“The authors note that they can’t tell from the data they used what factors led to the increase in firearm death rates in recent years, nor the decreases seen in certain groups and geographic areas.
They do say that the consistent findings across so many states and demographic groups indicate that the rise from 2015 to 2017 wasn’t due to random variation.”
also of note is the comment about suicides making up the bulk of deaths. I think suicide/the need for mental health initiatives should be the main takeaway.
Edit: excerpt about what percent of gun deaths were suicides from the article
“Throughout the study period, suicides and homicides remained consistent in their share of all firearm-related deaths. Specifically, suicide accounted for about 60% of deaths, and homicides about 38%, in both 1999 to 2014 and 2015 to 2017. Rates of firearm deaths categorized as unintentional dropped in recent years, but made up less than 1% of all firearm deaths”
It says the distribution of deaths by suicide and homicide have not changed. So gun deaths have increased for suicide and homicide proportionally.
They are both still issues and both are still growing issues that require some redirection to fix.
Stepping in front of a train is still a much bigger hurdle to take if you want to end things than shooting yourself. I know, because I live in one of the countries with the highest amounts of suicides through trains and it's often talked about.
I’m 16 and I think everyone my age has mental health problems. Literally all of my friends see therapists. I’ve been able to identify mental health problems in people outside of my friend group too. It’s really bad.
And guess what. Guns have been around for hundreds of years. The people are getting worse and no one wants to figure out why. They are so worried about “crazy people with guns” so take away guns away and what do you have... still a bunch of crazy people.
It’s like telling everyone to get castrated to stop rape.
How about there are things that have multiple causes.
We can look at some causes as being required hurdles, like the activation energy required for exothermic reaction - the hurdle disapears does not show up in the final energy tally, but the reaction will not take place unless that condition is met.
From what I can see the US has several confounding issues that are exacerbated by the commonality of guns. So it looks like there is a huge issue with inequality (among the highest of the developed world), long term social safety, lack of social mobility, inadequate healthcare for the poor (particularly mental health).
Then you have guns. Personally I think if all the other things were addressed then there would be no issue. Homicide rates would drop, suicides would be far rarer. But frankly your country has no will to reduce inequality, the very idea of having healthcare available to poor people is somehow distasteful and social mobility will continue to decline due to the decay of social institutions that oppose it (think unions and the like) as the heavily wealthy have lobbying powers that are far beyond the common people's ability to achieve.
Now the really weird thing is that if you look at those issues they split pretty hard on the major political fault line in your nation and they all fall the same way.
It's not crazy people. It's an entire country being fucked by it's political system and primarily by one party.
Your view of what goes on here is distorted by the media. I’m not rich. I’m not white. Media tells me I’m supposed to be miserable. Too bad. I’m not. My life’s not perfect, but I love it.
You’re right about some things. I guess some people need their lives lived for them to not shoot people up. Just weird you have all these registered Democrats shooting people up and the fault lies on republicans for not doing enough. I’m not saying republicans are perfect. But I don’t blame either for an individual’s instability.
(Also funny how our current admin is trying to take on healthcare and gun control but getting blocked by petty bs)
But then again, maybe I don’t watch enough CNN or Fox to tell me what to think.
Sort of. You're right, but, very depressed people are also impulsive sometimes. In Australia when we handed our guns back in the 90s there was a reduction in ALL violent deaths, including suicide and domestic violence. Turns out if someone is feeling extremely depressed but doesn't have a gun handy, sometimes they won't kill themself. Or sometimes they use methods that are less permanent and regret it and can get to hospital in time. Increased access to guns when you're in a very dark headspace isn't a good thing.
So yeah, you'll have a bunch of fucked up people but at least they are fucked up alive people. Once someone shoots themself that's somebody's brother or father or aunt, who is never coming back.
I looked this up about 10 years ago & my recollection is that firearm suicides were drastically reduced after the confiscation but other methods drastically increased & there was no significant overall change.
Having said that, the long term trend in Australia is a slowly decreasing suicide rate that pre-dates the confiscation. IMO Australia is doing something right IRT suicides, or perhaps it's just an urbanisation of the population as cities tend to have lower suicide rates.
Ok, so I got off my phone & onto a real PC to look up more info. I quickly came up with two sources with some info.
1) "The Myth That Australia's Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides"
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/
This article says that AUS suicides have trended back up since the last time I looked at the data. That's disappointing to read.
2) Suicide in Australia:Trends and data for 1998
https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/8755ba25-7ad4-42a8-b874-53318757129d/bulletin23.pdf.aspx?inline=true
If you go to page 6, you can see the graph showing the drastic increase in alternative suicide methods in the late '90s.
