Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

In 2006, after years of suicides among young men in the Israel Defense Forces, authorities forbade the troops from bringing their rifles home on weekends. Suicides dropped by 40 percent, according to a 2010 study by psychiatrists with the IDF and the Sheba Medical Center.

It was Isreal that ran the study and it was a 40% drop, no 50%. But still.

[Owlbread]

To be honest, I would prefer to focus on what has brought them to that choice rather than how to reduce the numbers of suicides through restrictions. That's like a doctor or vet providing treatment and not working to cure an ailment.

I also support the idea that anyone that seeks to own a gun of various sorts should pass a mandatory "Gun Safety Test" (or something like that) where they must show an excellent understanding of firearms safety and law. Part of that would entail classes that would explore the reasons why they want to own a gun, when they would use it and so forth. This would be accompanied by a psychological evaluation from their GP.

I am of course speaking on this issue as someone who has been hurt by misuse of firearms. One of my two cats, whom I loved very dearly, was shot by a gamekeeper many years ago who "thought it was a mink", but he'd already shot someone else's cat not too far from me. I don't know if they went to the police, because my understanding from the police statements following my cat's killing the police would take the guy's shotgun and license off him if he did it again. He's a twisted guy too. I saw an image on Facebook (he's a neighbour) where he'd lined up about 5-6 mutilated fox corpses (shot by him) in memory of his younger brother who had been killed in a car accident. The guy shoots animals because he likes it and gets off on it, that's what gets me.

I am, of course, filled with hatred and anger when I even think about that man but I don't think his cruelty is enough to justify our own gun laws and restrictions. Maybe a better system of psychological evaluations would help, but he's a pretty standard guy among men in his line of work.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

Gun ownership and many topics are researched already, including;

Spoiler: Homicide (click to show/hide)

Homicide
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries.  Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.


2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s.  We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.


3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.


4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Spoiler: Self-Defence Gun Use (click to show/hide)

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use
1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

Hemenway, David. Survey research and self-defense gun use: An explanation of extreme overestimates. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 1997; 87:1430-1445.

Hemenway, David. The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events. Chance (American Statistical Association). 1997; 10:6-10.

Cook, Philip J; Ludwig, Jens; Hemenway, David. The gun debate’s new mythical number: How many defensive uses per year? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 1997; 16:463-469.

 

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.  Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

 

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Center, we examined the extent and nature of offensive gun use.  We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable.

Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.

 

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home. We found that guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Publication: Azrael, Deborah R; Hemenway, David. In the safety of your own home: Results from a national survey of gun use at home. Social Science and Medicine. 2000; 50:285-91.

 

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.

We analyzed data from a telephone survey of 5,800 California adolescents aged 12-17, which asked questions about gun threats against, and self-defense gun use by these young people.  We found that these young people were far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use a gun in self-defense, and most of the reported self-defense gun uses were hostile interactions between armed adolescents.  Males, smokers, binge drinkers, those who threatened others and whose parents were less likely to know their whereabouts were more likely both to be threatened with a gun and to use a gun in self-defense.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew.  Gun threats against and self-defense gun use by California adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 2004; 158:395-400.

 

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

Using data from a survey of detainees in a Washington D.C. jail, we worked with a prison physician to investigate the circumstances of gunshot wounds to these criminals.
We found that one in four of these detainees had been wounded, in events that appear unrelated to their incarceration. Most were shot when they were victims of robberies, assaults and crossfires. Virtually none report being wounded by a “law-abiding citizen.”

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. When criminals are shot: A survey of Washington DC jail detainees. Medscape General Medicine. 2000; June 28. www.medscape.com

 

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Oen, Roger; Pitts, Khalid R. Medical Care Solicitation by Criminals with Gunshot Wound Injuries: A Survey of Washington DC Jail Detainees. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 48:130-132.

May, John P; Hemenway, David. Do Criminals Go to the Hospital When They are Shot? Injury Prevention 2002: 8:236-238.

Spoiler: Women (click to show/hide)

Women
1. Across states, more guns = more female violent deaths

We analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and unintentional gun death, homicide and suicide for women across the 50 states over a ten year period.  Women in states with many guns have elevated rates of unintentional gun deaths, suicides and homicide, particularly firearm suicides and firearm homicides.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and unintentional firearm deaths, suicide, and homicide among women. Journal of Urban Health. 2002; 79:26-38.

 

2. Across high income countries more guns = more female homicide deaths.

We analyzed the relationship between gun availability and homicides of women with data from 25 high income countries. Across developed nations, where gun are more available, there are more homicides of women.  The United States has the most firearms and U.S. women have far more likely to be homicide victims than women in other developed countries.

Hemenway, David; Shinoda-Tagawa, Tomoko; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and female homicide victimization rates across 25 populous high-income countries. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association. 2002; 57:100-04.

Spoiler: Suicide (click to show/hide)

Suicide
1-2. Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide (literature reviews).

