On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our "discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the facts.

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/16/2015 10:04 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our "discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

Ha ha ha ha ha! "Demonstrably" - what a demonstrated pile of bull****
*that* is.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

-jsw

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to 3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban–rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95% CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
news:egaiva1s5hl07fr9fvi2qirmm9ob983t0g@4ax. com...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

On 9/16/2015 4:48 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

He doesn't really have any objection to suicide; it's just his stalking
horse for attacking gun ownership.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
om:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
news:egaiva1s5hl07fr9fvi2qirmm9ob983t0g@4ax .com...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

"The adolescent and young-adult suicide rate in the United States was
almost twice as high in rural settings than in urban areas between
1996 and 2010, and new research suggests that the gap appears to be
widening.

"Of the nearly 67,000 suicides analyzed, the rate of suicide for both
males and females living in rural areas was about double the rate in
cities.

"The research, published in JAMA Pediatrics, also showed that gun use
has decreased and that hanging has become a more common method of
youth suicide for both males and females. Suicide rates by firearm and
hanging were both disproportionately higher in rural areas than in
urban regions for both sexes."

Maybe rural kids have too much access to rope, too. d8-)


Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

See above.


http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

Fetal suicides are very rare.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:05:11 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 4:48 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

He doesn't really have any objection to suicide; it's just his stalking
horse for attacking gun ownership.

As a gun owner for 56 years, my objection, as it has always been, is
to gun nutz' denial and stupidity.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
om:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
news:egaiva1s5hl07fr9fvi2qirmm9ob983t0g@4ax .com...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?



Gun ownership seems to have very little relationship with suicide
rates other than possibly as a method.

The U.S. with a private ownership of firearms of 88.8/100 residents
has a suicide rate of 12.1/100,000 residents. Japan, with a gun
ownership of 0.6/100 residents has a suicide rate of 19.4/100,000 and
Korea with a gun ownership of 1.1/100 has a suicide rate of
24.7/100,000.

As for method, this seems likely to be based primarily on
availability. For example, suicide by drinking insecticides is fairly
common in developing countries where small scale farming is very
common and far less common in developed countries where agriculture is
usually confined to large scale farming is practiced.
--
cheers,

John B.

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

Give it up, liar.

On 9/16/2015 7:16 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

Why do more urban than rural dwellers leap from tall buildings?

Why do suburbanites veer into oncoming traffic?

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ide-rates.html
"In 2010 there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and
38,364 suicides."

If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?



Gun ownership seems to have very little relationship with suicide
rates other than possibly as a method.

The U.S. with a private ownership of firearms of 88.8/100 residents
has a suicide rate of 12.1/100,000 residents. Japan, with a gun
ownership of 0.6/100 residents has a suicide rate of 19.4/100,000 and
Korea with a gun ownership of 1.1/100 has a suicide rate of
24.7/100,000.

Guns do not cause people to become suicidal, and thus, guns do not cause
suicide. People who become suicidal and who have access to guns are
more likely to succeed in committing suicide, but Japan and Korea
clearly show that access to a gun is not the controlling factor.

As for method, this seems likely to be based primarily on
availability. For example, suicide by drinking insecticides is fairly
common in developing countries where small scale farming is very
common and far less common in developed countries where agriculture is
usually confined to large scale farming is practiced.
--
cheers,

John B.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

......
If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

Fetal suicides are very rare.

--
Ed Huntress

I should have asked if NH is a shrinking island in a flood of
insanity.

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison. If I compared our gun homicide
rates with Japan you'd be laughing your ass off. So when you compare
our suicide rates, it's equally laughable.

The relationship of guns to suicide is that they are so much more
effective, quicker, and easier than most other methods, that they
lower the threshhold for committing suicide.

There's no argument about this, only denials and obfuscation.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:08:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

......
If you support abortion then what's the problem with suicide?

Fetal suicides are very rare.

--
Ed Huntress

I should have asked if NH is a shrinking island in a flood of
insanity.

You ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
"Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society
is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate
in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher
in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the
US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison. If I compared our gun homicide
rates with Japan you'd be laughing your ass off. So when you compare
our suicide rates, it's equally laughable.

