The 'next' angle to 'gun control'....??

Pure BS again. After the gun ban in Australia the suicide rate remained the same. Only the method changed. Thousands jump off bridges. Ban bridges?
Ban tall buildings?
The article does the usual game of only citing a decrease in suicide by gun without citing whether the suicide rate actually fell. I'm guessing because it did not drop.
 
The CDC should stick to scientific research focused on pure medicine and disease issues and get out of the psycho-babble debate.
 
Yup more BS. I don’t get why having the CDC research it is such a wet dream for the libtards. I guess their single is to try to classify gun ownership as a disease?

Of course this is all made worse by the fact that we have corporate media owned by just two or three entities. It makes it really easy to pay to have a scripted, controlled, narrative pushed in people’s faces 24x7. Opioid crisis anyone? Of course that is being used as the excuse for more direct govt. involvement in people’s business.
 
It's not "new."

I recall several assertions by gun control fans over several decades that banning (hand)guns would save lives because many suicide attempts stem from a temporary set of circumstances or emotions. The assertion is that it's harder to kill oneself with other means, and, if one survives, one will be all better and carry on as a happy & productive member of society. Basically, guns are too effective, so banning them will (probably) save (maybe) a few would-be suicides who (likely) wouldn't try again or with another means.
 
fishgutzy said:
Pure BS again. After the gun ban in Australia the suicide rate remained the same. Only the method changed. Thousands jump off bridges. Ban bridges?
Ban tall buildings?
The article does the usual game of only citing a decrease in suicide by gun without citing whether the suicide rate actually fell. I'm guessing because it did not drop.
Click to expand...

This bridge violence HAS TO STOP.
 
Bailey Boat said:
The CDC is such a BS organization I don't think their above bending stats to fir their narrative. And to think that our tax dollars PAY for crap like this!!!
Click to expand...

Actually the CDC is a great organization...when it is not being politicized. I think if they want to pump out the statistics, fine. But don't politicize them.
 
The mental health angle seems to be gaining traction so I expect them to continue expanding definitions of mental disease and related powers of the State.

As for something new? Trump hasn't been playing nice with allies lately so I would not be surprised to see international pressure or even UN sanctions against the US coinciding with the next presidential primaries. Then combine this with a propaganda campaign approximately saying "we're being held hostage and it's all the fault of those evil racist Trump voting republican gun owners".
 
The Soviet Union and China did that. China still does. Putin probably does too.
Catfish said:
The mental health angle seems to be gaining traction so I expect them to continue expanding definitions of mental disease and related powers of the State.

As for something new? Trump hasn't been playing nice with allies lately so I would not be surprised to see international pressure or even UN sanctions against the US coinciding with the next presidential primaries. Then combine this with a propaganda campaign approximately saying "we're being held hostage and it's all the fault of those evil racist Trump voting republican gun owners".
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
 
The point, as ever, is CONTROL.

Specifically GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Note, for example, the issue with suicide:

Suicide is BAD...UNLESS it's sanctioned and controlled by the GOVERNMENT. Witness, for example, the fact that assisted suicide is LEGAL in the District of Columbia and the following 7 states (so far):

California (say it ain't so)
Colorado
Hawaii
Montana
Oregon
Vermont
Washington

So far, eleven other states have had assisted suicide cases or laws brought up in varying degrees, but have not (as yet) legalized it.

So, like every thing else the liberal gun control fanatics cite, suicide is only BAD whenever it suits THEIR CAUSE (gun control). It's GOOD whenever it DOES suit their cause (assisted suicide).

Like killing children and babies is BAD and therefore must result in gun control laws...unless it supports their abortion cause, then killing babies is GOOD.

Arming people so they can defend themselves against other people and tyrannical governments is BAD...unless it's arming people in the police and military in service to the government so the government can exert power of life and death, liberty and imprisonment over citizens and other people, then it's GOOD.

Freedom of speech is GOOD so people can say what they want...unless it's about the government and government policies THEY support, then it's BAD.

Freedom of religion is GOOD so people can practice whatever religion they want...unless it's a religion they disagree with, then it's BAD.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
The point, as ever, is CONTROL.

Specifically GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

Note, for example, the issue with suicide:

Suicide is BAD...UNLESS it's sanctioned and controlled by the GOVERNMENT. Witness, for example, the fact that assisted suicide is LEGAL in the District of Columbia and the following 7 states (so far):

California (say it ain't so)
Colorado
Hawaii
Montana
Oregon
Vermont
Washington

So far, eleven other states have had assisted suicide cases or laws brought up in varying degrees, but have not (as yet) legalized it.