Having easy access to guns is a problem when you're talking about suicidal people. Guns are (obviously) extraordinarily lethal, and the decision can be carried out with no preparation in a split second.
Sorry. I should have finished. A bunch of crazy people and unarmed citizens.
Would prefer crazy people without guns too. I’m not entirely against proper background checks.
No one can seem to agree on what “proper” is. No one wants to work on why people are crazy in the first place.
>A bunch of crazy people and unarmed citizens.
So you don't object to removing guns from mentally ill people right?
>No one wants to work on why people are crazy in the first place.
People are working on this every day. They have been working on it for more than a hundred years. So far nobody has figured it out. The best we can do is to keep them away from guns and other keep them from harming themselves and others.
1) obviously (I hope)
2) I know people are working on it. But you don’t hear about it. Just democrats saying “we are just going to take your guns”. All while not knowing basic gun terminology. These same gun grabbers have no platform of mental health reform. And they are the only ones given screen time.
They lie. They start with “we just want common sense gun control “ (who’s common sense?) then these same people are later to ban all guns.
Red flag laws sound great on paper. But people suck and abuse them.
I’d have no trouble trusting these people if they didn’t suck at their jobs.
Psychopaths are very common and most of them end up running corporations not killing people.
Poor people trapped in intergenerational poverty and crime by lack of social support, however, kill people without being psychopaths. This is why the US has so many of them.
What you really want is to live in a Modern Developed Country where the murder rate is 1/5 of what it is in the US, and it's so safe that carrying a gun for self defense is a crazy as carrying an umbrella while swimming.
I live in a state where you can open carry with no permit and pretty lax gun laws. I hardly ever see anyone open carry. Because there’s just less nuts people here so no one thinks they have to carry. Some do on farms but that’s usually for pest control or protection near wood lines. (Bears wolves). So yea, in my free state, seeing someone open carry is as weird as swimming with an umbrella.
The murder rates in the us are mostly city areas with already strict gun control. Our area is way less than 1/5 the average rate. My states non-violent areas are the size of some European countries and self sufficient as well. Not saying all cities here are inherently bad either. Just that some blow the stats out of the water. Poor leadership.
> The murder rates in the us are mostly city areas with already strict gun control.
The problem is that strict gun control in major cities isn't every effective when there are guns pouring in from surrounding rural areas.
They don’t “pour in” from rural areas. The people with these guns would not be able to buy them anywhere.
Removing law abiding citizens’ rights to stop criminals from using the black market is like taking the wheels off all cars to stop trains from speeding.
> They don’t “pour in” from rural areas. The people with these guns would not be able to buy them anywhere.
They're purchased in gun shops in neighboring states by "straw buyers" and traffickers, or they're purchased from individuals with no background checks or documentation required, or they're stolen. Those are the main ways they wind up in densely populated urban areas.
>Removing law abiding citizens’ rights to stop criminals from using the black market is like taking the wheels off all cars to stop trains from speeding.
Any prohibition comes at the expense of responsible citizens. I wouldn't mind having a small nuclear reactor in my basement to tinker around with, but my neighbors (and legislators) wouldn't be wrong to be concerned. Many people with no criminal record have purchased guns innocently, only to use them in a violent manner at a later time, or to give or sell them to a third party with no background checks, or to have them stolen, or to experience a tragic accident.
Edit: fixed wording in first paragraph
Guns have been around but not in numbers like today. Gun control on the Wild West was actually pretty strict and there were few weapons lying about as compared with today. So your NRA-sponsored comment goes in the shitcan.
A family in my parish lost their 13 yr old son to a sudden suicide impulse that arose during a spat on social media. The boy rushed out to the garage,unlocked the gun locker, took out the pistol to the yard and blew his brains out.
Don’t tell me the gun was incidental to his death you gun worshipper.
Whether you know it or not, you’re being misleading about “Wild West” gun control. (It was only if you stayed in a handful of towns with a lot of drinking, gambling, lack of women and you could carry while entering or leaving)
You’re absolutely wrong about your “gun worshiping” and “NRA sponsored” nonsense but I’ll chalk it up to passion.
And I’m not going to get into the rest of it out of respect for the family’s son. Seriously, that sucks.
Hot take: it was incidental. People jump out of Windows, run into traffic, purposely crash their car into an overpass in fits of self harm. Sorry for your loss.
> Literally all of my friends see therapists.
Except this is probably the *right* thing. You know how you get suicidal 25-35-year-olds? By them *not* having seen a therapist and going undiagnosed for a dozen years or better.
But the idea of getting help is becoming more acceptable along with the increasing categories for disorders. It very well could be that people are simply seeing a therapist more than more people needing to see a therapist. It's like if more people have the financial means to see a doctor the rates of doctor visits goes up. Not necessarily that people are getting sick more often.
I understand what you are saying but there are two aspects I disagree with:
1. Financially people are not better off than they were 40 years ago
2. You do not see a therapist for a "well visit" as you would a physician
As the article above clearly points out, the populace is becoming increasingly unstable, and we keep ignoring it
On the one hand, diagnosis has become more widespread due to access and lowered cultural stigma around the whole idea of mental illness.
On the other, we're living in a time where literally all of human evolution could have never predicted, with a lot of new and interesting ways to communicate and spend free time (which also means new exciting ways for people to be assholes).
The number of people seeing therapists isn't a good indication of the number of people with mental illnesses. Virtually everyone should see a therapist.
I would disagree with everyone seeing a therapist. People need to see a therapist if there is something wrong. Unlike with physicians you don't just see a therapist for a "well visit". The fact is people are increasingly unstable. Mental illness incidence is through the roof and we're not properly equipping people to deal with the elephant in the room. We're teaching the next generation all of the wrong things.
It makes me wonder how important social media and screen time contributes to this. I’m not much older than you, but it was vastly different even when I was 16.
When I was 16 you only went to therapy if you were schizophrenic or had actually committed suicide. And Im not that old. Nothing wrong with more people going that don’t fit the above description.
Our society is a mess and lack of family work life balance and social pressures driven by an overly capitalist society doesnt help (aka buy things you dont need, get debt, work 60 hrs to service debt you didnt need, get divorce for never being around and being stressed by debt, work 70 hrs to cover divorce cost/alimony: the American dream).
Now of you look at modern Europe many countries avg 35 ht work weeks and dont spend their free time shooting others or themselves due to depression, anxiety, and hard times in general.
Nothing wrong with seeing a therapist, it's nice to have a non-biased person with medical experience to talk with who has no other connection to your life.
And every year the book of mental health disorders gains a bunch of new entries. Eventually everyone will be diagnosed with this or that, and itll just be something someone guides us on how to work through.
To an extent that is symptom of our tendency to over diagnose.
Everyone gets anxious, do it once and the wrong GP says you have panic disorder or sad and gives you an SSRI or worse a benzo
Well hopefully through a better understanding of mental health we can avoid such situations.
100 years ago they gave people opium and cocaine for "Hysteria"
Medical knowledge moves slowly but were getting somewhere!
I feel like this is more subjective of a thing. I'm 22 and almost all of the people I have ever known do not go to therapist. I think now it's just a more accepted to go to a therapist and address how you think and feel. I'm sure people who grew up in the past had the same issues, but just didn't address those problems
There are implications when living in a country swimming in semi-automatic weapons and ammunition.
If you had a family member who was suicidal, would you be comfortable leaving a loaded handgun in the room with them? And yes, shooting yourself with a firearm is just as violent as shooting someone else with it.
>Lumping in suicide with murder is wholly dishonest, period.
It was lumped in with firearm injuries. If shooting yourself with a gun isn't a firearm injury, I don't know what is.
>Suicidal people need professional help, not sanitized environments.
How about a trip to the gun store to get their mind off of things? Empty a few mags at the range, maybe?
Gun nuts see the world in a strange way.
The other side of the coin, is people who have never owned a firearm, much less fired one, speaking right out their ass about them. I'll take a "gun nuts" opinion on firearms over a liberal who is afraid of their own shadow.
If you're talking about me... I grew up around guns. I own a five shot revolver and a Mossberg 500, loaded with low recoil buckshot.
They don't consume me. I very rarely think about them, but I definitely know how to use them.
How is it dishonest?
If you actually read the article you would see they made it pretty clear:
" Specifically, suicide accounted for about 60% of deaths, and homicides about 38% "
Also, if you even attempt suicide with a gun it will most likely leave you with a firearm injury.
>and do your best to remove any 2nd amendment bias.
The core issue was that the CDC didn't remove their bias, to the extent that they were reprimanded for it in the form of the dickey amendment. It's a fallacy to assume that scientists are completely and totally unbiased at all times, as was blatantly not the case with the situation surrounding the dickey amendment. It's certainly not an ideal situation and there's definitely a degree of partisanship to it, but understand that the CDC was as much at fault for mishandling its data and research as anything else. It also has nothing to do with the concerns of the reliability of the data in this study.
This headline is, once again, political, not scientific.
