|
bidikyoopi posted:South Korea is not the USA. Especially with regards to suicide, I would be cautious to compare a nation of 50mil with 27.3/100k suicide to a nation of 320mil with 12.1/100k suicides. Any regulations regarding access to methods of suicide in SK would be hard to relate to parallel US regulations. People who live in South Korea aren't aliens. The reason why suicide rates decreased is because that pesticide was easily accessible and had a high chance to kill you. Similar results in England with Tylenol packaging http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f403 The point is that suicides are largely a heat of the moment thing, and people will use what they have available. Making it more difficult to access those things leads to fewer people using it to kill themselves, and reduction in suicide rates overall, even when accounting for increases in other types of suicide (eg in the South Korea example there was a small uptick in carbon monoxide suicides, but not even close to making up for it). If you want to argue about the imposition on civil rights that's a legitimate argument to have, but the facts are clear that if people didn't have such easy access to guns, fewer people would kill themselves every year. It is a proven method.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:I appreciate that you think that, it feels logically consistent but is not true. Restricting the amount of Tylenol per bottle has helped tremendously with suicide and even the weak and unenforced fire arm storage laws we have now in ~18 states are effective in reducing suicide in 14-19 year olds. i think we've established in this thread that a few hundred justifiable homicides of criminals far outweigh 24,000 firearm suicides per year. everyone makes their own decision to end their life, and if someone places their hands on my flat screen television, well, buster, you better believe that's the decision they've made
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Not all rights are civil rights. Oh, my bad. I didn't know one class of rights that are guaranteed to citizens were more important than others. I have to admit that it's been literally two decades since I've taken constitutional law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Yeah, I know. I'm just loving with you guys. There's nothing about the right to bear arms anywhere in the country's founding document or anything.  That doesn't make it a CIVIL right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Thanks for the offer, make its something cool or horrible that you have on your computer right now and I'll honestly feel special al week. I'll find something interesting then. Mental healthcare improvements may be more expensive, but they are 100% positive and will help things past the scope of just suicide. Also if you're saying gun regulations like mandatory safe storage, I personally agree in theory, but people will definitely argue that it is a barrier to entry, poll tax, etc. There are definitely cheap safes and lockboxes out there, and people should absolutely be encouraged to lock up their guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i think we've established in this thread that a few hundred justifiable homicides of criminals far outweigh 24,000 firearm suicides per year. everyone makes their own decision to end their life, and if someone places their hands on my flat screen television, well, buster, you better believe that's the decision they've made I'm so glad your back. I was getting worried, with all of your obsession about suicide by gun, that you had killed yourself. Unfortunately for the avergae intelligence of America, I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Thank you. I am now aware of this, thanks to your and others' pedantry. I will not make this mistake again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Oh, my bad. I didn't know one class of rights that are guaranteed to citizens were more important than others. I have to admit that it's been literally two decades since I've taken constitutional law. No, there is a right to bear arms in the constitution. But it isn't a civil right and it isn't good, and it should be tread on until it's repealed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Thank you. I am now aware of this, thanks to your and others' pedantry. I will not make this mistake again. You compared it to poll taxes and literacy tests, you dope. You knew what you were saying was wrong and you did it anyways. Quit being coy and arguing in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:Sure no problem, have both. I'm not an expert in this field either but I read and write a lot of studies. In this one: quote:In addition to the firearm law variables, the models included indicator variables for each state, suicides for a within-state comparison group (individuals aged 22 to 24 years), per capita beer consumption, percentage of the population living in rural areas, real income per capita, unemployment rates, percentage of the adult population with a bachelors degree, percentage of the population of black race, the ratio of adult firearm suicides to total suicides as a proxy for the prevalence of gun ownership, and percentage of the population affiliated with specific religious denominations. Until the independent studies are run for those variables, this study essentially tells you nothing. You can't leave explanatory variables in models and expect to have a result that contains useful information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared it to poll taxes and literacy tests, you dope. You knew what you were saying was wrong and you did it anyways. Quit being coy and arguing in bad faith. What makes restrictions on a constitutional right okay but restrictions on a civil right bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Yeah, why shouldn't I have to show my literacy certification card to vote. It's funny that people who are pro-gun and talk about how they vote against Democrats for gun control reasons use examples like this pretending to care about the rights of minorities because the Republicans they vote have already and are continuing to trample on minorities' rights to vote with actual, literal illegal poll taxes, as well as restricting the capability of poor and minorities to vote through restrictions on voting sign up periods, limitations on the locations and operating hours of DMVs which are often the only place to get the IDs to vote, as well as purging voter rolls so they turn up and then can't vote, and have publicly admitted these policies are in place to win them elections, but none of the pro-gun people care about that enough to not vote Republican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Thank you. I am now aware of this, thanks to your and others' pedantry. I will not make this mistake again. Pointing out that you're being disingenuous or are just a moron by comparing restricting gun rights to attacking civil rights isn't pedantry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared it to poll taxes and literacy tests, you dope. You knew what you were saying was wrong and you did it anyways. Quit being coy and arguing in bad faith. Stop cherry picking which king of rights you want to disproportionately limit for which kind of people. Stop being a racist prick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared it to poll taxes and literacy tests, you dope. You knew what you were saying was wrong and you did it anyways. Quit being coy and arguing in bad faith. still waiting, Good Faith.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Fang posted:What makes restrictions on a constitutional right okay but restrictions on a civil right bad? Because a right isn't good merely by virtue of it being in the constitution? Voting is more important than being able to own lethal toys, I feel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
They are both important, and both rights 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Please show this again since I find this hard to believe. Perhaps they are cost effective compared to antibody drug conjugates or whatever cutting edge cancer therapies there are, but in general gun laws throw money and political capital into a pit with little or nothing to show for it. In terms of cost-effective legislature, gun control laws are down there among the worst. quote:In addition to the firearm law variables, the models included indicator variables for each state, suicides for a within-state comparison group (individuals aged 22 to 24 years), per capita beer consumption, percentage of the population living in rural areas, real income per capita, unemployment rates, percentage of the adult population with a bachelors degree, percentage of the population of black race, the ratio of adult firearm suicides to total suicides as a proxy for the prevalence of gun ownership, and percentage of the population affiliated with specific religious denominations. The dummy variables for each state control for baseline differences in youth suicide levels across the 50 states (the District of Columbia was not included in our study). Because the state firearm policies of interest target a particular age group, we used within-state suicide rates among young persons aged 22 to 24 years who were not targeted by the law to control for difficult-to-measure social factors (eg, social norms regarding suicide) that influence suicide rates among young persons in a particular state and year. We used year dummy variables to control for national trends in suicides among youth but also estimated alternative models with linear trend parameters when such patterns were clearly evident. I made a very crude attempt to illustrate it for another poster who failed to respond and am running behind on work so I wont copy past everything but you can find it easily by looking at my post history. I dont post a lot. I'll post my conclusions again. For the kids between 5 and 14 the difference in suicide between high and low gun states is almost completely explained by gun suicides. The total difference in suicides for these children is 222 cases of suicide in comparable population sizes. Assuming that the average age of these children was (5=14/2)=9 years old it would be cost effective to spend 77-9*222*50.000= 765.900.000 dollars to prevent these suicides. Lets round this down to 750 million dollars. Lets also look at homicide of 5-14 year old kids: again the discrepancy in total homicide is mainly driven by firearm suicide. The total difference being 202 cases. Making it cost effective to spend 77-9*202*50.000= 686.800.000 dollars to prevent these homicides. Lets round this down to 650 million dollars. To summarize: if strong firearm legislation would lead to similar amounts of pediatric gun deaths as seen in the low-gun states it is entirely reasonable to spend 1.4 billion dollars on this. It would be equally cost effective as funding kidney transplants, cancer drugs and breast screening. Moreover, lets also look at unintentional firearm death. There is a discrepancy of 568 cases. Lets assume that the average age of this person is 40 years old. (pulling this out of my rear end). It would be cost effective to spend 77-40*568*50.000=1.050.800.000 dollars to prevent these unintentional deaths. Lets round this down to 1 billion dollars. To summarize again : if strong firearm legislation would lead to similar amounts of pediatric and accidental gun deaths as seen in the low-gun states it is entirely reasonable to spend 2.4 billion dollars on this. It would be equally cost effective as funding kidney transplants, cancer drugs and breast screening. The well documented additional effect in the adult populations only further increase the cost effectiveness. quote:I'm glad you've made that decision but in general the US doesn't base who has the right to what on a collected sense of quality of life. Could you explain this a bit further? I would have thought that maximizing happiness is an important part in society since basically forever. Please dont read this as saying it is the only part, but explain why it is not ideal use the effects gun policy has on the quality of life of its citizens in an effort post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:still waiting, Good Faith. Name the last time a Civil Right was decided by firearms post Civil War. Go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared it to poll taxes and literacy tests, you dope. You knew what you were saying was wrong and you did it anyways. Quit being coy and arguing in bad faith. Lemming posted:It's funny that people who are pro-gun and talk about how they vote against Democrats for gun control reasons use examples like this pretending to care about the rights of minorities because the Republicans they vote have already and are continuing to trample on minorities' rights to vote with actual, literal illegal poll taxes, as well as restricting the capability of poor and minorities to vote through restrictions on voting sign up periods, limitations on the locations and operating hours of DMVs which are often the only place to get the IDs to vote, as well as purging voter rolls so they turn up and then can't vote, and have publicly admitted these policies are in place to win them elections, but none of the pro-gun people care about that enough to not vote Republican. You are correct. These are tough times for voters who enjoy all of the rights we are supposed to have in America. stealie72 fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Oct 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:Stop cherry picking which king of rights you want to disproportionately limit for which kind of people. Stop being a racist prick. Go back to the Gulch you moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:People who live in South Korea aren't aliens. The reason why suicide rates decreased is because that pesticide was easily accessible and had a high chance to kill you. Similar results in England with Tylenol packaging http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f403 Again I point you to my post where I said quote:If your goal is really to save lives, and in this context, specifically suicidal youths, there are proven methods that are cheap, easy to implement, and do not tread on civil rights. There are a lot of things in most households that will kill you as dead as a gun. There is no way to restrict gun access to youths without also restricting gun access to the adults who buy and store them. There are lots of ways to save suicidal youth lives without preventing citizens from exercising their rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name the last time a Civil Right was decided by firearms post Civil War. Go. Why are civil rights more worthy of protection than other rights guaranteed to americans by the constitution?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Because a right isn't good merely by virtue of it being in the constitution? You didn't answer the question. You answered why it's not necessarily bad to restrict a right, not why it's okay in the case of constitutional rights but not for civil rights. All anyone can tell from your writing is that a good right is one that you like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Go back to the Gulch you moron. Geez, first you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, then you resort to name calling. . .
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Rahu posted:They are both important, and both rights I think the right of people not have horrendous poo poo like this happen to them is important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name the last time a Civil Right was decided by firearms post Civil War. Go. A civil right in general, or in any particular instance? The Battle of Athens kind of fits the latter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Geez, first you accuse me of arguing in bad faith, then you resort to name calling. . . It's almost as if that post was not directed at you or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Fang posted:You didn't answer the question. You answered why it's not necessarily bad to restrict a right, not why it's okay in the case of constitutional rights but not for civil rights. All anyone can tell from your writing is that a good right is one that you like. I don't necessarily think it's okay in the case of constitutional rights? Some constitutional rights are civil rights. I think the goals of civil rights are laudable and should be protected, and other political rights should also be protected, because they likewise serve a purpose (the right to a fair trial for example), but the goals of the 2nd amendment are obsolete and irrelevant, and it is not a good right and restricting and repealing it is a-ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
JohnGalt posted:I'm so glad your back. I was getting worried, with all of your obsession about suicide by gun, that you had killed yourself. it seems odd to me that second amendment defenders online focus on uses of the firearm in self defense against others rather than self defense against the self given that statistically, this does not appear to be the majority behavior of most americans
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Again I point you to my post where I said There are very few things in most households that are as effective as killing you as a gun, because guns are easy, instant, and effective. People will use what they have available, generally, and also usually only try once. Youths aren't the only ones committing suicide, it's also in large part old people. The point is that restricting guns for everyone, even something as simple as mandating a safe with a key on the other side of the house, would reduce suicides. The point of this is that the argument we're really having is us saying "I think people having such easy and free access to guns isn't worth all the violence and suicide" vs "I think people having such free and easy access to guns is worth all the violence and suicide."
