Summations Only

You really should research gun laws and ownership in Switzerland before you use it as an argument. Switzerland does not work as a pro-gun argument. If you think it does go ahead and present it.

On suicide - What you think is obvious is irrelevant. The data tells us the very opposite of what you have claimed in this thread. You are wrong whether you understand why or not.Of course there are a myriad of reasons why one country has more homicides than another but gun prevalence is a significant factor. And comparing oneself favourably with Russia and Mexico just shows the paucity of your argument. Consider the following:Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.

quote:

---

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.

---

Link

As true as that may be Hyro seems bewilderingly unable to comprehend that those with suicidal impulses don't just go and find some way to kill themselves regardless of convenience. I cannot work out why he can't grasp this simple point.

We recently had our first snow here in New England, and with it came reports of cars off the roads everywhere. Fortunately traffic reports improve as the snow season rolls on as those who forgot or didn't know how to drive in snow gradually recall or learn the skill.Those of us who know how to drive in ice and snow also know that the greatest danger isn't you, it's the other guy. Maybe you know how to control your car on a snowy curve, but does the guy coming the other way? Keep your eyes open and your wits about you.It's the same with guns. Maybe you are sane and rational and a crack instant-decision maker, but is the other guy? The easier you make it for yourself to own guns the easier you make it for those those with fuzzy thinking, those easily confused, even those near or over the edge of sanity, to also own guns. The easier it is to own and carry guns the more possible it is that the other guy coming toward you down the street with gun on hip is someone who by all judgment should not be carrying or even owning.And so just like driving in the snow you must keep your wits about you as go about your daily business, ever vigilant for the crazy guy, or the fellow employee with the messy divorce, or the person in retail with the vicious manager, or the angry guy who just got fired, or the jihadist wannabe. The more you weaken our gun laws the more possible terrible events become.So look ahead, look left, look right, then look behind you, because you never know where they'll be coming from. This is how you should drive in the snow, but is this how anyone wants to live their lives?--Percy

Well, that would be no additional burden on a neurotic paranoid person who already sees threats everywhere.

Hello agian So we should have "snow driving laws"? Those with messy divorces, vicious managers, or angry guys have NO BUSINESS driving in snow. In order to keep them off the roads and keep us all safe, sorry but YOU have to stay home when it snows as well.What's the difference? Why the lopsided applications? If you're not interested in guns, and advocate the loss of rights for those who are, how can you complain when someone comes after rights that you are interested in? If the alternative is to stay home, and go hungry, some of us still like to make our own choices. Societies based on liberty don't claim to always be a heaven on earth. History and current events tell us that societies based on dictatorships and massive governments aren't either.

Golly, marc, you really have trouble with analogies don't you?

quote:

---

Percy
And so just like driving in the snow you must keep your wits about you as go about your daily business, ever vigilant for the crazy guy, or the fellow employee with the messy divorce, or the person in retail with the vicious manager, or the angry guy who just got fired, or the jihadist wannabe. The more you weaken our gun laws the more possible terrible events become.

​

So look ahead, look left, look right, then look behind you, because you never know where they'll be coming from. This is how you should drive in the snow, but is this how anyone wants to live their lives?

---

Nobody is talking about banning guns. Rifles can be obtained by anybody and I'm not sure if there are any bans anywhere in USA.I don't care whether guns are banned or not (I suppose I am disturbed if 400,000 coyotes are shot every year but it does no good to worry about it because it will never stop) because animals will always be killed (by darts or whatever) in the millions (or billions), and people will always be killed in the (low) thousands by homicides.The gun issue involves people submitting medical records into a database (which contributes to stigmatization) and THAT I do have a problem with. This gun-control issue isn't a benign issue. It also gets to the issue of empowering psychiatrists (the garbage-pale of fraudulent medicine) even further, when they have a great track record of traumatizing children for life by forcing them on meds as early as 9 or 10 (actually as early as 2!)I wish it was just about guns, as low-information voters seem to think. This is one issue where the pro-gun voters seem better informed on the complexities of the issue. The NRA supports "medical background checks", and a pro-gun splinter group by Larry Pratt was formed called something like "Concerned Gun Owners For America" and it got 2 million members by 2014.In the 2014 GOP primary, they ran ads against the then Republican Majority leader Eric Cantor of Culpeper, Virginia for (this isn't an exact quote) "voting for legislation which forced vets, who seek mental help, to loose their rights to own their gun". Cantor was defeated and I think it was a historic first for a Majority Leader to loose in the primary.I still wonder if the rifles won't be owned or easy to obtain. They are everywhere.

So much going on in those few words.1. The throw back image to the fantasy of the American Wild West. The cowboy strutting into town. Good guy/bad guy, black and white morality - all problems solved by the shoot-out. Freedom of action and honest, personal justice. Independence and power. Manliness and heroism.2. The total absurdity of it set inside a modern Western liberal democracy where the image is as disturburbung to an outsider as a razor blade in the hand of a baby. The fact that any other democratic country simply can not understand how anybody other than a policeman could concievably carry a loaded gun in public.3. The knowldege that this arcane cowboy image is creating a human catastrophy in the heart of an talismatic, Western society that really, really should know better.It's a real shame that the USA can't move on from its fantasy past - how can it be the model for the world to follow, when it's so fucked up?

(1) make background checks universal to reduce availability to the insane, people with a criminal record or on the terrorist list.(2) require brief course of instruction by seller on the proper use, storage and handling of the gun. If private sale there needs to be a witness.(3) require insurance with photo ID card to be carried that covers misuse, mishap, accidental discharge, liability, etc etc etc.(4) charge anyone who lends or secretly sells a gun with aiding and abetting a crime if the gun is used in one.This should not be a problem for legitimate, rational people.Enjoy

quote:

---

) make background checks universal to reduce availability to the insane, people with a criminal record or on the terrorist list.

---

You have no clue what "insane" means because you haven't read any pieces of legislation. It is just a soundbite. As insidious of a soundbite as they come too.And you might be on the terrorist list for all you know. 9/11 hero Willy Rodriguez saved 15 lives that day, and he found himself on the terror watch list when he attempted to board a plane. (the theory is that he was suspected of being a 9/11 Truther) (I'm not sure if he is a Truther btwAs for the "criminal record" part, who isn't a criminal in the USA? Most have used drugs (like pot), and some even get caught. Do drug users count? Or only if they were caught? What 25 year old males in Maryland who slept with the (perfectly) legal (in MD) 16 year old girlfriend? But federal law says it was illegal to even view nude 16 year olds. Should they register as sex offenders for violating federal law? I know of a case in Maryland (this was a former roommate) where a 30 year old guy slept with a 16 year old (he went out with her for many months till she was 17), and her father got pretty mad when he found out. My friend had to go before a judge. The Judge started the trial by asking the then 17 year old girl, "was it consensual". She simply said "yes" and the Judge immediately said "Case dismissed".Is the judge a party to a "federal sex crime"? Should he loose his gun rights and register as a "sex offender"?

I only asked a question about HIS analogy, and didn't get an answer, from him or you. If I "really" have trouble, it seems like you could have explained it easily and briefly. But I'll be glad to explain myself further, to make it easier for you.Let's have a look at how the word "analogy" is defined, then we'll take a more detailed look at Percy's analogy.From dictionary.com;

quote:

---

Analogy; a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:

---

The features of the two things of his analogy are;Good snow drivers feeling threatened by unqualified snow drivers, versus good gun owners (or non gun owners) feeling threatened by unqualified gun owners. Let's quote some of it, so you're absolutely clear on it so far. "IT'S THE SAME WITH GUNS". Did you get that part doctor? If you're afraid of incompetent drivers, you "keep your eyes open and your wits about you". In other words, it's YOUR job to avoid the danger you perceive. If it were the same with guns, it would also be YOUR job to avoid the danger you perceive, like getting your own gun and learning how to use it, or move to a safe place that has lots of gun control, like Chicago. But he didn't say that, lets look at what he followed that up with; Own guns? Ownership? What did he say about the ownership of cars? The features of the analogy aren't the same, are they doctor? Are you still with me, or have I lost you? Just like the easier it is to own and drive cars in the snow makes it more possible that the other guy coming toward you down the street is someone who by all judgment should not be driving that car? No, he didn't say that! Most in the U.S. logically believe that the best comparison to "keeping your wits about you as you go about your daily business" concerning a fear of crazies with guns, means owning your own gun and learning how to use it. But he followed it up with something completely different; Increasing and strengthening government control has nothing to do with personally "keeping your wits about you", or looking out for yourself, as his analogy suggests. So there's little, if any similarity of the features of the two things, as the official definition of the word "analogy" states. No one seriously believes that more gun control is going to magically eliminate the need to be wary of a crazy with a gun, anymore than current recreational drug laws eliminate the need to be wary of a dope head driving in the snow. But his post didn't address the possibility of more government action concerning snow driving, and my question about that went unanswered. So I have no evidence that that was a good analogy.So that's my trouble with analogies, doctor. When they're poorly presented, too briefly presented, and questions about them aren't answered. Now you can display YOUR trouble with analogies, and we'll compare.

At least a 2-1 ratio.
Around 30,000 per year verses 15,000.Lets obsess over automotive accidents then.I worry about staph infections ALOT (gotten them in multiple places). Those kill 23,000 people in the U.S. per year and God help us if there is no last line antibiotic to use. China has seen a monumental increase in anti-biotic resistant bacteria."Culture war" bias is driving this issue. Not the evidence.

Have you got any ideas as to how to reduce the rate of automobile accidents that we're not already doing? Again, it would be nice to hear your suggestions.

I can see what your trouble is.