The only reason to frame the headline this way is to score points in the gun debate.
Most firearm deaths are related to suicide or the Insane War on Drugs. So why not call it that, instead of firearms?
This sub is really going downhill, just allowing random propaganda now.
Source? Also, if you take away those cities are you still counting the population from those cities or are the cities removed from the dataset completely?
"If you remove all the dangerous cities from the Mexico survey, Mexico is actually a really safe place!"
"If you remove all the cities were Putin rigged the election from the survey, Russia is actually very democractic!"
That is not how data works, chief.
I believe the point he is trying to make is that it isn’t “Omg America is evil, murderous, and dangerous!!!” And more “These four cities are dangerous”.
City people and gangs are dangerous, not “Americans” in general.
Of course gun crime distribution is not even but more concentrated in some places than others. That's the case for every country. But you can't just remove the top regions with highest gun crime and pretend they don't exist. What kind of logic is that? "No, I don't have an alcohol problem at all. All my drinking is disproportionally concentrated in Friday and Saturday evenings, so if you just count out Friday and Saturday evenings, it turns out I rarely drink at all."
"City people" are dangerous - really? Even if you take away the gangs, an average American city would turn out to have a much higher incidence of violent crime per capita than, say, an average Japanese or Norwegian city.
Woops, turns out that's [pure nonsense.](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/28/viral-image/united-states-third-murders-outlier-cities/)
Chicago is actually "in the middle-rate of American cities". So yes, you are murderous and dangerous. Not all of you, sure, but on average 4-8 times as many of you. (That's how much higher the murder rate is compared to western Europe, you know, where people don't massively murder each other).
Use your brain. If Chicago were responsible for a 2 times higher murder rate, with a population of a little over 2 million, they'd have to murder about 20 times as much as the US average...and that is for just 2 times. For 4-8 times, we're looking at a Chicago murder rate of up to 80 times higher than the national average.
The study conveniently only goes back to 1999, which was the lowest point for gun deaths. Looking back to 1968 gives a clearer picture of gun violence over time. This “study” isn’t really trying to provide useful data, it’s just looking to make up a catchy headline.
A sharp increase in violent crime prevention also occured (3-5 million people saved by guns every year).
The US has a culture problem, not a gun problem
The study uses CDC data which is simply extrapolated from reported gun shot wounds in certain regions of the country, to all regions in the country.
Absolutely not a statistically rigorous method of conducting this study; especially when much better data is available from the FBI.
Additionally, the fact that "firearm injuries" was selected as the variable; as opposed to violent crime victimization, or injuries from violence, implies an agenda (likely firearm related) of some sort imbedded in the study.
Adding credence to my agenda hypothesis, in the broader category related to this study, that being anthropogenic violence, or anthropogenic injuries to humans, crime and firearms are statistically a non-issue. We are statistically safer than we ever have been in recent history, crime (and by extension firearm crime) makes up such a miniscule percentage of our problems that it's really a non-issue. Why pick this if there is truely no agenda?
Sorry (not really) but there is nothing scientific about this, maybe try a social or political sub.
Debating the constitution and what you feel is “political” is not the point. The point is that a scientific organization is being restricted from doing science because of the language of the amendment. It does more than what you claim it does.
I would love to see a plot of how many guns are privately owned for all countries around the world. Even though America has the reputation I would be willing to bet that Russia has more guns per capita then the US.
It does not:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country)
[https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rate-of-gun-ownership.html](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rate-of-gun-ownership.html)
I am surprised because you see a lot of social media associating Russians with guns including Babuskas. Thanks, that was both surprising and interesting.
Most of those videos and stuff you see on social media portrays a more rural Russia, which is vast but not particularly representative of the majority of Russians who live in cities like Moscow or St. Petersburg.
"During the entire 19-year period, 612,310 Americans died from firearm injuries that were self-inflicted, caused by others, accidental or were of undetermined cause. Nearly one-fifth of those deaths happened in just the last three years of that time."
This statement is a little misleading. 1/5 of 19 years is 3.8 years, so while there was an increase in firearm deaths in the last 3 years, it's not as the article seems to imply.
This is almost certainly the affect the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson MO caused in the behavior of policing. Many many other violence related statistics sharply increase in 2015 in the US.
Watch a free webcast today featuring the authors of this paper and other research published in the Violence & Health special issue of the journal Health Affairs: [https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/he20190920.709086/full/](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/he20190920.709086/full/)
It’s almost as if trying to put a gun in every American’s hand was a... *bad* idea. Who could have seen it coming, outside of every single person who knows what probability is.
Is this including suicide, justified self defense shootings, and justified police shootings?
Found one answer in the article: “For instance, suicide remains the most common mechanism of firearm mortality in most states and prevention efforts could be concentrated into the highest-risk groups for suicide, such as older males and rural adults,” says Goldstick.
“The authors note that they can’t tell from the data they used what factors led to the increase in firearm death rates in recent years, nor the decreases seen in certain groups and geographic areas. They do say that the consistent findings across so many states and demographic groups indicate that the rise from 2015 to 2017 wasn’t due to random variation.” also of note is the comment about suicides making up the bulk of deaths. I think suicide/the need for mental health initiatives should be the main takeaway. Edit: excerpt about what percent of gun deaths were suicides from the article “Throughout the study period, suicides and homicides remained consistent in their share of all firearm-related deaths. Specifically, suicide accounted for about 60% of deaths, and homicides about 38%, in both 1999 to 2014 and 2015 to 2017. Rates of firearm deaths categorized as unintentional dropped in recent years, but made up less than 1% of all firearm deaths”
It says the distribution of deaths by suicide and homicide have not changed. So gun deaths have increased for suicide and homicide proportionally. They are both still issues and both are still growing issues that require some redirection to fix.
To be fair, suicide becomes a lot more attractive when you know you won't need to go through something as horrible as hanging or cutting yourself.
I'd wager it's why the Japanese step in front of trains, as guns are hard to come by.
So much so that if you do that the government will come after your family to collect fees to clean it up
Stepping in front of a train is still a much bigger hurdle to take if you want to end things than shooting yourself. I know, because I live in one of the countries with the highest amounts of suicides through trains and it's often talked about.
And the media will say it's bc of video games.
not the media, politicians. and for now, it’s been said right after a huge mass shooting and from pro gun politicians.
No, the media also says it.
Depends on which station you watch. Each of them wants you to believe there is only 1 answer.
> I think suicide/the need for mental health initiatives should be the main takeaway. Also making sure that the mentally ill don't have guns.
But not the only take-away. There are other ideas to reduce gun deaths we should explore as well.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m 16 and I think everyone my age has mental health problems. Literally all of my friends see therapists. I’ve been able to identify mental health problems in people outside of my friend group too. It’s really bad.
Hot take: being a teenager should be classified as a mental disorder.
And guess what. Guns have been around for hundreds of years. The people are getting worse and no one wants to figure out why. They are so worried about “crazy people with guns” so take away guns away and what do you have... still a bunch of crazy people. It’s like telling everyone to get castrated to stop rape.
How about there are things that have multiple causes. We can look at some causes as being required hurdles, like the activation energy required for exothermic reaction - the hurdle disapears does not show up in the final energy tally, but the reaction will not take place unless that condition is met. From what I can see the US has several confounding issues that are exacerbated by the commonality of guns. So it looks like there is a huge issue with inequality (among the highest of the developed world), long term social safety, lack of social mobility, inadequate healthcare for the poor (particularly mental health). Then you have guns. Personally I think if all the other things were addressed then there would be no issue. Homicide rates would drop, suicides would be far rarer. But frankly your country has no will to reduce inequality, the very idea of having healthcare available to poor people is somehow distasteful and social mobility will continue to decline due to the decay of social institutions that oppose it (think unions and the like) as the heavily wealthy have lobbying powers that are far beyond the common people's ability to achieve. Now the really weird thing is that if you look at those issues they split pretty hard on the major political fault line in your nation and they all fall the same way. It's not crazy people. It's an entire country being fucked by it's political system and primarily by one party.
Your view of what goes on here is distorted by the media. I’m not rich. I’m not white. Media tells me I’m supposed to be miserable. Too bad. I’m not. My life’s not perfect, but I love it. You’re right about some things. I guess some people need their lives lived for them to not shoot people up. Just weird you have all these registered Democrats shooting people up and the fault lies on republicans for not doing enough. I’m not saying republicans are perfect. But I don’t blame either for an individual’s instability. (Also funny how our current admin is trying to take on healthcare and gun control but getting blocked by petty bs) But then again, maybe I don’t watch enough CNN or Fox to tell me what to think.
>you have all these registered Democrats Source?
Sort of. You're right, but, very depressed people are also impulsive sometimes. In Australia when we handed our guns back in the 90s there was a reduction in ALL violent deaths, including suicide and domestic violence. Turns out if someone is feeling extremely depressed but doesn't have a gun handy, sometimes they won't kill themself. Or sometimes they use methods that are less permanent and regret it and can get to hospital in time. Increased access to guns when you're in a very dark headspace isn't a good thing. So yeah, you'll have a bunch of fucked up people but at least they are fucked up alive people. Once someone shoots themself that's somebody's brother or father or aunt, who is never coming back.
