181–190 of 264 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Try'.
As in they attempt suicide more often, but have lower rates of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it had to do with the British saying the colonists shouldn't have weapons that could help the colonists revolt against their government. So the constitution says that the people should have access to the weapons they need to overthrow the government if needed. Of course, the constitution writers didn't envision the government having tanks, airplanes, nuclear missiles, etc. that make it practically impossibl…
> that make it practically impossible for modern citizens to overthrow a corrupt government. Some of the citizens overthrowing the government would be in the military, though, no? Since the military is made up of normal people that live among civilians. It's more likely the military would split into factions, with the revolutionaries gaining control of a sizable chunk of tanks, airplanes, etc. Or maybe the military w…
Very unlikely. Biggest part of military training is brainwashing you to always following orders. People that resist brainswashing are quickly discharges as "unfit for duty".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Limit second amendment more to prevent more shootings. I've always wondered the validity of a "constitutional freedom" that allows random everyday people to own and operate tools that are essentially killing machines.
It’s an enshrinement of values - America puts more value on the protection of the individual from society than the protection of society from an individual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because suicide via firearms is the painless route. If you were going to kill yourself why wouldn't you do it with a gun. You have to be prepared for legislation like this only slightly decrease the number of suicides but drastically increase the suffering of the people that do.
Compared to other methods, it leaves a relative mess, you can easily screw it up, you're conscious for it...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Suicide by firearm is (or can be) certain and instant. People who would not be able to stick a knife into themselves fatally, or dare to jump off a high place, are nevertheless capable of shooting themselves.
I think the risk of failure being lower for firearms is exactly the draw. But failure is still a possibility. I had a friend who unsuccessfully attempted suicide by a pistol in the mouth. He ended up with a hole in his nose. Having only brought one bullet with him, was in enough pain to get treatment. He still wears a small bandaid on the side of his nose, but he’s in a stable place now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
Did you even bother to read the article? They state this themselves. > The lack of change in homicide rates during the period of interest lends some strength to the idea that changes in suicide rates were influenced by the show and not some other environmental or social factor that occurred during this period. [...] > While compelling, this research had several limitations. For example, the study used a quasi-experim…
The could have written the exact opposite since the release also is associated (according to the authors) with a CI [downwards going to less increasing] trend in suicide rates.
April 2015 was also a spike April. And the March to April step in suicides 2017 when the series was released is not bigger than many other steps.
I would say there has to be more to it than what the authors provide to claim something is associated with an increase. Actually, all events that has happened since the beginning of the data series could be associated with a "significant increase monthly suicide rates among U.S. youth aged 10 to 17 years" since the long trend is in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It will always be weird to me that threatening to murder other citizens for some vague, ill-defined hypothetical transgression is a mainstream, mostly accepted political viewpoint here in the US.
It's really not about that. The US was founded by a revolution that required guns. The founders wanted to make sure the same thing could happen again if needed. The second amendment isn't about personal protection, it is about the right to overthrow a government (ours or an invading one) if necessary. You can argue that times have changed or whatever but that was clearly the intention and it hasn't changed much.
There are also certain demographics that are much likelier to own guns, so "is armed revolution necessary" is really more a question of "is this particular group of people unhappy".
1. It's an observational, retrospective study.
2. The control analysis is dubious, and its unclear if the control analysis was selected in advance.
2. It's an astonishingly high effect size.
3. They do numerous sub-group analyses without any indication that such analyses were pre-registered, and apparently without doing any multiple-comparisons corrections (e.g. bonferroni).
3. From the article: "The observed suicide rate for March 2017 — the month prior to the release of “13 Reasons Why” — was also higher than forecast. The researchers note that the show was highly promoted during the month of March, exposing audiences to the show’s premise and content through trailers. The researchers did not find any significant trends in suicide rates in people 18- to 64 years of age."
We're being asked to believe not only that the show itself can have this huge effect, but that the trailer can too. But only among males in a certain age group.
This stinks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but lowering the 50% one will increase usage of the other methods significantly. The US isn't magically going to have insanely low suicide rates if you make guns illegal. Sad/depressed/broken people are still sad/depressed/broken (nothing has changed on that front). There will be a slight drop in overall suicides and a very large increase in non-firearm suicide attempts (re: Japan). Here's an idea that doesn't…
>Yeah, but lowering the 50% one will increase usage of the other methods significantly. The evidence says otherwise. Most suicidal ideation is brief and impulsive, so making it harder to access effective means of suicide doesn't just lead to a substitution. Multiple studies have found a lasting reduction in the overall suicide rate after a highly lethal means of suicide became less easily available. The majority of p…
Even still, there are other ways of increasing suicide friction than outright bans. Firearm waiting periods (to prevent same-day purchase suicides) would increase friction, suicide pamphlets with every sale would increase friction, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As in they attempt suicide more often, but have lower rates of success.
I'm implying that some of the attempts may be half-hearted. The US has more than 1 gun for every person in the country. The fact anyone survives a suicide attempt means that perhaps they didn't really want to die?