3 ms·

> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC dis

> For every person you cherry picked getting raped that would have stopped the assailant with a gun, many more are killed under the current system. The CDC disagrees with you. In the study that is fairly well known at this point, the CDC estimates 500k defensive gun uses every year in the US. Note that I am giving you the lowest number in their range. However there are about 40k deaths due to gun usage every year. 75% of all deaths due to gun usage are suicides. In actuality, there are 10k deaths due to gun usage we need to look at during discussion of gun regulation in the United States.

HWR_14 4y ago
We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.
- carapace 4y ago
  I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
    - carapace 4y ago
      Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? - - - - > if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way. Okay, but then what's the intervention here? Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)
      - HWR_14 4y ago
        > Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? Yes. > ou find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them Pretty much. Obviously, people's natural lifespans exceed how long these studies have been going on, so there's a natural timelimit. I think most studies look 5 years out. > An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again No, the exact opposite. You try to find out if the interrupted attempt was serious. I'm saying that the 2/3 number isn't counting people who idly speculate about suicide or write a note. It's counting people who take steps that realistically can be interpreted as an attempt. Of those people who made a "serious" attempt, 2/3 will not try again. > Okay, but then what's the intervention here? I mean, if you're jumping from "suicides are irrelevant" to "what policies can prevent them", I'm not sure. If we didn't care about self-defense, there would be lots of policies (requiring guns to be locked up at ranges or something), but people do care about self-defense. And any barrier that will prevent suicide likely will prevent that. Consider some magic program that assesses mental state. You're probably under similar emotional stress in both suicide and self-defense. But as is, that does seem to be one thing "red flag" laws are for.
- tekknik 4y ago
  No, we will not regulate gun ownership based off suicides. Suicidal people will do what they do regardless of if guns are legal. Do not remove rights of others because of an overwhelmingly small minority. Fund mental health if you want to help the suicidal people.
XorNot 4y ago
The CDC does not agree with you, because you are grossly misrepresenting what they said [1]. When they cited a number they gave a range: 60,000 to 2.5 million. Quite the uncertainty there. They've since replaced the wording on that page entirely, because the CDC doesn't actually know: the CDC is effectively prohibited from investigating gun violence [2] [1] https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/ https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

HWR_14 4y ago

We completely need to look at suicides as well. At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire, which means interrupting the act without any other intervention will save a life. Making it harder to commit suicide with a gun could save 20k+ people a year. Which actually makes it (from a public health perspective) even more important than preventing all other forms of gun death. Also, since I've never heard of this CDC study, you should provide a link if you plan to cite it. I think it's more common in your social circle/internet bubble than with the general population.

carapace 4y ago
I've heard this argument before and it seems off to me somehow, but I haven't quite put my finger on it. > At least 2/3 of suicides are based on a fleeting desire How do you know? I'm not being snarky. I'm genuinely curious. We obviously can't ask someone who was successful at committing suicide about their mental/emotional state, eh? For the sake of discussion let's assume the point. These suicides by gun due to "a fleeting desire" would be presumably among people who already had guns? How fleeting is the desire? Is the idea that if someone who has been struck by the "fleeting desire" to kill themself has to go get a gun first then there's time for the "fleeting desire" to wear off before they can act on it?
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Non-snarky answer: You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts. The point isn't that people buy a gun to commit suicide, it's that if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way.
  - carapace 4y ago
    Thanks for replying. I appreciate it. FWIW the argument still seems weak to me. The methodology here is still unclear: > You look at the rates of people attempting suicide a second time if their first attempt was interrupted, and you do your best to identify only the serious first attempts You find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them (for how long?) to see if they try again? An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again (within some time frame)? Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? - - - - > if you already have a gun you will use it when overwhelmed as opposed to attempting to kill yourself in a less successful way. Okay, but then what's the intervention here? Are you saying that we remove guns from everyone just in case someone has a really bad day and offs themself? (I do not mean to sound flippant, I hope I'm not coming across that way. I'm thinking of Hunter Thompson here, RIP, who arguably should not have had access to firearms in his condition.)
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      > Are you saying that 2/3 of them don't try again? Yes. > ou find people that definitely attempted suicide and were interrupted, then track them Pretty much. Obviously, people's natural lifespans exceed how long these studies have been going on, so there's a natural timelimit. I think most studies look 5 years out. > An attempt is counted as "serious" only if they try again No, the exact opposite. You try to find out if the interrupted attempt was serious. I'm saying that the 2/3 number isn't counting people who idly speculate about suicide or write a note. It's counting people who take steps that realistically can be interpreted as an attempt. Of those people who made a "serious" attempt, 2/3 will not try again. > Okay, but then what's the intervention here? I mean, if you're jumping from "suicides are irrelevant" to "what policies can prevent them", I'm not sure. If we didn't care about self-defense, there would be lots of policies (requiring guns to be locked up at ranges or something), but people do care about self-defense. And any barrier that will prevent suicide likely will prevent that. Consider some magic program that assesses mental state. You're probably under similar emotional stress in both suicide and self-defense. But as is, that does seem to be one thing "red flag" laws are for.
tekknik 4y ago
No, we will not regulate gun ownership based off suicides. Suicidal people will do what they do regardless of if guns are legal. Do not remove rights of others because of an overwhelmingly small minority. Fund mental health if you want to help the suicidal people.

XorNot 4y ago

The CDC does not agree with you, because you are grossly misrepresenting what they said [1]. When they cited a number they gave a range: 60,000 to 2.5 million. Quite the uncertainty there. They've since replaced the wording on that page entirely, because the CDC doesn't actually know: the CDC is effectively prohibited from investigating gun violence [2] [1] https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/ https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment