Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the saying goes, not everyone plans to shoot themselves with their own gun, but we all get the blues from time to time.
To think that someone makes the weighty decision to take his own life, yet is stopped by the availability or lack thereof of a particular instrument, is nonsensical on its face. It's like saying someone didn't get married and have kids because they couldn't get their hands on a suitable wedding ring.
Japan has all but eliminated guns, to the point where there Olympic athletes in shooting sports have to go offshore to practice. They have a higher suicide rate than the US. Israel is awash in guns, and has a lower suicide rate than the US.
This is a misleading comparison. First, population skews the numbers; the U.S. has 320 million people, while Norway has around 5.1 million, Switzerland has 8.2 million, and Finland has 5.4 million. Hence, by virtue of the U.S. having so many residents, of course the per capita number will be lower.
Second, when was the last time there was a mass shooting in Switzerland or Finland? The latest incident I can find from Switzerland was the Zug massacre of 2001, and as for Finland, the Kauhajoki school shooting in 2008. For that matter, I haven't heard anything out of Norway since the Breivik shootings in 2011. Meanwhile, since that time in the U.S., we've had the tragedies of Sandy Hook ES, Aurora, and Charleston, not to mention various other mass shootings.
The topic title means absolutely nothing because it is factually misleading. I'm not any safer in the U.S. compared to Switzerland, Norway, and Finland just because we apparently have a lower number of mass shootings per capita!
It is the number used in the article, if you want you can try to figure out where their number comes from, but I would bet the number that you will find will probably be pretty close to that. Mass shootings have become an American pastime this century.
Well I tried and couldn't find their criterion for inclusion as a mass shooting, I'm highly skeptical when Mother Jones is only stating 70 since 1985 with published selection criteria. That number is more than double MJ's analysis for less than half the time period. If it was some NRA number then sure my skepticism would be less, but MJ isn't known for it's gun owning sympathies.
To think that someone makes the weighty decision to take his own life, yet is stopped by the availability or lack thereof of a particular instrument, is nonsensical on its face. It's like saying someone didn't get married and have kids because they couldn't get their hands on a suitable wedding ring.
Japan has all but eliminated guns, to the point where there Olympic athletes in shooting sports have to go offshore to practice. They have a higher suicide rate than the US. Israel is awash in guns, and has a lower suicide rate than the US.
There are around 11 suicide survivals for each suicide attempt and we have around 40,000 suicides total per year, that is not the case for guns where the survival rate is only 10 %. The instrument used is very important, and it is complicated but the more deadly the instrument the lower the survival.
There are around 11 suicide survivals for each suicide attempt and we have around 40,000 suicides total per year, that is not the case for guns where the survival rate is only 10 %. The instrument used is very important, and it is complicated but the more deadly the instrument the lower the survival.
The instrument chosen just might be a function of whether the individual has some wish to survive. Again there are virtually no guns in Japan, yet there is a higher suicide rate in Japan than in the US.
There are around 11 suicide survivals for each suicide attempt and we have around 40,000 suicides total per year, that is not the case for guns where the survival rate is only 10 %. The instrument used is very important, and it is complicated but the more deadly the instrument the lower the survival.
Well, are they truly suicide survivals, or not truly suicide attempts? Not all people who go through the motions of a suicide attempt intend to end their existence.
I've lived with someone who on a regular basis attempted suicide, but the attempts were not intended to cause death (they all were performed in ways that had a very high chance of detection and saving, for example getting into a full bath with the water still running and swallowing a bottle of Valium), every 2-3 months they'd get a ride to the ER and a few days of observation. I also knew someone who did commit suicide, it was a one attempt deal and there was no way that anyone was going to save them (he convinced his family to go visit with their parents for a week, he took the week as vacation too, and second day away he took a nice warm bath at an estimated time of 11:30pm with a bottle of Jack, some anti-coagulants, and a razor blade).
I'm pretty much guessing that people who don't want to kill themselves probably don't choose guns as their method of not killing themselves (except the truly stupid). That will skew the figures to methods that are less guaranteed for success as being less successful.
Well I tried and couldn't find their criterion for inclusion as a mass shooting, I'm highly skeptical when Mother Jones is only stating 70 since 1985 with published selection criteria. That number is more than double MJ's analysis for less than half the time period. If it was some NRA number then sure my skepticism would be less, but MJ isn't known for it's gun owning sympathies.
Interesting reading (NOTE: not mass shootings per se, but active shooter events). Leads to the question what's fueling the increase, it's clearly not guns, since the laws have not changed significantly between the first half of the term of the study and the second half of the study, and the average number of casualties per event has not increased, lowest casualties per event was 2010 with 3.3 average casualties per event 2013 and 2004 coming joint second with 5.0, highest casualties per event was 2012 with 9.9 but close second was 2007 with 9.0, 2011 with 8.4 and 2001 to 2003 with 7.0 or more. Casualties are not fatalities but combined fatalities and injuries. Fatalities per event haven't significantly increased either, high was 2000 with 7, low was 2010 with 1.4, the rest of the years range from 4.9 to 2.0 with no specific pattern (for instance there was not a sudden increase in 2003 when the AWB sunsetted).
My only question is, how do you define success? What do you consider an appropriate balance between freedom and public safety, in which no further action would be acceptable? Is there ever a point in which you would say that no more laws would be necessary? Is there ever a point in which, as Obama said, it would be sufficient to just grieve and not pursue further legislation? Is there ever going to be a shooting where you don't want to "re-examine" the gun laws in this country?
This is why staunch defenders of gun rights are reluctant to give an inch. Because we see that there is never going to be a point in which you agree that no further laws should be considered. Even if we had passed all the laws after Sandy Hook; AWB, Background checks, magazine limit..... this shooting would have still happened, and you'd want even more laws now.
Interesting reading (NOTE: not mass shootings per se, but active shooter events). Leads to the question what's fueling the increase, it's clearly not guns, since the laws have not changed significantly between the first half of the term of the study and the second half of the study, and the average number of casualties per event has not increased, lowest casualties per event was 2010 with 3.3 average casualties per event 2013 and 2004 coming joint second with 5.0, highest casualties per event was 2012 with 9.9 but close second was 2007 with 9.0, 2011 with 8.4 and 2001 to 2003 with 7.0 or more. Casualties are not fatalities but combined fatalities and injuries. Fatalities per event haven't significantly increased either, high was 2000 with 7, low was 2010 with 1.4, the rest of the years range from 4.9 to 2.0 with no specific pattern (for instance there was not a sudden increase in 2003 when the AWB sunsetted).
Thanks for the report, it's interesting reading.
That is some interesting data, I will definitely have to read over it tonight, I am curious what it said. It is still unsettling to know that many active shooter events have happened in this country over such a short period of time, it is something that we should really be addressing because these kinds of things shouldn't be this common.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