The relationship of guns to suicide is that they are so much more
effective, quicker, and easier than most other methods, that they
lower the threshhold for committing suicide.

There's no argument about this, only denials and obfuscation.

--
Ed Huntress

You argue like a shrewd lawyer when you have facts on your side, but
like a shameless snake oil huckster when you don't.

-jsw

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:45:52 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns
"Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society
is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate
in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher
in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the
US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison. If I compared our gun homicide
rates with Japan you'd be laughing your ass off. So when you compare
our suicide rates, it's equally laughable.

The relationship of guns to suicide is that they are so much more
effective, quicker, and easier than most other methods, that they
lower the threshhold for committing suicide.

There's no argument about this, only denials and obfuscation.

--
Ed Huntress

You argue like a shrewd lawyer when you have facts on your side, but
like a shameless snake oil huckster when you don't.

-jsw

I don't argue unless I've checked my facts first for accuracy. It's
the same way I write articles for publication.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

Amen, Jim! Ol' Weird Ed doesn't ACK the fact that most gun crime in
the USA is committed by gang members. Separate suicides and gang
crimes from the gun death figures and you have a number which is in
line with most other countries.

Democrats won't control this because these urban ghetto gang members
repeatedly vote _with_ the Democrats.

--
I merely took the energy it takes to pout and wrote some blues.
--Duke Ellington

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-4, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
The relationship of guns to suicide is that they are so much more
effective, quicker, and easier than most other methods, that they
lower the threshhold for committing suicide.

There's no argument about this, only denials and obfuscation.

You argue like a shrewd lawyer when you have facts

And you don't?

(you opened yourself up to that one)

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 07:05:59 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
m:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
news:egaiva1s5hl07fr9fvi2qirmm9ob983t0g@4ax. com...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says. That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

Amen, Jim! Ol' Weird Ed doesn't ACK the fact that most gun crime in
the USA is committed by gang members.

As usual, Larry, you're full of ****.

"The number of homicides...involving adult or juvenile gang violence
increased from about 220 homicides in 1980 to 960 homicides in 2008.
Gang violence accounted for 1% of all homicides in 1980 and 6% of all
homicides in 2008...Gun involvement in gang related homicides
increased from 73% in 1980 to 92% in 2008" -- "Homicide Trends in the
United States, 1980-2008." --DoJ, Bureau of Justice Statistics

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

So, as of 2008, there were fewer than 1,000 gang-related homicides,
92% of them gun related. There were more homicides in Texas than all
of the gang-related homicides in the entire U.S. The number committed
with guns is almost the same: Texas, 805. All of the gang-related gun
murders in all of the U.S.: 883.

When you live on bull****, Larry, you become a target for every
crackpot who can make your knee jerk. You are SO gullible.

Separate suicides and gang
crimes from the gun death figures and you have a number which is in
line with most other countries.

More bull****. Jesus, you're full of it.


Democrats won't control this because these urban ghetto gang members
repeatedly vote _with_ the Democrats.

Ghetto gang members vote? You have some evidence of this, of course?
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/17/2015 8:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

The **** you didn't make that claim, liar. You did it repeatedly in
July in the thread "Philadelphia man murdered by 13 and 14 year old
black teens".

We keep coming back to the undeniable *fact* that access to guns is not
what makes people become suicidal in the first place.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:26:21 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 8:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

The **** you didn't make that claim, liar.

I should have done this a long time ago. You win an award for being
one of the most disgusting, lying, slandering jerks on here, and you
have NO reason whatsoever to be on a metalworking group.

plonk

--
Ed Huntress

On 9/17/2015 10:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 10:26:21 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 8:59 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.


The **** you didn't make that claim, liar. You did it repeatedly in
July in the thread "Philadelphia man murdered by 13 and 14 year old
black teens".

We keep coming back to the undeniable *fact* that access to guns is not
what makes people become suicidal in the first place.

I should have done this a long time ago. You win an award for being
one of the most disgusting, lying, slandering jerks on here, and you
have NO reason whatsoever to be on a metalworking group.

plonk

nsf eddy raises the white surrender flag. LOL!

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital" can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance EMTs
aren't authorized to.