We performed reviews of the academic literature on the effects of gun availability on suicide rates. The preponderance of current evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for youth suicide in the United States.  The evidence that gun availability increases the suicide rates of adults is credible, but is currently less compelling.  Most of the disaggregate findings of particular studies (e.g. handguns are more of a risk factor than long guns, guns stored unlocked pose a greater risk than guns stored locked) are suggestive but not yet well established.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. The relationship between firearms and suicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 1999; 4:59-75.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. Gun prevalence and the risk of suicide: A review. Harvard Health Policy Review. 2001; 2:29-37.

 

3. Across states, more guns = more suicide (cross sectional analyses)

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership rates, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and suicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and suicide across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. Epidemiology. 2002; 13:517-524.

 

4. Across states, more guns = more suicide (2) (cross sectional analyses)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001.  States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide.  This relationship held for both genders and all age groups.  It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment.  There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Lippmann, Steven; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across U.S. states. Journal of Trauma. 2007; 62:1029-35.

 

5. Across states, more guns = more suicides (time series analysis)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide over time, 1981-2001. Changes in the levels of household firearm gun ownership was significantly associated with changes in both firearm suicide and overall suicide, for men, women and children, even after controlling for region, unemployment, alcohol consumption and poverty. There was no relationship between changes in gun ownership and changes in non-firearm suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David; Lippman, Steven.  “The association between changes in household firearm ownership and rates of suicide in the United States, 1981-2002.” Injury Prevention. 2006; 12:178-82.

 

6. Across states, more guns = more suicide (Northeast)

We analyzed data on suicide and suicide attempts for states in the Northeast.  Even after controlling for rates of attempted suicide, states with more guns had higher rates of suicide.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Firearms and suicide in the Northeast. Journal of Trauma. 2004; 57:626-632.

 

7. Across U.S. regions, more guns = more suicide(cross sectional analysis)

We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. After controlling for divorce, education, unemployment, poverty and urbanization, the statistically significant relationship holds for 15 to 24 year olds and 45 to 84 year olds, but not for 25 to 44 year olds.

Birckmayer, Johanna; Hemenway, David. Suicide and gun prevalence: Are youth disproportionately affected? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2001; 31:303-310.

 

8. Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.

We analyzed the relationship of gun availability and suicide among differing age groups across the 9 US regions. Levels of gun ownership are highly correlated with suicide rates across all age groups, even after controlling for lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. The association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions. Injury Prevention. 2002; 8:313-16.

 

9. Gun owners do not have more mental health problems than non-owners

We added questions to, and analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Study.

Gun owning households do not have more mental health problems than non-gun owning households; differences in mental health do not explain why gun owners and their families are at higher risk for completed suicide than non-gun owning families.

Miller, Matthew; Molnar, Beth; Barber, Catherine; Hemenway, David; Azrael, Deborah. Recent psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with vs. without firearms: findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Injury Prevention. 2009; 15:183-87.

 

10. Gun owners are not more suicidal than non-owners

We analyzed data from the Second Injury Control and Risk Survey, a 2001-2003 representative telephone survey of U.S. households. Of over 9,000 respondents, 7% reported past-year suicidal thoughts, and 21% of these had a plan.  Respondents with firearms in the home were no more likely to report suicidal thoughts, plans or attempts, but if they had a suicidal plan, it was much more likely to involve firearms.  The higher rates of suicide among gun owners and their families cannot be explained by higher rates of suicidal behavior, but can be explained by easy access to a gun.

Betz, Marian E; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Suicidal behavior and firearm access: results from the second injury control and risk survey (ICARIS-2). Suicide and Life Threatening Behaviors 2011; 41:384-91.

 

11. Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun

The vast majority of adolescent suicide guns come from parents of other family members.

Johnson, Rene M; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah; Clark, David E; Hemenway, David. Who are the owners of firearms used in adolescent suicides? Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2010; 40:609-611.

 

12. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods

Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide).  Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30.

 

13. The public does not understand the importance of method availability.

Over 2,700 respondents to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey were asked to estimate how many of the more than 1,000 people who had jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge would have gone on to commit suicide some other way if an effective suicide barrier had been installed.  Over 1/3 of respondents estimated that none of the suicides could have been prevented.  Respondents most likely to believe that no one could have been saved were cigarette smokers and gun owners.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Belief in the inevitability of suicide: Results from a national survey. Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior. 2006; 36:1-11.

 

14. Physicians need to do more to help reduce access to lethal means

This commentary presents the overwhelming evidence that the availability of lethal means increases the suicide rate and argues that physicians need to take an active role in reducing access for potentially suicidal individuals.

Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. Guns and suicide in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2008; 359:989-991.

 

15. ED physicians and nurses rarely counsel about lethal means restriction

In one Boston emergency department, ED physicians and nurses believe they should counsel suicidal patients on lethal means restriction, but they often don’t.  Psychiatrists working at the ED were much more likely to ask about firearms.

