[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

Why wouldn't it? We're attempting to determine the likelihood of a random member of the US population being involuntarily killed in a manner which involves a firearm. The percentage of 'unnatural deaths' that can be attributed to firearms doesn't mean anything.



Where are you getting numbers from 2017? According to the CDC Website the most recent available data, published July 26, 2018, is for 2016.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm

And like JamesWWIII noted, one must exclude suicides from this calculation. If one wants to kill themselves, lack of access to a firearm isn't going to stop them, nor can the claim be made that if someone else didn't have access to a gun (ie, someone with murderous intent) that the suicidal person would still be alive. Violence committed with a firearm by some other person did not end the life of the suicidal person, Thor own decisions did. Suicide is voluntary. Even if one did include those numbers, the rate is still only 0.011%.

Here is a link to the CDC report. Why would you exclude suicides form the calculation? Would easy access to a firearm prevent a suicide? maybe/maybe not.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Here is a link to the CDC report.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf

That's from 2015, not 2017.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Why would you exclude suicides form the calculation? Would easy access to a firearm prevent a suicide? maybe/maybe not.

Beyond just the idea that it bolsters your argument, why would one include them? There's no threat to the public by an individual being suicidal. Suicide is something one does to their self (unless one has dirt on Hillary, then they get suicide'd.). We're talking about public health risks - if I'm suicidal and happen to use a gun to commit such an act, there's no increased risk of you being fatally injured. If I choose to do something like that to myself it won't (physically) harm anyone else in any way, shape or form.

One could make the argument that the number of successful suicide attempts would be reduced with reduced access to firearms, but here again that's just a band-aid. What we should be trying to do is reduce the number of suicide attempts in general.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by fravel

That's from 2015, not 2017.

I know. I stated that in my post it's a 2017 report on 2015 data.

Originally Posted by fravel

Beyond just the idea that it bolsters your argument, why would one include them? There's no threat to the public by an individual being suicidal. Suicide is something one does to their self (unless one has dirt on Hillary, then they get suicide'd.). We're talking about public health risks - if I'm suicidal and happen to use a gun to commit such an act, there's no increased risk of you being fatally injured. If I choose to do something like that to myself it won't (physically) harm anyone else in any way, shape or form.

One could make the argument that the number of successful suicide attempts would be reduced with reduced access to firearms, but here again that's just a band-aid. What we should be trying to do is reduce the number of suicide attempts in general.

I'm not the one including the data, it's the CDC. Gun violence is gun violence. Suicide certainly doesn't just affect the victim. What about PTSD suffered by family, friends, first responders, etc. All potential and may strain the various systems. I agree with you that we should be reducing the number of suicides in general. I guess eliminating easy access to a quick and lethal way to off yourself may give some a sober second thought. Who knows.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I know. I stated that in my post it's a 2017 report on 2015 data.

Gotcha, I missed that in your previous most, my bad.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I'm not the one including the data, it's the CDC.

The CDC is just reporting a data set. It's up to the interpreter to determine what that data set means. In determining the risk to public safety presented by easy availability of anything, the number of suicides using said thing is irrelevant. The presence of the inanimate object is not what causes one to become suicidal. The fact that one is suicidal is the cause of the use of that inanimate object.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Gun violence is gun violence.

Ahh, but what is violence? To me, it requires (at least) two parties. It is something that one party does to another party. Suicide does not have two parties. Would overdosing on pills be considered pill violence? Is hanging oneself rope violence?

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Suicide certainly doesn't just affect the victim. What about PTSD suffered by family, friends, first responders, etc. All potential and may strain the various systems.

Hence why I said (physically) in my previous post. I'm aware that suicide does not occur in a vacuum, but that does not mean that other people are at risk of physical harm when an individual decides to end their own life. There is no increased threat to public safety that can be attributed to a given method of suicide simply by virtue of the fact that the deceased chose to use said method.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I agree with you that we should be reducing the number of suicides in general. I guess eliminating easy access to a quick and lethal way to off yourself may give some a sober second thought. Who knows.

Perhaps, but even then, the likelihood of someone in the US killing themselves with a firearm is 0.007%. It's tragic, to be sure, but it's not an epidemic. It is not so significant that we must take drastic measures to prevent it at any cost. It makes no sense to restrict the rights of 99.993% of the population just so that tiny portion of the population *might* not be successful in attempting to kill themselves.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

To be honest the idea that guns are a threat to public safety is pretty silly in general.

This is dead set the funniest line I have ever seen on a bulletin board.

Outstanding.

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

This is dead set the funniest line I have ever seen on a bulletin board.