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Bryter posted:I think the right of people not have horrendous poo poo like this happen to them is important. That is something that is not a right, unlike the right to keep and bear arms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Fang posted:A civil right in general, or in any particular instance? The Battle of Athens kind of fits the latter. Soooo...one? And very questionable that that because their was more options they could've taken. And how does this compare to the amounts of assassinations and attacks carried out by, say the KKK and others?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Rahu posted:That is something that is not a right, unlike the right to keep and bear arms. It is a negative right. Your right to have guns conflicts with the right of a bunch of kids to not get shot in the face. Or the right of people not live in a society where suicide can be the instant result of a spontaneous decision. You're winning, though, congrats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
IAMNOTADOCTOR posted:First, let me quote the part about the variables they controlled for in case you dont have access to the full text, just because im actually quite a nice guy. Indicator variables are not controlled variables. I don't know how much stat you have but you really absolutely can't use boolean variables to "control" for non-boolean values in regression testing. For the rest, I'll just go through and mention where you made statistical errors: "For the kids between 5 and 14 the difference in suicide between high and low gun states is almost completely explained by gun suicides." Again, not controlled for anything other than guns, so right from the start we have bad data. "Assuming that the average age of these children was (5=14/2)=9 years old" I hope you have shown that the age distribution in that range is linear, otherwise this premise is also not founded. "it would be cost effective to spend 77-9*222*50.000= 765.900.000 dollars to prevent these suicides. Lets round this down to 750 million dollars." Not sure where most of these numbers are coming from but I guess you're just using nation-wide averages for local data. "Lets also look at homicide of 5-14 year old kids: again the discrepancy in total homicide is mainly driven by firearm suicide." Ibid "Moreover, lets also look at unintentional firearm death. There is a discrepancy of 568 cases. Lets assume that the average age of this person is 40 years old. (pulling this out of my rear end). It would be cost effective to spend 77-40*568*50.000=1.050.800.000 dollars to prevent these unintentional deaths. Lets round this down to 1 billion dollars." Again, not sure where these numbers are coming from or if they are even applicable but it looks like you're using averages again. No offense because that was a lot of effort you put in and you're clearly arguing in good faith but that back-of-the-napkin math is essentially as useful as some random dude saying "yeah okay 1.4 billion dollars is the right number." You really have to be sourced and consistent if you're going to try to use stat to back up your point. quote:Could you explain this a bit further? I would have thought that maximizing happiness is an important part in society since basically forever. Please dont read this as saying it is the only part, but explain why it is not ideal use the effects gun policy has on the quality of life of its citizens in an effort post. What I mean is that the US especially has a set of rights that we hold true for all citizens, and quality of life is a product of them. The whole civic structure is set up so that a majority can't say "it would improve my life if those people had fewer rights/less representation/more restrictions" and enact legislation to that end. Guns and weapons are part of those rights and even if they make some people unhappy, that's not a good reason to restrict their access.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Tell me more about the right to have certain things not happen. I am intrigued.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:The point of this is that the argument we're really having is us saying "I think people having such easy and free access to guns isn't worth all the violence and suicide" vs "I think people having such free and easy access to guns is worth all the violence and suicide." well, the tree of liberty has to be watered somehow. if there's no war abroad then we must fight the war here, at home. the founders knew this
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
The right to vote is obviously more important than the right to own a gun because you could use the right to vote to get the right to own a gun without the need to risk your life in a civil war but you could not do the reverse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Lemming posted:There are very few things in most households that are as effective as killing you as a gun, because guns are easy, instant, and effective. People will use what they have available, generally, and also usually only try once. Youths aren't the only ones committing suicide, it's also in large part old people. The point is that restricting guns for everyone, even something as simple as mandating a safe with a key on the other side of the house, would reduce suicides. You can jump off most buildings and die pretty instantly. That also happens a lot. Also, that is not the argument we're having, and it's telling that you perceive it that way. I can't speak for others, but I'm saying having access to guns does not cause violence intrinsically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:52 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Name the last time a Civil Right was decided by firearms post Civil War. Go. You said "imposing basic restrictions" wasn't "treading on rights" and I would like to know what you mean by that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 03:10
|
|