Betz, Marian E; Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew. Lethal means restriction as suicide prevention: variation in belief and practices among providers in an urban ED. Injury Prevention. 2010; 16:278-81.

 

16. ED physicians and nurses do not believe lethal means restriction can prevent suicide

Physicians and nurses at 8 emergency departments were surveyed about their belief concerning means restriction and whether they asked their patients about guns.  Two thirds of nurses thought that most firearm suicide decedents would have died by another method if the firearm had not been available.

Betz, Marian E; Miller, Matthew; Barber, Catherine et al.. Lethal means restriction for suicide prevention: beliefs and behaviors of emergency department providers. Depression and Anxiety, 2013 in press.

 

17. Mental health providers can be trained to reduce the risk of gun suicide

The CALM workshops were effective in improving mental health care providers’ attitudes, beliefs and skills regarding lethal means counseling.

Johnson, Rene M; Frank, Elaine; Ciocca, Mark; Barber, Catherine. Training mental health providers to reduce at-risk patients’ access to lethal means of suicide: Evaluation of the CALM project. Archives of Suicide Research. 2011 15(3):259-264.

 

18. Suicide training in means reduction can be accomplished via the internet

This article describes HICRC’s National Center for Suicide Prevention Training, which uses the public health approach and includes training on means restriction.

Stone, Deborah; Barber, Catherine, Posner, Marc. Improving public health practice in suicide prevention through online training: a case example. In: Sher, Leo & Vilens, Alexander., eds. Internet and Suicide. New York: Nova Science, 2009.

 

19. Lethal means reduction strategies can successfully reduce suicide

This article summarizes recent additions to the scientific literature about means restriction policies and suicide

Johnson, Rene M; Coyne-Beasley, Tamera. Lethal means reduction: what have we learned? Current Opinion in Pediatrics. 2009; 21: 635–640

 

20. Veterans have high rates of firearm suicide

There are no differences in suicide risk among middle-aged and older male veterans and non-veterans.  Suicide by firearm is higher, suicide by non-firearm is lower.  It is probable that lower baseline risk of active duty soldiers (healthy worker effect) tend to be counterbalanced by the accessibility of firearms to these veterans.

Miller, Matthew; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah, Calle, Eugenia E; Lawler, Elizabeth; Mukamal, Kenneth J. Suicide among US veterans: a prospective study of 500,000 middle-aged and elderly men.  American Journal of Epidemiology. 2009; 170:494-500.

 

21. There are effective ways to reduce suicide without affecting mental health

This introduction to suicide as an international public health problem examines the role of promoting mental health, changing cultural norms, and reducing the availability of lethal means in preventing suicide

Barber, Catherine; Miller, Matthew.  A public health approach to preventing suicide. In: Finkel, Madelon L.  Perspectives in Public Health:Challenges for the Future. Santa Barbara CA: Praeger Publishers, 2010.

 

22. Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence

This summary of the scientific literature on suicide in the United States emphasizes the importance of levels of household firearm ownership in explaining different rates of suicide over time and across states, households and genders.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deboarh; Barber, Catherine. Suicide mortality in the United States: The importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health 2012;33:393-408.

 

23. Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today

This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.

Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3.

 

24. The main factor explaining differences in suicide rates across states is gun ownership

Even after accounting for suicide attempt rates, levels of firearm ownership largely explain the variation in suicide mortality across the 50 states.

Miller, Matthew; Barber, Catherine; Azrael, Deborah; White R. . Firearms and suicide in the United States: is risk independent of underlying suicidal behavior?  American Journal of Epidemiology 2013.

I like this part:

Spoiler: Policy Evaluation (click to show/hide)

Policy Evaluation
1. States with more gun control laws have lower levels of firearm homicide and firearm suicide.

Using state data from 2007-2010, we found that states with more key firearm laws had fewer firearm homicides and fewer firearm suicides, after controlling for poverty, unemployment, education, race and non-firearm violence-related deaths.

Fleegher, Eric W; Lee, Lois K; Monuteaux, Michael C; Hemenway, David; Mannix, Rebekah.  Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States.  JAMA-Internal Medicine. 2013; 173:732-40.

 

2. “Shall issue” laws have no significant effect on the overall homicide rate

We analyzed the effect on homicide of changes in state-level gun carrying laws using pooled cross-sectional time-series data for 50 states from 1979-1998.  There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates.  The finding was consistent across a variety of models.

Hepburn, Lisa; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David.  The effect of nondiscretionary concealed weapon carrying laws on homicide.  Journal of Trauma. 2004; 56:676-681.

 

3. Child access prevention laws may reduce unintentional child firearm fatalities

We analyzed the effect on unintentional firearm fatalities to children of child access prevention (CAP) laws, which allow a firearm owner to be charged with a crime if a child gains access to an unsecured firearm, using pooled cross-sectional time series data for 50 states from 1979-2000. We found that states that enacted CAP laws–with felony rather than misdemeanor penalties– experienced grater subsequent declines in the rate of unintentional firearm deaths for children age 0 to 14 compared to states not enacting CAP laws.