Outstanding.

Are you going to explain, or just imply that I'm wrong with some holier-than-thou ha-ha disparagement? I already clarified my point of view, which is that gun deaths are completely statistically insignificant, especially if you remove gun deaths involving criminals getting shot by each other (mostly each other) good citizens and cops as a direct result of criminal activity, suicides (which probably would be accomplished some other way in the event of a lack of an available gun), poor gun safety, you are left with a truly exceptional event. "Mass murder" public shootings do not even register on the threat scale.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

Are you going to explain, or just imply that I'm wrong with some holier-than-thou ha-ha disparagement? I already clarified my point of view, which is that gun deaths are completely statistically insignificant, especially if you remove gun deaths involving criminals getting shot by each other (mostly each other) good citizens and cops as a direct result of criminal activity, suicides (which probably would be accomplished some other way in the event of a lack of an available gun), poor gun safety, you are left with a truly exceptional event. "Mass murder" public shootings do not even register on the threat scale.

You're attempting to argue gun rights and gun control with Canadians, bro. This is like trying to convince a dog to meow.

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

You're attempting to argue gun rights and gun control with Canadians, bro. This is like trying to convince a dog to meow.

+1

[CigarPundit]

The irony of this kerfuffle in the media is that the net effect is to cause the files to be disseminated more broadly and to more people. It’s pretty amusing to me. The fact is that 3D printable gun files have been around for a while now, and are easily located and downloaded from th interwebs. The only thing that has changed is that the media and politicians have latched onto the most recent file publication and provided lots of free advertising for it.

It’s also been illegal for years to manufacture guns that are undetectable to airport security scanners. Again, the only thing that has changed is the recent spate of coverage.

I have no problem making it illegal to get on a plane with a loaded gun, plastic or otherwise. (As far as I know, cartridges are still made of metal and have a pretty recognizable shape to them.) I do have a problem with prior restraints on free speech though. Make the action illegal, not talking about it or exchanging information.

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by CigarPundit

It’s also been illegal for years to manufacture guns that are undetectable to airport security scanners. Again, the only thing that has changed is the recent spate of coverage.

Yep. President Reagan and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act way back in 1988, also in reaction to a media kerfuffle. That time it was the introduction of polymer or "plastic" pistols into the marketplace by Glock. Needless to say, many folks back then had a similar panic attack, fearing that these guns would somehow be invisible to airport metal detectors (despite the fact that they would presumably be filled with metal ammunition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by usshelena725

You're attempting to argue gun rights and gun control with Canadians, bro. This is like trying to convince a dog to meow.

I am a Canadian, I own 3 long guns, 2 shotguns and 2 handguns, I'm also a Black Badge IPSC shooter. Canadian's own more guns the you think, we just appreciate sensible regulation.

[CigarPundit]

Originally Posted by JamesWWIII

Yep. President Reagan and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act way back in 1988, also in reaction to a media kerfuffle. That time it was the introduction of polymer or "plastic" pistols into the marketplace by Glock. Needless to say, many folks back then had a similar panic attack, fearing that these guns would somehow be invisible to airport metal detectors (despite the fact that they would presumably be filled with metal ammunition).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act

Yeah, and the fact that the slide and barrel are made of steel and, oddly enough, look just like a slide and barrel in an airport scanner.

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I am a Canadian, I own 3 long guns, 2 shotguns and 2 handguns, I'm also a Black Badge IPSC shooter. Canadian's own more guns the you think, we just appreciate sensible regulation.

Yeah, any type of regulation seems sensible until it directly impacts you.

What if Canada suddenly decided as a result of the recent mass shooting that you don't need more than one of each type of gun? What if they decided you don't need handguns of any sort? What if they went full Australia on you guys?

I wonder how sensible you'd find any of that.

[CigarPundit]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

I am a Canadian, I own 3 long guns, 2 shotguns and 2 handguns, I'm also a Black Badge IPSC shooter. Canadian's own more guns the you think, we just appreciate sensible regulation.

I love Canada. Great and beautiful country. Great neighbor and ally of the US. But I have to say, the first and second amendments to the US Constitution (not to mention amendments 3 though 10), are critical protections that no other county in the world have. Some of the speech restrictions that go on in Canada are amazing to me. Of course, some pretty messed up stuff goes on here too.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by JamesWWIII

Yeah, any type of regulation seems sensible until it directly impacts you.

What if Canada suddenly decided as a result of the recent mass shooting that you don't need more than one of each type of gun? What if they decided you don't need handguns of any sort? What if they went full Australia on you guys?