So, like every thing else the liberal gun control fanatics cite, suicide is only BAD whenever it suits THEIR CAUSE (gun control). It's GOOD whenever it DOES suit their cause (assisted suicide).

Like killing children and babies is BAD and therefore must result in gun control laws...unless it supports their abortion cause, then killing babies is GOOD.

Arming people so they can defend themselves against other people and tyrannical governments is BAD...unless it's arming people in the police and military in service to the government so the government can exert power of life and death, liberty and imprisonment over citizens and other people, then it's GOOD.

Freedom of speech is GOOD so people can say what they want...unless it's about the government and government policies THEY support, then it's BAD.

Freedom of religion is GOOD so people can practice whatever religion they want...unless it's a religion they disagree with, then it's BAD.
Click to expand...

This is not just a progressive paradox.

Neocons pull the same duplicitous nonsense on other issues.
 
It's more bogus "facts" - "Suicides in the US USING A FIREARM increase in states with higher gun ownership." Why not just "Suicides in the US"? Because the facts probably don't fit the narrative.

Correlation does not equal causation.

Equivalent would be banning all cars in a state then saying that they "fixed" suicide because no one is driving off cliffs any more.
 
So...suicides using a firearm increases in areas where firearm ownership is higher? Shocking. I wonder if accidental drownings at home pools are more prevalent in areas with higher levels of pool ownership? Or if death by motorcycle is higher amongst people who own motorcycles? Correlation does not equal causation.

To add to what Tailhunter said, they will have my attention when they suddenly care about the millions of babies killed every year, yet its wrong to oppose it. The thousands who die of medical malpractice, yet the medical field is above reproach in their opinions. The thousands who die from obesity, yet "fat shaming" is a thing. Or the veterans who kill themselves every day without so much as a peep from the MSM, on the contrary patriotism is considered toxic.

This selective outrage is asinine.
 
I saw where the AMA came out again saying it was now time for them to "do something" about gun violence as doctors are the ones that have to put people back together after all of these unruly guns start randomly shooting. Considering medical malpractice kills about 10 times more people than guns (mental malpractice most likely being the main contibutor in many of these gun suicides and mass shootings), I think gun owners need to "do something" about doctors.

just one article:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...rs-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us
 
Last edited:
smithnwesley said:
wait what? one more time please?

:)
Click to expand...

Heh! Sorry!

The work computers are slooooooooooow for some internet sites during normal working hours. So when I try accessing the site and posting comments on a break, sometimes they post, sometimes they don't...and I won't know because the page never looks like it refreshes. So I'll try posting the comment later...same thing.

Then, next thing I know, it's posted several times.

:)

I deleted the duplicates!
 
James said:
I saw where the AMA came out again saying it was now time for them to "do something" about gun violence as doctors are the ones that have to put people back together after all of these unruly guns start randomly shooting. Considering medical malpractice kills about 10 times more people than guns (mental malpractice most likely being the main contibutor in many of these gun suicides and mass shootings), I think gun owners need to "do something" about doctors.

just one article:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...rs-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us
Click to expand...

Most docs are pretty quiet about the issue. Most docs don't belong to the AMA. At one meeting recently a doc brought this up, and I brought up medical mistakes (as opposed to malpractice). That shut him up pretty quick. The whole "glass house" thing.
 
James said:
I saw where the AMA came out again saying it was now time for them to "do something" about gun violence as doctors are the ones that have to put people back together after all of these unruly guns start randomly shooting. Considering medical malpractice kills about 10 times more people than guns (mental malpractice most likely being the main contibutor in many of these gun suicides and mass shootings), I think gun owners need to "do something" about doctors.

just one article:

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...rs-are-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-the-us
Click to expand...

I agree...the first thing I thought immediately after reading the first sentence in your post (which is a guilt trip tactic by doctors...and I don't respond well to guilt trips) was: "I wonder how many of these doctors are saying it's now time for them to "do something" about more than 250,000 annual medical deaths that a Johns Hopkins study says are due to medical errors?"

My guess?

Zero, out of 200,000+ members of the AMA.
 
Windini said:
It's not "new."

