Summations Only

You may think that but Tangle's point is that the statistics prove you completely wrong.

No, they remain routinely unarmed now. As per the 2006 survey DrA cited police officers themselves prefer it this way.We civilians don't have guns and nor typically do the police.

The point you keep missing with regard to suicide is that the more convenient to kill oneself it is the more people actually go through with it. The stats tell us that people do NOT, as you keep insisting, just find other methods. It seems that even a minor inconvenience such as opening individually wrapped pills gives people enough time to reconsider.The stats suggest that most suicides are not dedicated attempts to kill oneself but impulsive and short lived moments of despair.Thus having deadly weapons to hand leads to more suicides. It's obvious really.And as for the ropes and cars and buildings etc - This is an idiotic comparison that Percy has already comprehensively addressed.

Do you now understand that the evidence contradicts your assertions regarding suicide and that you have been factually wrong on this point? For fucks sake. Which part of this are you failing to understand?The evidence tells us that somebody with a suicidal impulse and a gun to hand is far more likely to actually kill themselves than if they don't have a gun to hand and they have to find other means. Which part of this is confusing you?And as for guns saving lives - Again the stats are against you. If guns made you safer the US would be the safest nation in the world. It isn't. Statistically you are more likely to use a gun against yourself or a family member than against anyone else. How is that making anyone safer?By your logic the UK where even the police don't generally have guns would be more dangerous than the US. Do you want to compare international homicide rates?

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.

You still aren't getting it are you.The evidence tells us that if you make a common method of suicide more difficult then suicide rates overall go down.Statistically it is just untrue that people, as you have repeatedly asserted, 'just find another way'. Some do find another way but many do not. So th evidence tells us. This is the first time I have seen you even remotely acknowledge that your 'find another way' position is restricted to those "determined" to kill themselves. Do you now accept the evidence showing that if a common method of suicide is made less convenient that suicide rates overall go down, that less people kill themselves? Do you accept that or not? The evidence regarding suicide is just one part of the evidence pertaining to how a lessened ease of access to guns would save lives.Another argument you are yet to even consider is the statistical fact that these objects, which are supposedly used for protection, are far more likely to be used on oneself or a family member than against any attacker. I know from past experience (here at EvC and in the 'real world') that talking to pro-gun Americans about guns is like people talking two different languages that sound alike but which aren't actually the same. It's like you guys have a totally different concept of "freedom" and "rights" to that which I, and I would argue a most of the rest of the developed world, subscribe to on the issue. For example - I recently heard about a school in the US doing 'gun drills'. Little kids aged 6, 7, 8 etc. being trained what to do in the event of a crazed gunman entering their school and shooting people. I was aghast. To me, where the biggest parental concern at my kids school this term has been an outbreak of headlice, the idea that this is any sort of "freedom" I want is just inconceivable. To me the freedom for this sort of thing to NOT remotely be a factor in the life of me or my family is so overwhelmingly more important as to completely trump this notion of freedom for everyone to have guns that you seem to hold so dearly. I honestly don't get how living in a society where little kids have to be drilled on how to avoid being shot at school can possibly make you more free than I......The pro-gun American I was talking to about this at work simply said "vigilance is the price of freedom" (or words to that effect)I have to admit I simply find that stance unfathomable.

The argument raised by Tangle involving suicide is the very opposite of an assertion. It's the evidenced conclusion. Now that you seem to have finally grasped what is actually being said about suicide rates overall going down when a common method of suicide is made more inconvenient why don't you go back to [Msg=4539] and follow the chain of posts.Once you have done that you can then present your own evidence in support of your contrary position.If you can't provide evidence then I'm afraid it's you who is making assertions and who is in denial of evidence.

To answer your question will obviously involve a fair amount of estimation. But as a starting point consider the following: LinkAccording to wiki there were 38,364 suicides in the US in 2010.According to the NRA about half US households own a gun. A 2010 Gallup poll suggested a figure of about 40%Putting all that together gives a figure of between 10,500 and 13,500 reduction in suicides per year.Total 'back of a fag packet' calculation but I'm not sure how else this could be estimated. Happy to see a better method of estimation.

It's always struck me as ironic that those who most fanatically cite protecting the US from some sort of tyrannical regime as a reason to have guns are also the most likely to use violence to overthrow (or attempt to overthrow) democratically elected governance that they disagree with.I'm not a US citizen, I don't share the reverence that many US citizens hold for the US constitution (with sufficient political will any law can be changed, especially one called an "amendment") and I obviously don't share the historical cultural perspective that leads one to consider guns specifically as a symbol of liberty. So unsurprisingly option 2 makes more sense to me. But looking at the wording you cite the specific reference to suppressing insurrections seems most relevant to the question you ask.

You asked the question:

quote:

---

If we actually have a real ban on guns (which isn't on any agenda in the real world of American politics), including total 100% confiscation, then how many suicides will go down according to the studies?

---

How did you expect that to be answered other than in terms of an estimate based on the available data? Sadly true. But that was the question you asked. Huh? I assume you have data to back this claim up? International comparisons showing a link between gun control laws and the number of children on psychotic drugs in different nations, for example? Strangely that is pretty much how the rest of the developed world sees the American view of guns. Particularly when we see yet another unnecessary mass shooting involving little kids and suchlike and then see the interviews of people proclaiming that what is needed in response are more guns, armed primary school teachers and the bizarre notion that the need for relentless vigilance and locking oneself away behind ever more security is somehow a symbol of Liberty and freedom. The pro-gun US response to the sort of mass shootings that are depressingly regular in the US but once in a generation events elsewhere in the developed world just leaves the rest of the world looking at you guys and your nutty relationship with guns in bewilderment.

Likewise I clicked the link and started trying to work out what the proposed action or point of discussion was, but gave up when it wasn't clear what point CS is attempting to make.

I know that isnt on the political agenda but that was the question you specifically put forward. If you had asked a different question I would have given a different answer.