-jsw

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital" can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill patients, is a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units. Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of
bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest
gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of
whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for
them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You
know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do
not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to
become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United
States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts
and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence
that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with
suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital" can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance
EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill patients, is
a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units. Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or
psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw


At home a patient can have a month's supply (IIRC) of each mail-order
prescription, plus what they've squirreled away by not taking it all.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-top...se-death-rates

Over 20,000 suicides per year from prescribed medication! Removing
their guns won't stop them.

In a managed facility they receive only one dose at a time and take it
under supervision. The staff is supposed to be alert for suicidal
patients and give them no opportunities.

Satisfied?

-jsw

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:29 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of
bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest
gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of
whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for
them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You
know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do
not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to
become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United
States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts
and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence
that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with
suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital" can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance
EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill patients, is
a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units. Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or
psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw


At home a patient can have a month's supply (IIRC) of each mail-order
prescription, plus what they've squirreled away by not taking it all.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-top...se-death-rates

Over 20,000 suicides per year from prescribed medication! Removing
their guns won't stop them.

No, that's total deaths, not suicides. The number of suicides is
closer to 4,000.

For 2011, there were 41,149 suicides in the US. The number commited
with firearms was 21,175. Suffocation, 10,162. All poisoning,
including alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs, other poisons, and
combinations, 6,637.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

A study of just drugs and alcohol, conducted in 2005 - 2007, showed
greader detail. Of 26,902, total suicides from all causes that were
studied, 3,708 total (8% of males and 34% of females) died from
alcohol or drug overdose, including illegal drugs (a small
percentage). That study didn't count other poisons, gases, etc.

(pdf -- National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Suicides
Due to Alcohol and/or Drug Overdose)


In a managed facility they receive only one dose at a time and take it
under supervision. The staff is supposed to be alert for suicidal
patients and give them no opportunities.

Satisfied?

I am after double-checking your claims against the CDC data, which
shows that your claims are inaccurate.

--
Ed Huntress



-jsw

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:29 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:mnolva1bs207mugnjleqj9plfokfplnsek@4ax. com...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in
our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people
discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of
bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest
gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of
whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination
to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for
them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You
know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated
in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable
or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that
rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate
50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95%
confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate
of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the
most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun
ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do
not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to
become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed
countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access
to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause
suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of
the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that
guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United
States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have
much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We
do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts
and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence
that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with
suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a
medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital"
can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance
EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill patients,
is
a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units.
Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In
addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or
psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based
suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw


At home a patient can have a month's supply (IIRC) of each
mail-order
prescription, plus what they've squirreled away by not taking it
all.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-top...se-death-rates

Over 20,000 suicides per year from prescribed medication! Removing
their guns won't stop them.

No, that's total deaths, not suicides. The number of suicides is
closer to 4,000.

For 2011, there were 41,149 suicides in the US. The number commited
with firearms was 21,175. Suffocation, 10,162. All poisoning,
including alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs, other poisons,
and
combinations, 6,637.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

A study of just drugs and alcohol, conducted in 2005 - 2007, showed
greader detail. Of 26,902, total suicides from all causes that were
studied, 3,708 total (8% of males and 34% of females) died from
alcohol or drug overdose, including illegal drugs (a small
percentage). That study didn't count other poisons, gases, etc.

(pdf -- National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Suicides
Due to Alcohol and/or Drug Overdose)


In a managed facility they receive only one dose at a time and take
it
under supervision. The staff is supposed to be alert for suicidal
patients and give them no opportunities.

Satisfied?

I am after double-checking your claims against the CDC data, which
shows that your claims are inaccurate.

--
Ed Huntress

Understand that they have no idea how many who "died in the hospital
from heart failure after a long illness" were drug suicides.
Practically everyone dies from "heart failure" of some sort, and
reported suicide may void life insurance benefit claims.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/life/...ife-insurance/

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:56:56 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:29 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:mnolva1bs207mugnjleqj9plfokfplnsek@4ax .com...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in
our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people
discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of
bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest
gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of
whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination
to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for
them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You
know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated
in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable
or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that
rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate
50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95%
confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate
of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the
most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun
ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do
not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to
become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed
countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access
to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause
suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of
the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that
guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United
States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have
much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities. We
do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair lifts
and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence
that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with
suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a
medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital"
can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the ambulance
EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill patients,
is
a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units.
Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In
addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or
psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based
suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw


At home a patient can have a month's supply (IIRC) of each
mail-order
prescription, plus what they've squirreled away by not taking it
all.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-top...se-death-rates

Over 20,000 suicides per year from prescribed medication! Removing
their guns won't stop them.

