Seli Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 You may be right. Hell, your administration was in the business of selling them instead of banning them I think we have sold guns to the revolutionaries in the colonies during the late 1700's. But that is so long ago I can hardly claim it is my administration, and the need to form coalition governments in the past centuries makes claiming any government as 'mine' a long shot as well. It does not--at least not the point with which I'm taking issue. You're using correlative data to establish causation, despite the study you offered suggesting that Gun owners were not more suicidal. So this: ... Please read it again. Because you don't seem to read what that text actually says. ie: 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. or again: but can be explained by easy access to a gun. Which is the actual causation I am talking about. ... Would I be correct in assuming that you seek to reduce the number of suicides through a gun ban? Nope. I am arguing many people in the USA would be safer if guns were better controlled, storage requirements were more stringent, accountability was higher, and when the current attitude to guns would change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I was referring to the Mexican cartels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 I was referring to the Mexican cartels What does the Dutch government have to do with that? ps Iran-Contra isn't a thing anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 ps Iran-Contra isn't a thing anymore? It hasn't been since the hagiographic re-writing of the Reagan era and the sanctification of North. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theprincethatwasntpromised Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 What does the Dutch government have to do with that? ps Iran-Contra isn't a thing anymore?I was referring to the US justice department. And the resulting cover up. I'm generally concerned about my own country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Which is the actual causation I am talking about. Yes, high rates of suicide have been correlated with the ease of access to a gun. I'm not disputing that part of your citation. However, the data which you've cited does not suggest having a gun causes suicide or increases the death count. Which is inconsistent with: Because it seems that in both cases the presence of a gun lowers the barrier to action, and increases the effect of the action. and: Read that again, since it does support my point. Gun owners are not more suicidal, but (successful) suicides are more prevalent amongst them. Which supports that easy access to a tool that will end life near instantaneously increases the death toll. One is a correlation between the access to a firearm and the suicide rate. Your argument is suggesting that ease of access will cause an increase in the death count. That's not what your citations suggest. The citations argue an increase "risk factor," not the increase of an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 ... One is a correlation between the access to a firearm and the suicide rate. Your argument is suggesting that ease of access will cause an increase in the death count. That's not what your citations suggest. The citations argue an increase "risk factor," not the increase of an effect. Ehh, that is exactly what "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" means. That is causation. The increased risk factor is a way to express that causation statistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Fixit Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Ah. Episode III: The Return of Nitpicking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fallen Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 The Queen of Semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athias Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Ehh, that is exactly what "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" means. That is causation. The increased risk factor is a way to express that causation statistically. Before I advance this discussion, let me ask you Seli, what do you think they mean by suicide rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.