Why does anybody think concealed carry is a good idea?

[Carib Gyal]

That's right, softy. And I always will. Deal with it.

Until those deadly toys ends up killing you, I will.

Your precious numbers say there's a better chance you'll die in a car accident. Stay off the road.

That they do. But since I don't let a two-year-old play with the "trigger" of the car like said woman did with her gun, I still have decent odds.

Not according to the numbers. Sorry, buddy.

I know the numbers well. And what's going to kill me probably won't be a gun or a car. Thanks anyway.

We know. You've already said you will kill yourself. Unless the numbers get you first.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Until those deadly toys ends up killing you, I will.

Your precious numbers say there's a better chance you'll die in a car accident. Stay off the road.

That they do. But since I don't let a two-year-old play with the "trigger" of the car like said woman did with her gun, I still have decent odds.

Not according to the numbers. Sorry, buddy.

I know the numbers well. And what's going to kill me probably won't be a gun or a car. Thanks anyway.

We know. You've already said you will kill yourself. Unless the numbers get you first.

Yep.

And it looks like a terrific time to be anywhere else. See ya little gun nuts.

 

[Iceweasel]

Yeah it's usually people who live in fear of everyone that own a ton of guns and insist on carrying one around at all times.

Also it's to make them feel like "badasses". They think by having a gun, they can be in charge and have it all. They may not be in charge at work or in anything in life, but with that gun, they believe they can make a person listen to them and obey them because what is the greatest motivator of all? Fear.

I have lived in a city all my life, I have never felt the need for a gun ever. I don't fear my world.

Do you wear a seat belt? Does that also mean you are a little man that lives in constant fear of crashing?
No, it doesn't. Instead, you utilize the tool that you believe is going to protect you should the rare event occur that you need it.

I find it very odd that so many people want to demand that concealed carry holders are somehow 'afraid' or compensating. People that are ninnies and afraid tend to avoid carrying as weapons themselves can be very intimidating. I have met many CC holders and I wouldn't classify a single one as fearful. Making such asinine claims about an entire group of people simply because you don't like the idea is asinine at it best and makes your arguments look childish. Assuming you know what they are thinking (its bad ass) is another folly.

Why so much ire for people that are simply exercising their rights?

Yeah, it's fake confidence. The gun itself makes them feel confident, they have no true strength or self-confidence within them.

True strength is when you don't need a certain item or product to validate your being or who you are. To not give in to the fears around you and let it dictate your daily routine.

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Gandhi

"The only thing to fear is fear itself." - FDR

True strength is not overtly showing your "strength" or validating your strength by putting others in fear by walking into a chipotle with an AK-47. True strength is knowing that you will your life the way you want to without fear of the world around you and interact with the world around you. The world isn't out to get you.

Your bong lies to you.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yeah it's usually people who live in fear of everyone that own a ton of guns and insist on carrying one around at all times.

Also it's to make them feel like "badasses". They think by having a gun, they can be in charge and have it all. They may not be in charge at work or in anything in life, but with that gun, they believe they can make a person listen to them and obey them because what is the greatest motivator of all? Fear.

I have lived in a city all my life, I have never felt the need for a gun ever. I don't fear my world.

Do you wear a seat belt? Does that also mean you are a little man that lives in constant fear of crashing?
No, it doesn't. Instead, you utilize the tool that you believe is going to protect you should the rare event occur that you need it.

I find it very odd that so many people want to demand that concealed carry holders are somehow 'afraid' or compensating. People that are ninnies and afraid tend to avoid carrying as weapons themselves can be very intimidating. I have met many CC holders and I wouldn't classify a single one as fearful. Making such asinine claims about an entire group of people simply because you don't like the idea is asinine at it best and makes your arguments look childish. Assuming you know what they are thinking (its bad ass) is another folly.

Why so much ire for people that are simply exercising their rights?

Yeah, it's fake confidence. The gun itself makes them feel confident, they have no true strength or self-confidence within them.

True strength is when you don't need a certain item or product to validate your being or who you are. To not give in to the fears around you and let it dictate your daily routine.

"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Gandhi

"The only thing to fear is fear itself." - FDR

True strength is not overtly showing your "strength" or validating your strength by putting others in fear by walking into a chipotle with an AK-47. True strength is knowing that you will your life the way you want to without fear of the world around you and interact with the world around you. The world isn't out to get you.

Your bong lies to you.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm missing half the conversation. Y'all must be talking to the paints-with-a-broad-brush guy.

 

[hadit]

Absolute bullshit that you think that statement is based on facts.

You have only to look at Australia. They passed very strict gun regulations and their suicide rates did not drop. In fact, they rose and then dropped back to rates slightly higher than before the regulations were passed.

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Your logic is twisted. You claim fewer guns means fewer suicides. Not true.

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Your logic is twisted. You claim fewer guns means fewer suicides. Not true.

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

 

[WinterBorn]

Most of the 32,000 killed themselves. In order to get the 32,000 figure, they have to include the over 20,000 suicides who used a gun.

Yep, most of whom would likely still be alive without the guns, not to mention the number of people who buy a gun just to kill themselves.

Absolute bullshit that you think that statement is based on facts.

You have only to look at Australia. They passed very strict gun regulations and their suicide rates did not drop. In fact, they rose and then dropped back to rates slightly higher than before the regulations were passed.

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Oh bullshit. To claim that I don't want suicide rates down is simply nonsense. And the fact that gun suicides are down is not the issue and you know it. I have been aski8ng you over and over to show a basis for your claim that 20,000 suicides would not happen if guns were gone. You have only to look at the huge restrictions placed on gun ownership in Australia, and the very minor changes in suicides for the first few years after the restrictions were in place to see that your claims are bogus as hell.

 

[WinterBorn]

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Your logic is twisted. You claim fewer guns means fewer suicides. Not true.

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

In other words, no you have no evidence to back up your claims.

But here are some facts. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, we have no way of knowing if they planned it for months or not. But we do know that they truly wanted to die. It was not a plea for attention. It was a genuine desire to die.

Now you are claiming that 20,000 people who genuinely desire to die will be saved if you remove a single method from their choices. Absolute nonsense.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yep, most of whom would likely still be alive without the guns, not to mention the number of people who buy a gun just to kill themselves.

Absolute bullshit that you think that statement is based on facts.

You have only to look at Australia. They passed very strict gun regulations and their suicide rates did not drop. In fact, they rose and then dropped back to rates slightly higher than before the regulations were passed.

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Oh bullshit. To claim that I don't want suicide rates down is simply nonsense. And the fact that gun suicides are down is not the issue and you know it. I have been aski8ng you over and over to show a basis for your claim that 20,000 suicides would not happen if guns were gone. You have only to look at the huge restrictions placed on gun ownership in Australia, and the very minor changes in suicides for the first few years after the restrictions were in place to see that your claims are bogus as hell.

You aren't looking at the numbers then. Try being honest instead. Their numbers dropped by half. That would be 10,000 people per year here if we could stop the US affection for these deadly and unnecessary toys. A toddler wouldn't be wondering what happened to mommy right now either, the one he shot right in the head with a gun she didn't even need for protection. They are just gun people so she put it in her new purse and went shopping, for the very last time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Your logic is twisted. You claim fewer guns means fewer suicides. Not true.

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

In other words, no you have no evidence to back up your claims.

But here are some facts. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, we have no way of knowing if they planned it for months or not. But we do know that they truly wanted to die. It was not a plea for attention. It was a genuine desire to die.

Now you are claiming that 20,000 people who genuinely desire to die will be saved if you remove a single method from their choices. Absolute nonsense.

It would be if that was what I was claiming, but I'm not. And guns being suicide machines is absolutely true.

You're the kind of guy who thinks any abortion restriction is okay, it might kill you after all, but a gun restriction, Good God Man we can't have that, it might affect your ability to play with your deadly toys.

 

[2aguy]

hmmm..in Japan their suicide machine Is the train......they also use common household chemicals...and kill themselves at twice our rate...

 

[WinterBorn]

Absolute bullshit that you think that statement is based on facts.

You have only to look at Australia. They passed very strict gun regulations and their suicide rates did not drop. In fact, they rose and then dropped back to rates slightly higher than before the regulations were passed.

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Oh bullshit. To claim that I don't want suicide rates down is simply nonsense. And the fact that gun suicides are down is not the issue and you know it. I have been aski8ng you over and over to show a basis for your claim that 20,000 suicides would not happen if guns were gone. You have only to look at the huge restrictions placed on gun ownership in Australia, and the very minor changes in suicides for the first few years after the restrictions were in place to see that your claims are bogus as hell.

You aren't looking at the numbers then. Try being honest instead. Their numbers dropped by half. That would be 10,000 people per year here if we could stop the US affection for these deadly and unnecessary toys. A toddler wouldn't be wondering what happened to mommy right now either, the one he shot right in the head with a gun she didn't even need for protection. They are just gun people so she put it in her new purse and went shopping, for the very last time.

The total numbers dropped by half? Or the gun suicides dropped by half?

 

[WinterBorn]

Your logic is twisted. You claim fewer guns means fewer suicides. Not true.

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

In other words, no you have no evidence to back up your claims.

But here are some facts. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, we have no way of knowing if they planned it for months or not. But we do know that they truly wanted to die. It was not a plea for attention. It was a genuine desire to die.

Now you are claiming that 20,000 people who genuinely desire to die will be saved if you remove a single method from their choices. Absolute nonsense.

It would be if that was what I was claiming, but I'm not. And guns being suicide machines is absolutely true.

You're the kind of guy who thinks any abortion restriction is okay, it might kill you after all, but a gun restriction, Good God Man we can't have that, it might affect your ability to play with your deadly toys.

You keep tossing the "20,000" number around like it would be gone if guns were gone. When you have no evidence that the actual number of suicides would change in any significant way.

And please spare us your attempts to define who I am by your views on this topic. You have been clueless on that over and over and over.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

"Suicide rates in Australia peaked in 1963 (17.5 per 100,000), declining to 11.3 per 100,000 in 1984, and climbing back to 14.6 in 1997. Rates have been lower than this since that year. The age-standardised suicide rate for persons in 2012 was 11.2 per 100,000. - See more at: Mindframe"

The new gun laws took effect in late 1996 but,

"n 1991 there were 629 firearm related deaths in Australia compared to 333 in 2001. This represents a 47 per cent decrease in firearms deaths between 1991 and 2001. The incidence of both firearms suicides and firearms homicides almost halved over the 11 year period. While the number of firearms homicides has continued to decline, with 2001 recording the lowest number of firearms homicides during this period (n=47), the number of firearms suicides declined consistently from 1991 to 1998, but has since fluctuated. The number of firearm related accidents also fluctuated over the same period, from 29 firearms accidents in 1991 to 18 in 2001, but ranging between 15 and 45 over this time. While the numbers are quite small, the year 2000 recorded the highest number of firearms accidents (45 accidents) during the 11 year period.72]"

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Oh bullshit. To claim that I don't want suicide rates down is simply nonsense. And the fact that gun suicides are down is not the issue and you know it. I have been aski8ng you over and over to show a basis for your claim that 20,000 suicides would not happen if guns were gone. You have only to look at the huge restrictions placed on gun ownership in Australia, and the very minor changes in suicides for the first few years after the restrictions were in place to see that your claims are bogus as hell.

You aren't looking at the numbers then. Try being honest instead. Their numbers dropped by half. That would be 10,000 people per year here if we could stop the US affection for these deadly and unnecessary toys. A toddler wouldn't be wondering what happened to mommy right now either, the one he shot right in the head with a gun she didn't even need for protection. They are just gun people so she put it in her new purse and went shopping, for the very last time.

The total numbers dropped by half? Or the gun suicides dropped by half?

Both as I remember. Look it up.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, it's very true. Suicides by guns would drop to nothing by my plan, and because a gun is so deadly and requires so little planning, so would suicides as a whole.

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

In other words, no you have no evidence to back up your claims.

But here are some facts. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, we have no way of knowing if they planned it for months or not. But we do know that they truly wanted to die. It was not a plea for attention. It was a genuine desire to die.

Now you are claiming that 20,000 people who genuinely desire to die will be saved if you remove a single method from their choices. Absolute nonsense.

It would be if that was what I was claiming, but I'm not. And guns being suicide machines is absolutely true.

You're the kind of guy who thinks any abortion restriction is okay, it might kill you after all, but a gun restriction, Good God Man we can't have that, it might affect your ability to play with your deadly toys.

You keep tossing the "20,000" number around like it would be gone if guns were gone. When you have no evidence that the actual number of suicides would change in any significant way.

And please spare us your attempts to define who I am by your views on this topic. You have been clueless on that over and over and over.

Let me have all the guns, and let's find out. It sure as hell worked in the example you cited.

 

[2aguy]

Can you prove that in any substantive way? We've already seen stats that counter it.