Hepburn, Lisa; Azrael, Deborah; Miller, Matthew; Hemenway, David. The effect of child access prevention laws on unintentional child firearm fatalities, 1979-2000.  Journal of Trauma.  2006; 61:423-28.

 

4. Some gun policy evaluations are designed to ensure that no effect will be found.

This article on statistics describes the limitations of studies that claim no effect of gun shows, and no effect of the Australian gun buyback.

Hemenway, David.  How to find nothing.  Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009; 30:260-68.

 

5. Results of a flawed study results should not affect policy

This paper highlights the serious flaws in a study that found no effect of gun shows on homicide or suicide.

Wintemute, Garen; Hemenway, David; Webster, Daniel; Pierce Glenn; Braga Anthony A.  Gun shows and gun violence: fatally flawed study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100;1856-60.

 

6. The Brady Bill has major limitations in scope, monitoring and enforcement

One section of this chapter discusses the three aspects of regulation: the rules, monitoring of those rules, and punishments if the rules are not complied with.  The Brady bill is discussed as an example of a law with major deficiencies in all three aspects.

Hemenway, David. Public policy. In: Guohua Li and Susan P. Baker, eds. Injury Research:Theories, Methods and Approaches. New York: Springer, 2012.

[GlyphGryph]

Thank you for that, by the way.

[Scoops Novel]

He's a twisted guy too. I saw an image on Facebook (he's a neighbour) where he'd lined up about 5-6 mutilated fox corpses (shot by him) in memory of his younger brother who had been killed in a car accident. The guy shoots animals because he likes it and gets off on it, that's what gets me.

I am, of course, filled with hatred and anger when I even think about that man but I don't think his cruelty is enough to justify our own gun laws and restrictions. Maybe a better system of psychological evaluations would help, but he's a pretty standard guy among men in his line of work.

Not that your morals are wrong, but good luck rationally (what am i saying) hating the man. Hunting presumably involves more then pulling a trigger repeatedly, especially after a death.

[Owlbread]

I've always found the self-defence argument in favour of gun ownership to be far too shaky, that's why I never argue that position. I argue instead on my preference for sacrificing a degree of personal safety for the sake of personal freedom.

Not that your morals are wrong, but good luck rationally (what am i saying) hating the man. Hunting presumably involves more then pulling a trigger repeatedly, especially after a death.

I don't really hate him because he shot the foxes (though the manner in which he lined them up with bloodied eyes and faces and stuff was repulsive), I hate him because he shot my cat and I know in my gut he got off on it. He'd have to be a terrible gamekeeper to make the same mistake twice, and I know what that family was like.

In any case, I'm only bringing that up to show that I have been hurt by the negligence of firearm users and still argue for looser restrictions. Of course there might be someone here who has actually lost a family member or been shot, my problem doesn't really compare with that, but it still affected me very badly. In a way though, I'm not sure if I'm really arguing for "looser" restrictions per se or just a different sort.

[Helgoland]

Huh, looks like I was wrong about the suicide thing - fits better with my personal experience, really. You tend to only really, really think these things through when you've read how ineffective and goddamn painful slitting your wrists is, what an impact jumping in front of a train has on the conductor, etc etc

@Owlbread: Don't you think a very basic right, that to life, beats a fairly trivial one, the one of firing a gun for pleasure? Not that I'm against guns for sporting use, but you better make damn sure they stay at the clubhouse.
And lock up the people responsible for gun security for about seventy years when (not if) something goes wrong.

[Funk]

With guns two thing are certain:
One, any determined person can make a gun with only the simplest of tools and a few scraps of metal.
Not a nice well built gun but a crude simple weapon made from tape and pipe.
Two gun death well happen.
Even among trained professionals accidents happen.

More guns lead to violent crime with worse out comes, due to nothing more than the ease at which a gun can end a life.

Sources
homemade guns
professionals accident

[Owlbread]

@Owlbread: Don't you think a very basic right, that to life, beats a fairly trivial one, the one of firing a gun for pleasure?

In that case it should be impossible for cars to go above 40 mph. Nobody really needs to go any faster than that unless you're running late, in which case you just need to be early for things. That would save lives at the expense of a degree of personal freedom, but the right to life of the people who would crash going at 80-90mph in a 60mph limit road would be protected. On top of that motorcycles should be banned because there's no strong, practical reason why you would own a motorbike as an alternative to a car, and cars are much, much safer. Lives and the greater "right to life" will be saved there again.

My philosophy is that people are going to die anyway, the number of which can be reduced with various restrictions placed on their freedoms, often quite markedly as Mictlanticuhtli has shown. I would propose the creation of a more balanced system that is both heavily regulated and sacrifices the fewest freedoms as possible. For me, it's all about the balance between freedom and restriction for the sake of safety.

It's quite a difficult moral dilemma - on one hand, it's obviously noble to support someone's right to live, but someone taking that person's life is already breaking the golden rule of civil liberties - don't infringe on those of another person. You may then ask, is a government that does not implement legislation to save lives infringing on the rights of their own people? You could argue that, but there are many things the government could be doing to save lives that we really, really would rather they didn't. You know, that would include such delights as monitoring our telephone calls and emails, installing spyware on our computers, the introduction of mandatory ID cards and so on and so forth. You have to remember that an Orwellian society that most of us fear could actually be an extremely safe society in which the right of everyone to live is protected, provided that executions are illegal.

In fact, the government should force everyone into cryogenic tubes controlled by AIs that provide us with simulations of reality, thereby allowing us to live forever in comfort and never harm ourselves, only in the virtual world. The right to live that trumps everything else would be protected 100%.

And lock up the people responsible for gun security for about seventy years when (not if) something goes wrong.

That isn't quite necessary, more like make sure they're never responsible for gun security again and serve a fair prison sentence.

[misko27]

Even among trained professionals accidents happen.

Anyone remember the incident in time Square, where a man with a shotgun was gunned down by cops, and the cops hurt a lot of people?


Their accuracy rating is around 45%. These are trained  professionals, who have taken training to improve their aim. They manage a (what I'm told is respectable) 45%. Shooting under fire is hard.

[Flying Dice]

Facing resistance at home and abroad about the prospect of a U.S. attack on Syria, President Obama said Saturday that he has decided the U.S. should take military action against the Syrian regime in retaliation for its use of chemical weapons.

He also promised to seek congressional approval after lawmakers return from their recess Sept. 9, saying that he does not believe the law requires him to seek approval, but America will be "stronger" if he does

Source.

I've been fuming over this for days. This? This is an example of why I despise Obama as a president. He has been quietly yet strongly pursuing the ideal of the unitary executive to a far greater extent (and, arguably more effectively, given that he has done what he can to avoid drawing attention to it) than Bush ever did. This is not a question of "is it right to launch strikes on Syria", that's not the issue at hand. This has its roots in the Reagan administration, where this idea was first formulated that the executive is not only motivated but justly motivated to seize and hold powers beyond those given and implied to them in the Constitution, including those explicitly given to other branches to preserve the balance of powers, that doing so somehow strengthens our democracy. Political leanings are irrelevant here, this is a boldfaced attempt to assert that the office of the president is not bound by the most basic tenet of our law, which explicitly declares that the president does not have the authority to (among other things) take military action against other states except in immediate, short-term response to attacks on the nation.

The Congress shall have Power... ...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

There and has been for quire a while an indication that is something dreadfully wrong with our perception of our own government that the statement by any president that they do not need to obey the law is not the subject of multilateral, non-partisan outcry. This ideal of the powerful, decisive, perhaps even... kingly executive is profoundly undemocratic and it baffles me how it has become such a central element of the American political process--at least when one's own party holds the office.

[misko27]

Err, oh dear. Dice, We actually went and resolved that while you weren't looking. There was a big Lobbying push, and Senators said "weeeeellllll I think we should but eeeeehhhh", and the House said "Only if we get rid of Obamacare", and then Putin said "Hey how about we peacefully take the weapons from them, no catch" and Obama said "That actually isn't bad. Let's do that".  And then the UN released a Report stating it is, in fact, Chemical Weapons, and Assad did it, jumping forward to put them one step behind everyone else.

Also War is too important to be left to the generals, and too important to be left to the politicians, but someone should have it left to them, and so we went with the president. This isn't new. Wikipedia says

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[18] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine-American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999.

According to Wikipedia even the Korean War was without congressional approval (although, it going on for 2 years, they approved of it implicitly). Look up the War Powers Act, the act limiting the President's right to declare war and invade. It's sole violation was under Clinton. In fact, Obama asking for permission was seen as a concilatory gesture, one he was not at all required to make, and in fact limited the power of the President for future precedents.

The question of a stronger head executive is, interesting though.

[Flying Dice]

The issue isn't whether this particular instance was allowed to proceed, it's the underlying mindset that casts the president as being above the law, of Congress interfering with presidential authority rather than checking and limiting it. The trend towards the strong executive has its roots during the Civil War (for admittedly valid reasons), and I don't think that any particular president has had malicious motivation in pursuing it, but the cumulative effect is that the structure of our political system has become increasingly lopsided, with the executive taking more and more authority, generally definable as the power to act in spite of the law. This is not how our government was meant to function. The inherent nature of a single individual as the heart of power in his branch as opposed to the nine Justices or numerous senators and congressmen makes it far easier for the president to consolidate and gather power than for either of the other branches to return it to where it should be, as well as allowing presidents to cast themselves as decisive actors while portraying any Congress that doesn't rubber-stamp them as useless and ineffectual.

The point is that, Constitutionally, the president does not have the authority to launch offensive military action without a Congressional vote of approval. In fact, we see the weakening of this core principle most commonly in times of looming war (the Civil War, the Second World War, and more recently with 9/11). Again, this is not done with the intention of the executive to damage the balance created by the constitution, but to make it easier for them to fulfill their own mandate as the executive. The issue is that in doing so they push further and further towards authoritarianism and the cult of the president as the sole head power of government. Just because something is so does not mean that it is just or legal. Nixon used the same excuse when breaking the law to support his own political efforts, the only difference being that that flouting of the Constitution was done for personal gain rather than in order to pursue the mandate of his branch of government. It is fundamentally wrong to allow any branch of government to destroy the balance of power, even if it does so for superficially good reasons. This is precisely why we have the system of checks and balances, because these well-meaning excesses were predictable, and the men who drafted the Constitution endeavored to prevent them from taking hold.

[Chaoswizkid]

Chaos says hes read the staistics but I wonder where he is getting them from since everything Ive seen indicates they are wrong.

Time for an info dump. I'd like to know where you get your statistics, because I can't see how any of these disagree with my position.

First off, I'd like to state my sources. I will be using JustFacts.org for most of this. I check to make sure that the sources for wikipedia are legit (though I don't do background checks or anything) and that the sources for justfacts are legit. In the About section of JustFacts, they state:

In general parlance, we are conservative/libertarian in our viewpoints, but unlike many organizations and media outlets, this does not mean we give preference to facts that coincide with our opinions. Quite the contrary, we are committed to objectivity and will report any fact that meets the criteria below, regardless of the implications.

I've seen evidence of this in the data that they post and the conclusions they draw, but I wanted to be as forward about it as they are. Feel free to read the whole thing they are. Also, the data they take are from US government documents and published 3rd party studies. Stuff like that. It's pretty legit.

I'm only going to post data concerning firearm ownership as it pertains to homicides and suicides and data concerning gun control laws as it pertains to firearm ownership, homicides and suicides.

Have you looked at the statistics for how many burglaries are committed with the aim of stealing a firearm?  I'd seriously question whether having one deters thieves, considering how desirable a target for theft they themselves are.

I'll look for data about firearms theft later. Here's for the deterrence, though:

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:
• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

Unfortunately, a lot of the above is likely incredibly outdated by now. Still, I don't believe it can be seriously dismissed. This also goes against the sources supplied by Mictlantecuhtli concerning self defense, as it certainly seems by the above that guns are indeed used millions of times a year in self-defense. Perhaps only one million times, though. Compare sources (from top to bottom as evidence supplied above):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995
Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. By the Committee to Improve Research and Data on Firearms and the Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council of the National Academies. Edited by Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie. National Academies Press, 2005.
"National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization, 2008." By Michael R. Rand. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
"2008 Crime in the United States, Murder." Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, September 2009.
"Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. (Unfortunately the link only allows you to see a part of it)
"Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994." By Robin M. Ikeda and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997.
Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Expanded Edition). By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1986 (Expanded edition published in 1994).

I'll tackle the rest of Miclantecuhtli's Self-Defense Gun Use stuff in this spoiler, and the rest when I get to it.

Spoiler: Self-Defense (click to show/hide)

4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

That is indeed a good point, if it is true. From my data supplied above, it looks like the majority (not two-thirds, but over one-half) are likely not used just in escalating arguments.
I also found this:

First, they narrowed the incidents to 35 from 146 by removing persons they thought were witnesses, or persons who wouldn't give a description of the incident, or persons who they thought were criminal actors.
From the survey:
"a majority of the judges rated 18 of the 35 (51%) as probably illegal and 15 of the 35 (43%) as probably legal."

From the survey itself:

However, our results should not be extrapolated to obtain population based estimates of the absolute number of gun uses. If we have as little as 1% random misclassification, our results could be off by orders of magnitude.

No dice on that one, Harvard or Mict.

5. Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.
Maybe. Probably. I couldn't actually find the survey, though. Link if you can find it. I might hand it to you though. It makes sense. However, it's also a moot point. If taking away firearms does not at least decrease the number of times they are used to intimidate by the same amount as use in self-defense is decreased, then this actually isn't support for anything against firearms bans, and I'll get to why firearms bans don't accomplish this later.

6. Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.
Jeez, the Deborah Azrael and David Hemenway duo are certainly on a roll. Can't find this survey either. However, I did find that this has been edited. Links from 2012 list this not as the 6th entry from the Harvard site, but as the 42nd entry and state the following:

Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey conducted under the direction of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, we investigated how and when guns are used in the home.
Major findings: Guns in the home are probably used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime; other weapons are far more commonly used against intruders than are guns.

Emphasis mine. Given that this survey was conducted in 2000, sounds like someone edited the entry to make it sound more supportive of their argument rather than let it have basically no real conclusion. It would help if the survey were readily available, but I'm not going to dig all day through references to try and find it.

7. Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.
Maybe because firearm possession by adolescents is illegal? This doesn't seem that strong of an argument. I found the study though!