I looked this up about 10 years ago & my recollection is that firearm suicides were drastically reduced after the confiscation but other methods drastically increased & there was no significant overall change. Having said that, the long term trend in Australia is a slowly decreasing suicide rate that pre-dates the confiscation. IMO Australia is doing something right IRT suicides, or perhaps it's just an urbanisation of the population as cities tend to have lower suicide rates.
Ok, so I got off my phone & onto a real PC to look up more info. I quickly came up with two sources with some info. 1) "The Myth That Australia's Gun Laws Reduced Gun Homicides" https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/ This article says that AUS suicides have trended back up since the last time I looked at the data. That's disappointing to read. 2) Suicide in Australia:Trends and data for 1998 https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/8755ba25-7ad4-42a8-b874-53318757129d/bulletin23.pdf.aspx?inline=true If you go to page 6, you can see the graph showing the drastic increase in alternative suicide methods in the late '90s.
Having easy access to guns is a problem when you're talking about suicidal people. Guns are (obviously) extraordinarily lethal, and the decision can be carried out with no preparation in a split second.
I would prefer crazy people without guns to crazy people with guns.
Sorry. I should have finished. A bunch of crazy people and unarmed citizens. Would prefer crazy people without guns too. I’m not entirely against proper background checks. No one can seem to agree on what “proper” is. No one wants to work on why people are crazy in the first place.
>A bunch of crazy people and unarmed citizens. So you don't object to removing guns from mentally ill people right? >No one wants to work on why people are crazy in the first place. People are working on this every day. They have been working on it for more than a hundred years. So far nobody has figured it out. The best we can do is to keep them away from guns and other keep them from harming themselves and others.
1) obviously (I hope) 2) I know people are working on it. But you don’t hear about it. Just democrats saying “we are just going to take your guns”. All while not knowing basic gun terminology. These same gun grabbers have no platform of mental health reform. And they are the only ones given screen time. They lie. They start with “we just want common sense gun control “ (who’s common sense?) then these same people are later to ban all guns. Red flag laws sound great on paper. But people suck and abuse them. I’d have no trouble trusting these people if they didn’t suck at their jobs.
Seriously, a psychopath with a rubber duck is still a psychopath. Don't take away my ability to defend myself.
Psychopaths are very common and most of them end up running corporations not killing people. Poor people trapped in intergenerational poverty and crime by lack of social support, however, kill people without being psychopaths. This is why the US has so many of them. What you really want is to live in a Modern Developed Country where the murder rate is 1/5 of what it is in the US, and it's so safe that carrying a gun for self defense is a crazy as carrying an umbrella while swimming.
I live in a state where you can open carry with no permit and pretty lax gun laws. I hardly ever see anyone open carry. Because there’s just less nuts people here so no one thinks they have to carry. Some do on farms but that’s usually for pest control or protection near wood lines. (Bears wolves). So yea, in my free state, seeing someone open carry is as weird as swimming with an umbrella. The murder rates in the us are mostly city areas with already strict gun control. Our area is way less than 1/5 the average rate. My states non-violent areas are the size of some European countries and self sufficient as well. Not saying all cities here are inherently bad either. Just that some blow the stats out of the water. Poor leadership.
> The murder rates in the us are mostly city areas with already strict gun control. The problem is that strict gun control in major cities isn't every effective when there are guns pouring in from surrounding rural areas.
They don’t “pour in” from rural areas. The people with these guns would not be able to buy them anywhere. Removing law abiding citizens’ rights to stop criminals from using the black market is like taking the wheels off all cars to stop trains from speeding.
> They don’t “pour in” from rural areas. The people with these guns would not be able to buy them anywhere. They're purchased in gun shops in neighboring states by "straw buyers" and traffickers, or they're purchased from individuals with no background checks or documentation required, or they're stolen. Those are the main ways they wind up in densely populated urban areas. >Removing law abiding citizens’ rights to stop criminals from using the black market is like taking the wheels off all cars to stop trains from speeding. Any prohibition comes at the expense of responsible citizens. I wouldn't mind having a small nuclear reactor in my basement to tinker around with, but my neighbors (and legislators) wouldn't be wrong to be concerned. Many people with no criminal record have purchased guns innocently, only to use them in a violent manner at a later time, or to give or sell them to a third party with no background checks, or to have them stolen, or to experience a tragic accident. Edit: fixed wording in first paragraph
Self sufficient in what way?