Stats that counter it? There aren't any, or I would have seen them. When you make something harder to do, like kill yourself, the numbers drop. A delay helps keep people alive and gives them more time to think, and there's none of that when all you have to do is put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

In other words, no you have no evidence to back up your claims.

But here are some facts. If someone uses a gun to commit suicide, we have no way of knowing if they planned it for months or not. But we do know that they truly wanted to die. It was not a plea for attention. It was a genuine desire to die.

Now you are claiming that 20,000 people who genuinely desire to die will be saved if you remove a single method from their choices. Absolute nonsense.

It would be if that was what I was claiming, but I'm not. And guns being suicide machines is absolutely true.

You're the kind of guy who thinks any abortion restriction is okay, it might kill you after all, but a gun restriction, Good God Man we can't have that, it might affect your ability to play with your deadly toys.

You keep tossing the "20,000" number around like it would be gone if guns were gone. When you have no evidence that the actual number of suicides would change in any significant way.

And please spare us your attempts to define who I am by your views on this topic. You have been clueless on that over and over and over.

Let me have all the guns, and let's find out. It sure as hell worked in the example you cited.

Not in Japan, Russia, China ....or any number of other countries with strict gun control but higher suicide rates than us.....

 

[Flash]

Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

If you have suicide tendencies then that may be true. If you are irresponsible you may have an accident. It is called the Darwin Effect. A stupid person with a gun (just like one without a gun) is still, well stupid.

None of that is justification for taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Don't you have anything better to do than scheme ways to take Constitutional rights away from Americans? Why is it that you Libtards hate freedom so much?

There are about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. If you subtract the suicides and the number of shooting due to drug and gang violence (that won't change with any law) the actual number of firearms related deaths is not that high. Certainly not high enough to warrant the abolishment of a Constitutional right for public safety reasons.

If you were concerned about unnecessary deaths then why do you support infanticide on demand that kills about a million American children each year? Are you a hypocrite or just simply confused?

 

[WinterBorn]

The regulations were passed in 1996, and yet they had their highest rate of suicide in 1997. How does that support regulating guns will regulate suicides?

And yes, the number of firearm related suicides dropped when guns were removed from a large portion of the population. But the suicide rates did not drop significantly immediately, as they would if your claims were true.

Rome wasn't built in a day and you are grasping at straws while missing the logic. Their rates of suicide are down, way down by guns. That is the same thing I want and you don't.

Oh bullshit. To claim that I don't want suicide rates down is simply nonsense. And the fact that gun suicides are down is not the issue and you know it. I have been aski8ng you over and over to show a basis for your claim that 20,000 suicides would not happen if guns were gone. You have only to look at the huge restrictions placed on gun ownership in Australia, and the very minor changes in suicides for the first few years after the restrictions were in place to see that your claims are bogus as hell.

You aren't looking at the numbers then. Try being honest instead. Their numbers dropped by half. That would be 10,000 people per year here if we could stop the US affection for these deadly and unnecessary toys. A toddler wouldn't be wondering what happened to mommy right now either, the one he shot right in the head with a gun she didn't even need for protection. They are just gun people so she put it in her new purse and went shopping, for the very last time.

The total numbers dropped by half? Or the gun suicides dropped by half?

Both as I remember. Look it up.

I did. It was a 47% drop in gun suicides.

 

[2aguy]

Guns, especially handguns, are suicide machines and the most likely person to die by your gun, is you, 6 out of 10 times not including accidents.

If you have suicide tendencies then that may be true. If you are irresponsible you may have an accident. It is called the Darwin Effect. A stupid person with a gun (just like one without a gun) is still, well stupid.

None of that is justification for taking away the Constitutional rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

Don't you have anything better to do than scheme ways to take Constitutional rights away from Americans? Why is it that you Libtards hate freedom so much?

There are about 300,000,000 firearms in the US. If you subtract the suicides and the number of shooting due to drug and gang violence (that won't change with any law) the actual number of firearms related deaths is not that high. Certainly not high enough to warrant the abolishment of a Constitutional right for public safety reasons.

If you were concerned about unnecessary deaths then why do you support infanticide on demand that kills about a million American children each year? Are you a hypocrite or just simply confused?

There are under 1000 accidental deaths a year...under 100 of them are children....again in a country of over 310 million people.......I don't even know if that number shows up on a calculator.....