I wonder how sensible you'd find any of that.

Canadian gun regulations already impact gun owners. It is very difficult to acquire and possess a handgun in this country. If the government decided to ban handguns outright to be honest I couldn't care less. Guns are fun but there are more important things.

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Gun violence is gun violence. Suicide certainly doesn't just affect the victim. What about PTSD suffered by family, friends, first responders, etc.

You trollin

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by FCobra94

You trollin

Nope.

[Run Silent]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Canadian gun regulations already impact gun owners. It is very difficult to acquire and possess a handgun in this country. If the government decided to ban handguns outright to be honest I couldn't care less. Guns are fun but there are more important things.

This statement is the direct difference between you and the majority of American gun owners. We don't find the primary reason of the second amendment to be that guns are 'fun'.

Sure, it can be a fun time going to the range and letting off a few rounds, but first and foremost, Americans value gun ownership and our rights to do so as a fundamental right to protect our family from harm that may come to us by those of a criminal nature and to protect us from a tyrannical government.

I am well versed in gun laws in Canada. The way your gun laws read, it is very difficult to use guns for self defense, even in your own home - due to regulations on storage as well as self defense legal arguments.

So, as I said before, you may enjoy shooting guns for fun, as you said, but you have no clue as to the reasons we care so much about gun regulations here in the USA.

[JamesWWIII]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

Guns are fun but there are more important things.

Oh, I see...so as far as you’re concerned, your guns are basically just grown-up toys that you can easily do without.

Yeah, I don’t look at mine the same way. And neither do many other Americans. So how ‘bout you let us handle our own business down here and you stick to pew-pew playtime up in the Great White North, ‘eh?

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by JasonCSU

You either didn't read my post completely, or missed my point. I referenced the Comcast/Netflix example as that is what most people know of or heard of in regards to Net Neutrality. For this aspect of it, I can see pros and cons on both sides, but that wasn't the point I was getting to. My point was that many people don't even realize that Net Neutrality was also intended to protect against censorship of electronic data, and without it, an ISP can potentially block access to whichever sites they feel like. This is exactly what glennQNYC was concerned about in his post, and why Questofthetune mentioned Net Neutrality in his reply.

It is simply disingenuous to promote the idea that Net Neutrality legislation would have provided any protections against individual states restricting firearm designs for 3D printers. I read this contention as a desperate reach for an example of Net Neutrality repeal negativity impacting the initiative's detractors. Nice try, but no.

[insanecoder]

Look the media is just plain trying to scare the public about guns in general
and look now everyone can print a gun
what phooey
they would like to ban ALL guns
so they try to scare we the people with toy guns
well for some nincompoops .. it does work

communists!

[schoy]

Originally Posted by fravel

Your original claim was that the CDC was not allowed to conduct studies. That is a different scenario than the CDC simply not having conducted the study.

For a third time, we can already demonstrate that firearms are not a significant threat to public safety. 0.004%. It's not even a matter of "to what degree".

I'd be on board with trying to identify what demographics, regions, etc are most at risk, but even then what does that accomplish? I can say with 100% confidence that the mere presence of a firearm isn't what makes those at-risk populations vulnerable. The likelihood of someone being a member of said groups will always correlate more strongly with other factors such as being low-income, poorly educated, growing up in single-parent households, lack of job opportunities, mental illness, etc. The effect of the presence (or lack thereof) of an inanimate object in the face of these factors is minuscule.

Just stop. This is why and how statistics can be manipulated to prove a point.

You're confusing incidence and risk. Incidence is not the same as risk. If all I wanted to know was the incidence of gun deaths in the overall US population, then your calculation may be correct. But it is a much different calculation when we get into the risks of gun ownership or gun use in the US.

Let's take death by lightning strikes. 15 people have died of lightning strikes so far this year, which makes the incidence of lightning strike deaths approximately 0.000004%, a very small number. However, if I were to carry a 10-foot metal pole on a bare mountaintop during a thunderstorm, the risk of lightning strike death would surely be significantly higher.

Let's go back to gun fatalities. The risk of dying due to a gun-related incident is surely different for, say, a child staying in a hospital vs a 30-year-old man going hunting with his inebriated buddies without safety vests on. Or a college student at an Ivy League school vs a black teenager in South Central LA. When we're talking about risks posed by an activity, you need to evaluate the context in which the risk exists; you don't just look at the entire population and then use it as the denominator. The 0.004% number is only useful to an immigrant considering whether to move to the US and wants to know the chances of being killed by a gun, assuming he closes his eyes and randomly picks a location to live. Other than that, that figure is completely meanigless.