Results: Approximately 4% of the adolescents reported ever having been threatened with a gun; only 0.3% reported using a gun in self-defense. Boys, smokers, adolescents who threatened others, and adolescents whose parents knew little about their whereabouts in the afternoon after school were more likely to report being threatened with a gun. Most episodes of self-defense gun use seem to be hostile interactions between adolescents with weapons.

Just 4% and 0.3%. Yeah, the conclusion is right, but it made it sounds like there was maybe 20% threats and maybe 5-10% self-defense or something like that. This is just that firearms pretty much don't affect the lives of teenagers in California where the study was conducted. Still, I'm just going to point to firearm possession being illegal for minors and this being a silly point because of it.

8. Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime

I didn't even try to find this report. The summary speaks for itself. Criminals were shot by other criminals and none of the incarcerated criminals were shot by a law abiding citizen in a city where guns were banned until 2005.

I'm sorry, you're really losing credibility when you're linking these two.

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens
What else you posted:

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.

Haha, what? No, not necessarily. First of all, the "millions of self-defense gun uses each year" claim seems to come from this guy named Kleck. In his interview, he states:

Our results ended up indicating, depending on which figures you prefer to use, anywhere from 800,000 on up to 2.4, 2.5 million defensive uses of guns against human beings -- not against animals -- by civilians each year.

Unfortunately, only the high end of that figure is used by anyone. It's used by gun control activists to show just how absurdly large the number is, and it's used by people who don't want gun control to show how important defensive use of guns is. That number varies a lot, though. Also in the interview,

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal. Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired. Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal. Whether they succeeded or not is another matter but they were trying to shoot a criminal. And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.

8% of 800,000 is only 64,000. You don't get 100,000 criminals shot at 8% until 1.25 million cases of self-defense, and at 2.5 million is where you get 200,000.
Checking the number against what I already referenced,

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

Sounds like the lower end is more accurate than the high end.
I couldn't find this study, anyway, so I can't really delve into it. Link if you can find it, please.

As I see it, pretty much your whole Self-Defense section of links, provided by Harvard University, is full of holes. I don't care that it's Harvard, the surveys I did find have barely any evidence to support the claims or to support the greater intention of being against gun control, and the surveys I didn't find also have holes in them. Please do not continue to use them for your case unless you can refute the evidence I provide or the counterpoints I make.

Time for gun control policies! I like this part, too, Mict. =)

Spoiler: Gun Control Policies (click to show/hide)

1. States with more gun control laws have lower levels of firearm homicide and firearm suicide.

You know what's bad? When I looked up that study, Google looked back at me and only spat out 4 links. Where it's hosted on Harvard, two links in a discussion on HockeysFuture, some "Spokesman" site, and this very thread. However, revising the search with just the title and the publication, I was able to find it on Harvard's site anyway. It seems they don't have consistent citations.

Anyways, phew, took a look at this, looked into other stuff about this, and this is what I have to say.
The corrected statement should be "States with more gun control laws have lower levels of combined firearm homicide and firearm suicide." I took the liberty of dissecting their data and separating it into Legislative Score vs. Homicides and Legislative Score vs. Suicides and put it into a Google Doc. I couldn't figure out how to do trendlines on the Google Doc, so I have charts from the Google spreadsheet and also from Excel and the Excel ones have both the trendlines and their corresponding R² values. I include the ones from the Google Doc just to show that I'm not messing up the data anywhere. Don't bother with the order of "x vs. y" titles, I know they're different but now that I've done it I'm too lazy to go back, screencap, cut, paste, etc. to fix it.
As you can see for the homicide rates, there's just way too much variation there. There is definitely a slope, but its so small that it's really not that meaningful. According to this site on R² values, I'm pretty sure that means that you can't draw any useful conclusions.
The suicide rates one, though? Even I was surprised at this. Looks like you might have something there. The R² value even agrees. However, my entire argument against gun control isn't about protecting people from themselves, its about protecting people from bad people, so I'm only going to look at the homicide rates. I just value the life of someone who isn't determined to kill themselves as being more valuable than the life of someone who is determined to kill themselves. I believe that there are other social precautions that can be enacted that don't involve gun control to fix that problem anyway.

Anyway, some more stuff on that:






2. “Shall issue” laws have no significant effect on the overall homicide rate
Pretty sure this talks about right-to-carry laws, and I'd have to say that they may well be right. Without looking at their study, I'll just post some data I've got from JustFacts.



Seems pretty correct to me. It looks like each state just follows the national average with a bit of variance. However, I'm not sure that anyone can conclude that they don't do anything, just that we don't have any data to conclude anything about them. They might be of more benefit or less benefit, or maybe they do nothing, we just don't know yet due what seems like other factors.
Looks like that Azrael and Hemenway duo might have gotten something right!

3. Child access prevention laws may reduce unintentional child firearm fatalities
Sure, sounds good. This is the kind of stuff I'd like more of, if I understand it correctly. I'm cool with this.