No, that's total deaths, not suicides. The number of suicides is
closer to 4,000.

For 2011, there were 41,149 suicides in the US. The number commited
with firearms was 21,175. Suffocation, 10,162. All poisoning,
including alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs, other poisons,
and
combinations, 6,637.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

A study of just drugs and alcohol, conducted in 2005 - 2007, showed
greader detail. Of 26,902, total suicides from all causes that were
studied, 3,708 total (8% of males and 34% of females) died from
alcohol or drug overdose, including illegal drugs (a small
percentage). That study didn't count other poisons, gases, etc.

(pdf -- National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Suicides
Due to Alcohol and/or Drug Overdose)


In a managed facility they receive only one dose at a time and take
it
under supervision. The staff is supposed to be alert for suicidal
patients and give them no opportunities.

Satisfied?

I am after double-checking your claims against the CDC data, which
shows that your claims are inaccurate.

--
Ed Huntress

Understand that they have no idea how many who "died in the hospital
from heart failure after a long illness" were drug suicides.
Practically everyone dies from "heart failure" of some sort, and
reported suicide may void life insurance benefit claims.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/life/...ife-insurance/


Did you read that? It gives no indication at all that what you're
saying is correct. Even if it was, you're talking about perhaps a few
percent of all suicides.

I'll stick with the CDC figures. There's no question when someone has
a bullet hole through his head.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:56:56 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:29 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:s0tlvahsmtv0rotfla205jap4i0d6ti6mb@4ax. com...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:51:41 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news:mnolva1bs207mugnjleqj9plfokfplnsek@4a x.com...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in
talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal
discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in
our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people
discuss
with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns,
we
don't
all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I
think)
says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an
armed
society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of
bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest
gun-crime
rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of
whom
appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for
shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little
inclination
to
discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for
them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this.
You
know
the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated
in
urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are
unable
or
unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their
bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that
rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban
lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate
50%
higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999
assigned
to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and
an
11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95%
confidence
interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate
of
the
most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced
1.54
(95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the
most
urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun
ownership
reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the
facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns
do
not
cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to
become
suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide
rate
than
the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed
countries
with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access
to
guns
does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause
suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of
the
US,
and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that
guns
"cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United
States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with
higher
rates
of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

--
Ed Huntress

As your Governor recently pointed out, those rural areas have
much
less local access to hospitals and extended-care facilities.
We
do
have substantial support for home care.
http://www.centralvna.org/

I worked in that field for a while, installing home stair
lifts
and
repairing power wheelchairs.

-jsw

It isn't clear what relevance this has. Is there some evidence
that
the relative rates of medical care is somehow involved with
suicide
rates? Or, what is it you're saying?

--
Ed Huntress

I was wondering if I'd have to explain to you that access to
one's
guns or numerous other means is far easier at home than in a
medical
facility.

Medical statistics obscure the situation. "Died in the hospital"
can
cover being pronounced dead there by a doctor since the
ambulance
EMTs
aren't authorized to.

A very imaginative red herring! g

"Suicide, particularly among hospitalized medically ill
patients,
is
a
rare event. Most of the published reports on inpatient suicidal
behavior are derived from psychiatric hospitals and units.
Although
there are no accurate data with which to directly compare rates
of
suicide in medical versus psychiatric settings, it is likely
that
suicide is more common on a psychiatric inpatient unit. In
addition,
rates of suicide in the hospital, whether on a medical or
psychiatric
unit, appear to be substantially lower than community-based
suicide
rates."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680547/

--
Ed Huntress

-jsw


At home a patient can have a month's supply (IIRC) of each
mail-order
prescription, plus what they've squirreled away by not taking it
all.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-top...se-death-rates

Over 20,000 suicides per year from prescribed medication! Removing
their guns won't stop them.

No, that's total deaths, not suicides. The number of suicides is
closer to 4,000.

