual statements do not support any of your arguments. > Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Well, if your statement is factually correct, then the statistics show that a huge chunk of gun owners are incompetent. Your statements are not helping your case.

adventured 8y ago

Countries in Europe with higher suicide rates than the US: Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Russia, Belarus, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Slovenia, Ukraine, Estonia, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria. Countries with nearly as high of a suicide rate: Germany, Czech, Portugal, Iceland Countries in Europe with high suicide rates, but solidly below the US: Slovakia, Denmark, Netherlands, Ireland, Romania, Norway All of these nations have higher suicide rates today than the US did in the late 1990s. So is the premise that the US would have a far lower rate of suicide than European nations if guns were more tightly controlled, or would people in the US commit suicide in other ways as they do in European nations?

bsder 8y ago
Your statements match neither raw data nor standardized rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...
- _delirium 8y ago
  Unless I'm misreading, the data you link suggests that the correct interpretation is that the US has basically middle-of-the-road suicide rates by European standards, no? Going by the age-standardized rates, it's sandwiched between Sweden and France in the list. Some European countries are significantly higher (Belgium, Poland), while others are significantly lower (Spain, UK), but the US doesn't seem to be a real outlier.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    The linked page says you can't compare suicide rates across countries. For example, the UK statistics would tend to over count deaths. Here's the definition we use: ---begin The National Statistics definition of suicide includes all deaths from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over, and deaths where the intent was undetermined for those aged 15 and over. This definition was revised in January 2016 and further information on the impact can be found in the 2014 suicide registrations bulletin. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent in 10 to 14 year-olds are not included because although for older teenagers and adults we assume that in these deaths the harm was self-inflicted, for younger children it is not clear whether this assumption is appropriate. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent cannot be applied to children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse. ---end I'm unable to find the definition used by the CDC, but I think it's likely to include language like "with the intent to end life".

DanBC 8y ago

It's difficult to compare rates of suicide across countries because there are different ways of counting deaths, and there are different ways of ruling that something is a suicide.