I recall several assertions by gun control fans over several decades that banning (hand)guns would save lives because many suicide attempts stem from a temporary set of circumstances or emotions. The assertion is that it's harder to kill oneself with other means, and, if one survives, one will be all better and carry on as a happy & productive member of society. Basically, guns are too effective, so banning them will (probably) save (maybe) a few would-be suicides who (likely) wouldn't try again or with another means.
Click to expand...
It's a disingenuous argument because it doesn't differentiate between committed suicide attempts and "cry for help" suicide attempts. The person who shoots themselves in the head or jumps in front of a train or off a bridge is committed. These people will find a way to shuffle off this mortal coil. And we see high suicide rates in places with very strict gun control, such as Japan and northern Europe, so the relative absence of guns doesn't make much of a difference to the committed.

The "cry for help" suicides are the half-hearted attempts such as OD'ing or some other attempt where someone is nearby to stop them.

By ignoring these two types, the gun control advocate would like you to believe that those who shoot themselves (with very high success rate) will, in the absence of guns, fall to the very mediocre success rate of less effective means such as drug overdose - which is less effective partly because this is the route so many non-committed, "cry-for-help" types use. Gunshot to the head is not used by "cry-for-help" suicide attempts, so it's totally unrealistic to think that you can dissuade the committed by removing just one avenue of suicide. If it were true, Japan and northern Europe would have much lower suicide rates.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
It's a disingenuous argument because it doesn't differentiate between committed suicide attempts and "cry for help" suicide attempts. The person who shoots themselves in the head or jumps in front of a train or off a bridge is committed. These people will find a way to shuffle off this mortal coil. And we see high suicide rates in places with very strict gun control, such as Japan and northern Europe, so the relative absence of guns doesn't make much of a difference to the committed.

The "cry for help" suicides are the half-hearted attempts such as OD'ing or some other attempt where someone is nearby to stop them.

By ignoring these two types, the gun control advocate would like you to believe that those who shoot themselves (with very high success rate) will, in the absence of guns, fall to the very mediocre success rate of less effective means such as drug overdose - which is less effective partly because this is the route so many non-committed, "cry-for-help" types use. Gunshot to the head is not used by "cry-for-help" suicides, so it's totally unrealistic to think that you can dissuade the committed by removing just one avenue of suicide. If it were true, Japan and northern Europe would have much lower suicide rates.
Click to expand...

True. This is even recognized in suicide awareness training. There is a definite behavioral split between those who are still in the painful/wanting help stage and those who have made up their minds. Once they've made up their minds, they're no longer in pain, they're no longer looking for help, they're no longer looking like people in trouble. They're calm, collected, and focused because they've arrived at their solution (suicide) KNOWING that it's going to solve their problem(s).

That's the danger point which is pointed out in suicide awareness training.

These people are GOING to kill them selves once they reach that stage. They know exactly how they're going to do it, when they're going to do it, and where they're going to do it. And they put their affairs in order to support that. If you take away their planned means without physically stopping them from further action, they'll just implement another method.

The rest who haven't reached that stage? They don't WANT to die...just yet. They're scared of their problems and they're scared of suicide, and the instinct to self-preservation is still not overwhelmed yet.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I agree...the first thing I thought immediately after reading the first sentence in your post (which is a guilt trip tactic by doctors...and I don't respond well to guilt trips) was: "I wonder how many of these doctors are saying it's now time for them to "do something" about more than 250,000 annual medical deaths that a Johns Hopkins study says are due to medical errors?"

My guess?

Zero, out of 200,000+ members of the AMA.
Click to expand...

its a concern - but one they dont like to publicize. lawsuits are expensive so administrations are very concerned about it.

lot of liberal idealogy in the health care field though. maybe not as much in rural areas but definitely seems to be the case in larger orgs.
 
Last edited:
smithnwesley said:
lot of liberal idealogy in the health care field though. maybe not as much in rural areas but definitely seems to be the case in larger orgs.
Click to expand...

Quite liberal. Many foolishly jumped on the single payer band wagon too. But they ignore that every country with it also has the govt controlling their pay or worse, making them all govt employees. Slashing their wages becomes necessary to cut costs. UK NHS doctors start at just $50k.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
fishgutzy said:
Quite liberal. Many foolishly jumped on the single payer band wagon too. But they ignore that every country with it also has the govt controlling their pay or worse, making them all govt employees. Slashing their wages becomes necessary to cut costs. UK NHS doctors start at just $50k.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

if i had a dollar for every nurse/political commentator who harped on single payer - i wouldnt be working right now.
 
Ridiculous they start out with some causes, “problems with relationships or work, substance abuse, money troubles, or housing insecurity,” then propose stricter gun control as the solution. I don’t know of anyone who wanted to end their own life because it was just too easy to buy a gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom