3 ms·

Does the NRA have a mailing list where these kinds of "arguments" are promoted? Not being facetious here, I'm merely asking because 1-2 weeks ago somebody else

Does the NRA have a mailing list where these kinds of "arguments" are promoted? Not being facetious here, I'm merely asking because 1-2 weeks ago somebody else made exactly the same point in another US gun-violence discussion I participated in. And just like you, he didn't support his claim with any numbers. But even at first glance, this argument does not check out at all. It basically argues that all the extra gun violence in the US is the result of people buying guns only for the purpose of committing suicide. Yeah, no, not buying that. Suicide is an issue, but it's not that big of an issue that it alone accounts for the massive gun violence outlier the US represents among developed countries. Especially in the context of prescription meds also being way more easily and readily available in the US (opiate crisis) than many other places, I find it hard to believe that all US Americans simply prefer firearms to pills for their "suicidal needs".

thrower123 8y ago
The rule of thumb is that about two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides, another third are murders, and a small percentage are accidental. There are still more murders than there ought to be, but the statistics that make the US look like Pablo Escobar Columbia typically are counting people offing themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
- freeflight 8y ago
  > but the statistics that make the US look like Pablo Escobar Columbia typically are counting people offing themselves. I don't see a problem with that as long as the statistics for all the countries are handled that way, the datasets still remain comparable. Or are you suggesting other countries don't account for the suicides, yet that's the only real difference? What about the argument that people killing themselves with firearms, due to easier access to them, might have gotten proper help elsewhere and survived? In that context, even these suicide deaths can be considered victims of the failed firearms regulation. A loaded firearm is quite a low barrier of entry for any person in emotional distress. Most other methods of suicide require at least some level of research, planning and preparation and often still fail.
  - palunon 8y ago
    Restricting firearms because people might hurt themselves and restricting them because they might hurt others are two very different things, and it is important to point out that the number include voluntary self harm. Also, the method of suicide people use tends to be highly cultural, even with gender differences. In France, the methods of suicide primarily used by men - guns and hanging - tends to be much more deadly than the ones used by women - medication overdose, causing women to have a higher rate of suicide but men representing the majority of deaths.
    - freeflight 8y ago
      > Restricting firearms because people might hurt themselves and restricting them because they might hurt others are two very different things The regulation resulting from the needs for these kinds of restrictions is exactly the same. Firearm permits often have mandatory hours of safety training attached, that's also to protect people from themselves and drive home the point that this is a dangerous device they own and handle. The same applies to drivers licenses, these have mandatory training requirements not just to protect other people on the street, but also the person driving the car and getting the permit. In that context, it is completely irrelevant why you regulate something when both are valid reasons for regulating something, protecting people from themselves, by requiring them to show they are actually able and reliable to handle a dangerous device, and protecting others from people who handle their dangerous devices irresponsibly by requiring at least a basic amount of training and competency.

thrower123 8y ago

The rule of thumb is that about two-thirds of gun-related deaths in the US are suicides, another third are murders, and a small percentage are accidental. There are still more murders than there ought to be, but the statistics that make the US look like Pablo Escobar Columbia typically are counting people offing themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

freeflight 8y ago
> but the statistics that make the US look like Pablo Escobar Columbia typically are counting people offing themselves. I don't see a problem with that as long as the statistics for all the countries are handled that way, the datasets still remain comparable. Or are you suggesting other countries don't account for the suicides, yet that's the only real difference? What about the argument that people killing themselves with firearms, due to easier access to them, might have gotten proper help elsewhere and survived? In that context, even these suicide deaths can be considered victims of the failed firearms regulation. A loaded firearm is quite a low barrier of entry for any person in emotional distress. Most other methods of suicide require at least some level of research, planning and preparation and often still fail.
- palunon 8y ago
  Restricting firearms because people might hurt themselves and restricting them because they might hurt others are two very different things, and it is important to point out that the number include voluntary self harm. Also, the method of suicide people use tends to be highly cultural, even with gender differences. In France, the methods of suicide primarily used by men - guns and hanging - tends to be much more deadly than the ones used by women - medication overdose, causing women to have a higher rate of suicide but men representing the majority of deaths.
  - freeflight 8y ago
    > Restricting firearms because people might hurt themselves and restricting them because they might hurt others are two very different things The regulation resulting from the needs for these kinds of restrictions is exactly the same. Firearm permits often have mandatory hours of safety training attached, that's also to protect people from themselves and drive home the point that this is a dangerous device they own and handle. The same applies to drivers licenses, these have mandatory training requirements not just to protect other people on the street, but also the person driving the car and getting the permit. In that context, it is completely irrelevant why you regulate something when both are valid reasons for regulating something, protecting people from themselves, by requiring them to show they are actually able and reliable to handle a dangerous device, and protecting others from people who handle their dangerous devices irresponsibly by requiring at least a basic amount of training and competency.