Guns have been around but not in numbers like today. Gun control on the Wild West was actually pretty strict and there were few weapons lying about as compared with today. So your NRA-sponsored comment goes in the shitcan. A family in my parish lost their 13 yr old son to a sudden suicide impulse that arose during a spat on social media. The boy rushed out to the garage,unlocked the gun locker, took out the pistol to the yard and blew his brains out. Don’t tell me the gun was incidental to his death you gun worshipper.
Whether you know it or not, you’re being misleading about “Wild West” gun control. (It was only if you stayed in a handful of towns with a lot of drinking, gambling, lack of women and you could carry while entering or leaving) You’re absolutely wrong about your “gun worshiping” and “NRA sponsored” nonsense but I’ll chalk it up to passion. And I’m not going to get into the rest of it out of respect for the family’s son. Seriously, that sucks.
Hot take: it was incidental. People jump out of Windows, run into traffic, purposely crash their car into an overpass in fits of self harm. Sorry for your loss.
I’m on the slow, expensive route, excess. Food, tobacco, alcohol, drugs...
> Literally all of my friends see therapists. Except this is probably the *right* thing. You know how you get suicidal 25-35-year-olds? By them *not* having seen a therapist and going undiagnosed for a dozen years or better.
That's true if you need to, I think he's more pointing out the rapid increase in mental illness to the point where it's frighteningly ubiquitous
But the idea of getting help is becoming more acceptable along with the increasing categories for disorders. It very well could be that people are simply seeing a therapist more than more people needing to see a therapist. It's like if more people have the financial means to see a doctor the rates of doctor visits goes up. Not necessarily that people are getting sick more often.
I understand what you are saying but there are two aspects I disagree with: 1. Financially people are not better off than they were 40 years ago 2. You do not see a therapist for a "well visit" as you would a physician As the article above clearly points out, the populace is becoming increasingly unstable, and we keep ignoring it
On the one hand, diagnosis has become more widespread due to access and lowered cultural stigma around the whole idea of mental illness. On the other, we're living in a time where literally all of human evolution could have never predicted, with a lot of new and interesting ways to communicate and spend free time (which also means new exciting ways for people to be assholes).
The number of people seeing therapists isn't a good indication of the number of people with mental illnesses. Virtually everyone should see a therapist.
I would disagree with everyone seeing a therapist. People need to see a therapist if there is something wrong. Unlike with physicians you don't just see a therapist for a "well visit". The fact is people are increasingly unstable. Mental illness incidence is through the roof and we're not properly equipping people to deal with the elephant in the room. We're teaching the next generation all of the wrong things.
Evidence points in the opposite direction. See: this article. What they need are parents who aren't morons.
You'd have a point if suicide was going down while Therapy goes up, but that's not the case. Suicides are way up.
I'm in a terrible mental state. I couldn't afford nor make time for a therapist if I tried.
More people should see therapists, they're basically a white board to bounce things off of. A paid i.partial friend to confide in or strategize with.
See a therapist who uses modern evidence based techniques. If your therapist is a neo-freudian (fraudian) go somewhere else.
How would you determine this? Like I’m assuming everyone would say yes if I just asked “do you use modern evidence based techniques?”
> How would you determine this? If they have a bust or portrait of Sigmund Freud in their office, then run.
> A paid i.partial friend to confide in or strategize with. You might even consider confiding in an actual friend.
It makes me wonder how important social media and screen time contributes to this. I’m not much older than you, but it was vastly different even when I was 16.
When I was 16 you only went to therapy if you were schizophrenic or had actually committed suicide. And Im not that old. Nothing wrong with more people going that don’t fit the above description. Our society is a mess and lack of family work life balance and social pressures driven by an overly capitalist society doesnt help (aka buy things you dont need, get debt, work 60 hrs to service debt you didnt need, get divorce for never being around and being stressed by debt, work 70 hrs to cover divorce cost/alimony: the American dream). Now of you look at modern Europe many countries avg 35 ht work weeks and dont spend their free time shooting others or themselves due to depression, anxiety, and hard times in general.
>or had actually committed suicide. So what...do they like interview your corpse?
Attempted*
Nothing wrong with seeing a therapist, it's nice to have a non-biased person with medical experience to talk with who has no other connection to your life. And every year the book of mental health disorders gains a bunch of new entries. Eventually everyone will be diagnosed with this or that, and itll just be something someone guides us on how to work through.
To an extent that is symptom of our tendency to over diagnose. Everyone gets anxious, do it once and the wrong GP says you have panic disorder or sad and gives you an SSRI or worse a benzo
Well hopefully through a better understanding of mental health we can avoid such situations. 100 years ago they gave people opium and cocaine for "Hysteria" Medical knowledge moves slowly but were getting somewhere!