For 2011, there were 41,149 suicides in the US. The number
commited
with firearms was 21,175. Suffocation, 10,162. All poisoning,
including alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs, other poisons,
and
combinations, 6,637.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

A study of just drugs and alcohol, conducted in 2005 - 2007,
showed
greader detail. Of 26,902, total suicides from all causes that
were
studied, 3,708 total (8% of males and 34% of females) died from
alcohol or drug overdose, including illegal drugs (a small
percentage). That study didn't count other poisons, gases, etc.

(pdf -- National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Suicides
Due to Alcohol and/or Drug Overdose)


In a managed facility they receive only one dose at a time and
take
it
under supervision. The staff is supposed to be alert for suicidal
patients and give them no opportunities.

Satisfied?

I am after double-checking your claims against the CDC data, which
shows that your claims are inaccurate.

--
Ed Huntress

Understand that they have no idea how many who "died in the hospital
from heart failure after a long illness" were drug suicides.
Practically everyone dies from "heart failure" of some sort, and
reported suicide may void life insurance benefit claims.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/life/...ife-insurance/


Did you read that? It gives no indication at all that what you're
saying is correct. Even if it was, you're talking about perhaps a
few
percent of all suicides.

I'll stick with the CDC figures. There's no question when someone
has
a bullet hole through his head.

--
Ed Huntress

I'm just repeating tales a few EMTs told me, and can't prove anything.

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:59:31 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

But your assertion isn't correct, as New Mexico, for example ranks 5th
in the U.S. for suicides and 29th on the list for gun ownership;
Arizona rates 9th for suicides and 31st for gun ownership. New Jersey
lists as 48th in the country for suicide and 49th for gun ownership.

In short while there are some states where gun ownership seems to
equates to suicide it is not an all encompassing "fact".
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:42:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:59:31 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

But your assertion isn't correct, as New Mexico, for example ranks 5th
in the U.S. for suicides and 29th on the list for gun ownership;
Arizona rates 9th for suicides and 31st for gun ownership. New Jersey
lists as 48th in the country for suicide and 49th for gun ownership.

When I say "correspond," I'm not saying it's an absolute one-to-one
relationship, for every single state. Such an outcome would be bizarre
and absurd. I'm saying the correspondance is strong, as this study
showed:

From Harvard's School of Public Health:

[title]

"Explaining geographic patterns of suicide in the US: the role of
firearms and antidepressants"

[conclusion]

"The prevalence of household firearm ownership is strongly and
significantly associated with overall suicide rates, due to its
association with firearm suicide rates. This association is robust to
consideration of the role of antidepressant prescription rates. A
relationship between antidepressant prescription rates and suicide
rates was not observed before or after adjusting for firearm
ownership."

[results]

"In adjusted analyses, household firearm prevalence is significantly
associated with overall suicide rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio
(IRRa)=1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 1.38) and firearm
suicides rates (IRRa=1.61, CI: 1.45, 1.80), but not with non-firearm
suicide rates (IRRa=1.05, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.16)."

In other words, gun ownership rates correlate strongly with firearm
suicides and overall suicides.

If you're interested in the statistics, "IRR" is "incident rate
ratio." CI is the confidence interval. "Significance," in statistics,
does not mean the same thing as the common definition. It means that
it fits within certain parameters for confidence, measured by a value
called "p".

It's not hard to get the general idea of the statistics without
knowing their strict definitions.

Here's the full paper:

http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/6


In short while there are some states where gun ownership seems to
equates to suicide it is not an all encompassing "fact".

It's not "some," and don't use the word "equates." There are specific
ratios, and the corresponding incidence rates are very high. And the
fact, like almost all facts of this type, is a strong statistical
correspondance.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:56:33 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:42:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:59:31 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

But your assertion isn't correct, as New Mexico, for example ranks 5th
in the U.S. for suicides and 29th on the list for gun ownership;
Arizona rates 9th for suicides and 31st for gun ownership. New Jersey
lists as 48th in the country for suicide and 49th for gun ownership.

