On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:44:18 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/21/2015 3:22 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 12:18:26 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/21/2015 9:16 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 07:38:19 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 1:32 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:56:33 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 10:43 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:24:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 7/20/2015 8:52 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 18:47:16 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

Disregarding that something like half the deaths attributed to guns
seem to be people committing suicide.

Who's disregarding it?

Although I suspect that if they
can't get a gun they will take to jumping from high buildings and
bridges, or even suicide by automobile. Just drive down the highway
and straight into the bridge abutment.

Ya' never know. But maybe you'd like to try researching that one
before "suspecting."

Best to ask those who committed suicide by gun if they would have killed
themselves by another means if a gun had not been available.

Another way is to see how many times they failed at other methods. For
example, my former college roommate, who became schizophrenic at age
22. He tried running his car into a ditch on I-96. That didn't work.
So he stole a semi and tried driving it into a bridge on I-80 in
Pennsylvania. No luck.

So, one day in 1979, living in Daytona Beach, he bought a .38 Spl. S&W
revolver, put it to his head, and finally had success. One wonders how
it would have gone if we had a background-check system in place then.

Dan was basically kicked out of the mental-health system, with no one
to keep track of his meds. He quit taking them. Whether he would have
been rescued if he had another failure is problematic. Not only do we
have a mental health system that leaks like a sieve, but nobody seems
to care, either.

You're dismissing the question out of ignorance, David.

Not really, two good friends of mine, both bi-polar, killed themselves
when at the bottom of their mood swings, one by sitting in a car in a
closed garage with the engine running, the other w/ a .38 Spl S&W. I had
refused to sell her a gun some time before.

So I know something of this. In both cases, this was the first attempt
that I know of. Neither had had any history that would have precluded
buying a gun. The use of a gun was irrelevant to the result.

So why did you ask the nonsense question about querying them after
they're dead? That was the idiot remark.


About 50% of US suicides are by gun in the US, with about 24% by hanging.

So how many would we have if there weren't any guns?


Japan has a suicide rate about 2-1/2 as high as the US, with hanging at
about 50%. Somehow they manage to do it w/o guns.

And the Philiippines have a rate that's 1/4 of ours. What conclusion
do you draw from this?

The obvious one: guns don't cause the suicide rate to be what it is.

There is no connection that you could make.

It's an obvious connection, nsf eddy, but it's apparently too subtle for
you.

So where's the subtlety? Tell us about the "connection" you've made.
Then I'll show you the stats that shoot it to hell.

Deal?

There is no connection. Between countries, suicide rates vary hugely.
Within the US, there is no doubt that a large part of our suicide rate
is the result of the easy availability of guns. No doubt at all.

Of course there's doubt, nsf eddy.

Nope.

You don't have any way of knowing
what those who use guns would do if guns weren't available.

Yeah, we know quite accurately what the failure rates are by method,
and what happens to people after they fail. I've posted most of the
numbers here today.

Well, we
*do* know: they would commit suicide by some other means, because
access to the gun is not what drives the suicide.

No, THAT's what we know is NOT the case.

You can search on some of the quotes I've posted to see how thoroughly
this has been researched. That is, unless you're not really
interested.

--
Ed Huntress