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.
And it's Wikipedia. You can feel free to update the graph to include more recent years yourself if that's what you want.
That way you can take an active role instead of sitting back and telling everyone else that they're wrong.
I took an active role and provided a 2013 CDC link is earlier post duh. What the poster you are attempting to defend did is offer up some ancient tampered graph. If he was truly serious he would have linked the source from where it originated. Also why does he insist on using data for 1999? That data (assuming it is correct) is nearly two decades old!!!
Personally I rather get my information from the Center of Disease Control. Why are you using data that is over a decade old?
The source for that graph is the CDC and trends like that are not going to change much in decade. If you have something that says otherwise please lets see it.
Another example of someone reading what they WANT to read instead of what someone else actually wrote.
Let's process this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
Would not a person who is mentally unstable and commits suicide by one means, use another means if the original means were not available to them? Ever heard of intentional overdose? Your argument doesn't fly.
For starters the statement is totally incoherent. How can a mentally unstable person who decides to commit suicide (which means that he or she killed themselves) and then later that same person who just committed suicide decides to use another method of killing themselves? Did the poster mean intentional overdose which is still suicide? Or was it a typo and they meant unintentional overdose? Either way it is still confusing.
Would not a person who is mentally unstable and commits suicide by one means, use another means if the original means were not available to them? Ever heard of intentional overdose? Your argument doesn't fly.
For starters the statement is totally incoherent. How can a mentally unstable person who decides to commit suicide (which means that he or she killed themselves) and then later that same person who just committed suicide decides to use another method of killing themselves? Did the poster mean intentional overdose which is still suicide? Or was it a typo and they meant unintentional overdose? Either way it is still confusing.
It's not confusing at all to me. It's quite clear, really. Perhaps if you took a moment to re-read it, it would become clear to you too.
If not, here's how the narrative seems to work:
1. Person is determined to commit suicide
2. Person has many options to commit suicide (A, B, C, D, etc)
3. Person chooses option A to commit suicide, result is death.
4. Had option A not been available, Person would have substituted options B, C, D, etc. Same result.
And instead of asking what they meant, you changed what they wrote and attacked that instead (intentional overdose vs unintentional overdose).
If messages like that aren't clear to you, I think it's pretty important for you to provide your own analysis with CDC data for us to review. There might be some improvements we can suggest to your analysis so we can all better find a way to reduce gun violence.
It's not confusing at all to me. It's quite clear, really. Perhaps if you took a moment to re-read it, it would become clear to you too.
If not, here's how the narrative seems to work:
1. Person is determined to commit suicide
2. Person has many options to commit suicide (A, B, C, D, etc)
3. Person chooses option A to commit suicide, result is death.
4. Had option A not been available, Person would have substituted options B, C, D, etc. Same result.
And instead of asking what they meant, you changed what they wrote and attacked that instead (intentional overdose vs unintentional overdose).
If messages like that aren't clear to you, I think it's pretty important for you to provide your own analysis with CDC data for us to review. There might be some improvements we can suggest to your analysis so we can all better find a way to reduce gun violence.
The point was suicide by firearm not other available suicide options. Capisce? The poster was attempting to move the goal post to drive home their narrative. Speaking of narratives, let's be frank. The only reason you chimed in on the post is because you falsely think I'm a gun control advocate. You don't give a crap about firearm suicides. You are pro gun advocate arguing with someone who isn't against gun owner rights.
This is true. South Korea has a gun ownership rate that is 1% of the USA but a suicide rate 2.5 times the USA.
Obviously guns are not the problem.
when you include suicide into the numbers, Japan has a gun ownership rate the almost does not exist. but including suicide as murder, their murder rate is just about equal to the USA's.
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.