When I say "correspond," I'm not saying it's an absolute one-to-one
relationship, for every single state. Such an outcome would be bizarre
and absurd. I'm saying the correspondance is strong, as this study
showed:

From Harvard's School of Public Health:

[title]

"Explaining geographic patterns of suicide in the US: the role of
firearms and antidepressants"

[conclusion]

"The prevalence of household firearm ownership is strongly and
significantly associated with overall suicide rates, due to its
association with firearm suicide rates. This association is robust to
consideration of the role of antidepressant prescription rates. A
relationship between antidepressant prescription rates and suicide
rates was not observed before or after adjusting for firearm
ownership."

[results]

"In adjusted analyses, household firearm prevalence is significantly
associated with overall suicide rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio
(IRRa)=1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 1.38) and firearm
suicides rates (IRRa=1.61, CI: 1.45, 1.80), but not with non-firearm
suicide rates (IRRa=1.05, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.16)."

In other words, gun ownership rates correlate strongly with firearm
suicides and overall suicides.

If you're interested in the statistics, "IRR" is "incident rate
ratio." CI is the confidence interval. "Significance," in statistics,
does not mean the same thing as the common definition. It means that
it fits within certain parameters for confidence, measured by a value
called "p".

It's not hard to get the general idea of the statistics without
knowing their strict definitions.

Here's the full paper:

http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/6


In short while there are some states where gun ownership seems to
equates to suicide it is not an all encompassing "fact".

It's not "some," and don't use the word "equates." There are specific
ratios, and the corresponding incidence rates are very high. And the
fact, like almost all facts of this type, is a strong statistical
correspondance.

I suspect that your conclusions are influenced by the fact that
suicide by firearm is some 2.6 times more likely to be successful
than by any other method.

See http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120.full

"From January 1990 to December 1997, among individuals 10 years or
older in the state of Illinois, there were 37,352 hospital admissions
for para-suicide and 10,287 completed suicides. Firearms are the most
lethal suicide method. Episodes involving firearms are 2.6 times more
lethal than those involving suffocation, the second most lethal
suicide method

The simplistic argument is, of course, that limiting access to
firearms would reduce the number of suicides, that rational may be a
bit optimistic. Certainly, if an individual decides to eliminate
themselves and have access to firearms they will likely use firearms
and be successful. But what if they can't get access to a gun?

Does no access to firearms mean that suicides will actually drop. the
figures from the site above seem to indicate that a large number of
suicide attempts end in failure.

But

http://www.currentpsychiatry.com

Has it that, "A previous suicide attempt is among the strongest
predictors of future suicide attempts. In a sample of clinically
referred European adolescents, those who had attempted suicide were 3
times more likely to try again during the 1-year follow-up compared
with those who had never attempted suicide.5 In addition, Harris et
al, found that patients with a previous suicide attempt were 38 times
more likely to eventually commit suicide than those with no past
attempts

It appears that if an individual decides on suicide and elects to use
a firearm that he is roughly 3 times as likely to succeed and become a
"firearm death". But does the lack of a firearm mean that no suicide
will occur? Or that the individual will abandon his scheme?

--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 13:16:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 23:56:33 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:42:07 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:59:31 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 08:09:09 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/17/2015 5:05 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 21:01:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
wrote:

On 9/16/2015 5:48 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 19:48:31 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:34:35 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:13:43 -0500, RD Sandman
rdsandman[remove]comcast.net wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote in
:

On Wed, 16 Sep 2015 06:43:47 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"¡Jones" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 20:12:17 -0400, in talk.politics.guns "Jim
Wilkins" wrote:

If we all have guns you are back at verbal discussion.

Yup. And we kill about 30,000 people a year in our
"discussions".

Jones


"We?" Do you deal drugs?

If we all have guns, some of those "we" people discuss with
bullets
and kill a lot of the other "we's."


Not 30,000.

Are we negotiating over numbers? g

You know what I'm saying, RD. If we all have guns, we don't all
decide
we'll "discuss things," contrary to what Jim (I think) says.
That's
a
spinoff from Heinlein's brainless assertion, "an armed society is
a
polite society," which is demonstrably a pile of bull****.

If that were true, we wouldn't have the highest gun-crime rate in
the
developed world. Some people -- quite a few, some of whom appear
in
the news every day -- decide that their guns are for shooting
people,
and they follow through. They show little inclination to discuss
things when they have a gun to do their talking for them.