4. Some gun policy evaluations are designed to ensure that no effect will be found.

This article on statistics describes the limitations of studies that claim no effect of gun shows, and no effect of the Australian gun buyback.

Gun shows are something I could see myself liking more regulation of. As for the effect of the Australian gun buyback, there's just so much back and forth crap on that that you're going to be hard pressed to find anything useful for either side. Although, I will say that this is still by Hemenway. I don't think he or Azrael can be considered unbaised on this issue which generally hurts their credibility. That doesn't nullify their credibility (although I've already nullified some of their findings anyway), that just hurts it.

5. Results of a flawed study results should not affect policy
This mentions more stuff about gun shows, so see above.

6. The Brady Bill has major limitations in scope, monitoring and enforcement

One section of this chapter discusses the three aspects of regulation: the rules, monitoring of those rules, and punishments if the rules are not complied with.  The Brady bill is discussed as an example of a law with major deficiencies in all three aspects.

Lmfao. Are you serious? Are you really serious? In point 1, they base their entire case on the whole Brady regulations thing and judging laws and all that, and here they say that it's full of holes. Granted that's the Brady Center in point 1, but that is still definitely involved with the Brady Bill. Anyway, I don't care enough about this to look it up either. I'm fine with better regulation, I just don't want regulation that shows more evidence that it does more harm than good.

Man, by this point, I've spent like all day on this. I literally woke up, opened this thread and began researching all of the stuff Mict mentioned (but didn't link, that bastard, making me do the dirty work). Anyway, gotta keep going I guess.

Spoiler: Suicide (click to show/hide)

See Gun Control Policies point 1 in the above spoiler for that.

1-2. Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide (literature reviews).
... Yes? Okay then.

3. Across states, more guns = more suicide (cross sectional analyses)
And this goes all the way to point 7, since it's basically the same stuff over and over again, and I'm not going to go dig up all of those studies if they all say the same thing. It's hard enough to find stuff by this same Azrael and Hemenway duo. This seems to be true, though. However, was this also corrected for poverty levels, which is also shown to correlate with suicide?

8. Differences in mental health cannot explain the regional more guns = more suicide connection.
Again, did it correct for poverty levels? Did it look at poverty levels? I don't know because I can't find this study. Same goes for 9 and 10.

11. Adolescents who commit suicide with a gun use the family gun
Well DUH. If they're going to commit suicide with a gun, they need a gun. What's the easiest gun to get? The family gun. Do you really need a study to say this?

12. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
I would assume so, they're very violently destructive weapons.

13. The public does not understand the importance of method availability.

Over 2,700 respondents to a national random-digit-dial telephone survey were asked to estimate how many of the more than 1,000 people who had jumped from the Golden Gate Bridge would have gone on to commit suicide some other way if an effective suicide barrier had been installed.  Over 1/3 of respondents estimated that none of the suicides could have been prevented.  Respondents most likely to believe that no one could have been saved were cigarette smokers and gun owners.

What does this have to do with guns other than some of the respondents being gun owners? I found the article but I would need to register or something for it, so no thanks. Please link the article with open access.

14. Physicians need to do more to help reduce access to lethal means

This commentary presents the overwhelming evidence that the availability of lethal means increases the suicide rate and argues that physicians need to take an active role in reducing access for potentially suicidal individuals.

Abso-fucking-lutely. At least, as far as that statement goes. I'm not even looking up your articles to dissect them anymore with how hard they are to find.

Skipping 15 and 16 because they aren't really relevant.

17. Mental health providers can be trained to reduce the risk of gun suicide
Good. They should be.

18. Suicide training in means reduction can be accomplished via the internet
I don't think this has anything to do with guns directly, so not really sure why it's here, but sure, I buy it.

19. Lethal means reduction strategies can successfully reduce suicide
You know what? I bet it does. I still want a look at the article just to check on everything they did. Linky please.

20. Veterans have high rates of firearm suicide
Yes, very unfortunately they do. We need to do a LOT more for our soldiers and veterans in regards to mental health, preparation, ease-of-transfer between different stress-leveled environments, etc. I have a bunch to say about this, but right here isn't the place.

22. Differences in suicide rates across the US are best explained by gun prevalence
Would loooovvveeee to see this article and make sure they actually take in all of the suicide risk factors into account. Linky please. Same goes for 24.

I'm skipping 23.

Guh. PLEASE link articles, people. Your arguments really shouldn't count if you don't link to them.

So, Women next I guess. Actually, no, you know what? Just provide the links for the articles. There's only 2 of them, and I need the articles to analyze and either agree with or refute.

The same goes for everything in the Homicide section. Burden of proof is on you, Mict, or whoever else wants to help Mict.

Fuck I'm tired.

[misko27]

How, constitutionalist of you. Would you hold the same opinion on a issue where the constitution was siding with the other side? I mean, say, Slavery? Suffrage, a better one? The Founders intended only propertied males could vote. The underpinning of what they saw as the fundamentals of our government wAS the Propertied class.