Let's not get into a silly discussion about this. You know the
facts.

--
Ed Huntress

We know the facts are that the mayhem is concentrated in urban
ghettos
that overwhelmingly Democratic city leaders are unable or unwilling
to
control, and instead of addressing the problems their bleeding-heart
policies and inept neglect created they scream that rural
conservatives are the root cause of urban lawlessness.

I've always been curious: Why is the gun-suicide rate 50% higher in
rural areas than in cities?

Here's one from 2004, covering the whole country:

"Methods. We analyzed 584629 deaths from 1989 to 1999 assigned to
3141
US counties, using negative binomial regressions and an 11-category
urban-rural variable.

"Results. The most urban counties had 1.03 (95% confidence interval
[CI]=0.87, 1.20) times the adjusted firearm death rate of the most
rural counties. The most rural counties experienced 1.54 (95%
CI=1.29,
1.83) times the adjusted firearm suicide rate of the most urban."


--
Ed Huntress

Duh, because cities restrict gun ownership?

In other words, you're saying that restricting gun ownership reduces
suicide rates, right? It does seem to be born out by the facts:

As we unfortunately have to keep noting, nsf eddy, guns do not cause
suicide, because access to guns does not cause people to become suicidal
in the first place.

Once again, nsf eddy: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US,
and they have almost no guns. Many other developed countries with
virtually no guns also have higher suicide rates. Access to guns does
not cause suicidal thinking, and thus does not cause suicide.

There's the denial. We were looking at different parts of the US, and
you jump to Japan for a comparison.

Because Japan and S. Korea completely queer your claim that guns "cause"
suicide. They don't.

I never made that claim. The claim is that, in the United States,
suicide rates in high gun-owning areas correspond with higher rates of
suicide.

Don't put words in my mouth, Ball.

But your assertion isn't correct, as New Mexico, for example ranks 5th
in the U.S. for suicides and 29th on the list for gun ownership;
Arizona rates 9th for suicides and 31st for gun ownership. New Jersey
lists as 48th in the country for suicide and 49th for gun ownership.

When I say "correspond," I'm not saying it's an absolute one-to-one
relationship, for every single state. Such an outcome would be bizarre
and absurd. I'm saying the correspondance is strong, as this study
showed:

From Harvard's School of Public Health:

[title]

"Explaining geographic patterns of suicide in the US: the role of
firearms and antidepressants"

[conclusion]

"The prevalence of household firearm ownership is strongly and
significantly associated with overall suicide rates, due to its
association with firearm suicide rates. This association is robust to
consideration of the role of antidepressant prescription rates. A
relationship between antidepressant prescription rates and suicide
rates was not observed before or after adjusting for firearm
ownership."

[results]

"In adjusted analyses, household firearm prevalence is significantly
associated with overall suicide rates (adjusted incidence rate ratio
(IRRa)=1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18, 1.38) and firearm
suicides rates (IRRa=1.61, CI: 1.45, 1.80), but not with non-firearm
suicide rates (IRRa=1.05, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.16)."

In other words, gun ownership rates correlate strongly with firearm
suicides and overall suicides.

If you're interested in the statistics, "IRR" is "incident rate
ratio." CI is the confidence interval. "Significance," in statistics,
does not mean the same thing as the common definition. It means that
it fits within certain parameters for confidence, measured by a value
called "p".

It's not hard to get the general idea of the statistics without
knowing their strict definitions.

Here's the full paper:

http://www.injepijournal.com/content/1/1/6


In short while there are some states where gun ownership seems to
equates to suicide it is not an all encompassing "fact".

It's not "some," and don't use the word "equates." There are specific
ratios, and the corresponding incidence rates are very high. And the
fact, like almost all facts of this type, is a strong statistical
correspondance.

I suspect that your conclusions are influenced by the fact that
suicide by firearm is some 2.6 times more likely to be successful
than by any other method.

See http://jech.bmj.com/content/57/2/120.full

It's not clear which "conclusion" you're referring to, but yes, the
suicide success rate with firearms is extremely high. Those people are
using a tool designed for the job and it's very effective.


"From January 1990 to December 1997, among individuals 10 years or
older in the state of Illinois, there were 37,352 hospital admissions
for para-suicide and 10,287 completed suicides. Firearms are the most
lethal suicide method. Episodes involving firearms are 2.6 times more
lethal than those involving suffocation, the second most lethal
suicide method

The simplistic argument is, of course, that limiting access to
firearms would reduce the number of suicides, that rational may be a
bit optimistic. Certainly, if an individual decides to eliminate
themselves and have access to firearms they will likely use firearms
and be successful. But what if they can't get access to a gun?

Successful suicide rates go down. If you really dig into the
medical/psych literature, you'll find that the success rate by those
who fail once at completing their own suicide actually is pretty low
-- unless they try using a gun. It's lower than that for first-timers
who use a gun on the first attempt. Part of the reason is that a
failed suicide provokes intervention in a high percentage of cases,
and, in a fairly high number, the intervention is successful in
overcoming the motivation to commit suicide. We have a lot of tools
today for coping with depression.


Does no access to firearms mean that suicides will actually drop. the
figures from the site above seem to indicate that a large number of
suicide attempts end in failure.

Right.


But

http://www.currentpsychiatry.com

Has it that, "A previous suicide attempt is among the strongest
predictors of future suicide attempts. In a sample of clinically
referred European adolescents, those who had attempted suicide were 3
times more likely to try again during the 1-year follow-up compared
with those who had never attempted suicide.5 In addition, Harris et
al, found that patients with a previous suicide attempt were 38 times
more likely to eventually commit suicide than those with no past
attempts

Of course. But this is a case of begging the question. Comparing the
outcomes of those who eventually succeed with the general population
is like comparing the incidence of recurring cancer between people who
have never had cancer with those who have. You really have to read
those stats carefully to see what they mean.

I don't usually refer to anecdotes unless they tell you something.
Here's one that does, from my personal experience. One of my college
roommates developed schizophrenia at age 20. By age 23, he started
trying to commit suicide. He first drove his car into a bridge
abutment. That didn't work. They put him on meds and he no problem
with depression for a couple of years.

Two years later he got off his meds. He stole an 18-wheeler and drove
it into a ditch. No success.

A year later he tried overdosing on his meds, which he had again
stopped taking. No success again.

Finally, at age 32, he stopped the meds again, bought a S&W .38 Spl.
revolver, rented a motel room, sat down on the bed, and blew his
brains out. Success!

That was in 1980. We have better drugs now. Maybe he would have been
Ok. His parents, after years of turning their backs on him, were
starting to get involved with him again. Who knows?


It appears that if an individual decides on suicide and elects to use
a firearm that he is roughly 3 times as likely to succeed and become a
"firearm death".

That success rate is my point.

But does the lack of a firearm mean that no suicide
will occur? Or that the individual will abandon his scheme?

None of the stats you quoted answer that question. Comparing their
"success rate" with that of the general population is meaningless.
Comparing their final success rate with that of those who use a gun in
one of those attempts would tell you something, but that isn't
contained in the data you provided.

It's out there. When I was a medical editor I had full, paid access to
medical and psych studies, but now I don't. So I can't easily dig it
up.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:56:56 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 16:32:29 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:26:42 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

[snip]
Satisfied?

I am after double-checking your claims against the CDC data, which
shows that your claims are inaccurate.

--
Ed Huntress

Understand that they have no idea how many who "died in the hospital
from heart failure after a long illness" were drug suicides.
Practically everyone dies from "heart failure" of some sort, and
reported suicide may void life insurance benefit claims.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/life/...ife-insurance/


Did you read that? It gives no indication at all that what you're
saying is correct. Even if it was, you're talking about perhaps a few
percent of all suicides.

I'll stick with the CDC figures. There's no question when someone has
a bullet hole through his head.

Well, that's true, but more generally I'd be a bit more skeptical of
the details of death-certificate data.

War story:

My father's death certificate claims that he died of Cholangitis.
It's true that that's what sent him to the hospital, but he had
recovered and was moved to a nursing home for recovery. It was there
that he got C. Difficule, which greatly weakened him and sent him back
to the hospital, where he subsequently died of Pneumonia.

So, the death certificate was a bit economical with the truth.
Hospitals were (and still are) struggling with C. Difficule, and they
may have been managing the statistics.

Joe Gwinn