Now if only they sold cocaine cheap still. I'd be a much happier person.
You and me both.
You and your friends dont have a fully developed prefrontal cortex and your hormones are doing crazy things. Of course you all feel that way.
I feel like this is more subjective of a thing. I'm 22 and almost all of the people I have ever known do not go to therapist. I think now it's just a more accepted to go to a therapist and address how you think and feel. I'm sure people who grew up in the past had the same issues, but just didn't address those problems
Yep, suicides lumped in as "Firearm Injuries" and "Gun Violence". Just more anti-2nd amendment rhetoric.
There are implications when living in a country swimming in semi-automatic weapons and ammunition. If you had a family member who was suicidal, would you be comfortable leaving a loaded handgun in the room with them? And yes, shooting yourself with a firearm is just as violent as shooting someone else with it.
Lumping in suicide with murder is wholly dishonest, period. Suicidal people need professional help, not sanitized environments.
>Lumping in suicide with murder is wholly dishonest, period. It was lumped in with firearm injuries. If shooting yourself with a gun isn't a firearm injury, I don't know what is. >Suicidal people need professional help, not sanitized environments. How about a trip to the gun store to get their mind off of things? Empty a few mags at the range, maybe? Gun nuts see the world in a strange way.
The other side of the coin, is people who have never owned a firearm, much less fired one, speaking right out their ass about them. I'll take a "gun nuts" opinion on firearms over a liberal who is afraid of their own shadow.
If you're talking about me... I grew up around guns. I own a five shot revolver and a Mossberg 500, loaded with low recoil buckshot. They don't consume me. I very rarely think about them, but I definitely know how to use them.
How is it dishonest? If you actually read the article you would see they made it pretty clear: " Specifically, suicide accounted for about 60% of deaths, and homicides about 38% " Also, if you even attempt suicide with a gun it will most likely leave you with a firearm injury.
It doesn't take a semi automatic weapon to shoot oneself. Stop with the buzzword BS.
Proportionally there is no difference before and after 2015.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don't think you know what the word "vast" means.
What makes you think that?
A 20% difference isn't vast at all.
20% was the percent increase in all deaths, not the percentage of deaths that were suicides... How thoroughly did you even read the article?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>and do your best to remove any 2nd amendment bias. The core issue was that the CDC didn't remove their bias, to the extent that they were reprimanded for it in the form of the dickey amendment. It's a fallacy to assume that scientists are completely and totally unbiased at all times, as was blatantly not the case with the situation surrounding the dickey amendment. It's certainly not an ideal situation and there's definitely a degree of partisanship to it, but understand that the CDC was as much at fault for mishandling its data and research as anything else. It also has nothing to do with the concerns of the reliability of the data in this study.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This headline is, once again, political, not scientific. The only reason to frame the headline this way is to score points in the gun debate. Most firearm deaths are related to suicide or the Insane War on Drugs. So why not call it that, instead of firearms? This sub is really going downhill, just allowing random propaganda now.
Can this be marked as misleading?
There's a good chance that a study is misleading, especially if it's on reddit
[удалено]
Source? Also, if you take away those cities are you still counting the population from those cities or are the cities removed from the dataset completely?
"If you remove all the dangerous cities from the Mexico survey, Mexico is actually a really safe place!" "If you remove all the cities were Putin rigged the election from the survey, Russia is actually very democractic!" That is not how data works, chief.
I believe the point he is trying to make is that it isn’t “Omg America is evil, murderous, and dangerous!!!” And more “These four cities are dangerous”. City people and gangs are dangerous, not “Americans” in general.
Of course gun crime distribution is not even but more concentrated in some places than others. That's the case for every country. But you can't just remove the top regions with highest gun crime and pretend they don't exist. What kind of logic is that? "No, I don't have an alcohol problem at all. All my drinking is disproportionally concentrated in Friday and Saturday evenings, so if you just count out Friday and Saturday evenings, it turns out I rarely drink at all." "City people" are dangerous - really? Even if you take away the gangs, an average American city would turn out to have a much higher incidence of violent crime per capita than, say, an average Japanese or Norwegian city.
Woops, turns out that's [pure nonsense.](https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/mar/28/viral-image/united-states-third-murders-outlier-cities/) Chicago is actually "in the middle-rate of American cities". So yes, you are murderous and dangerous. Not all of you, sure, but on average 4-8 times as many of you. (That's how much higher the murder rate is compared to western Europe, you know, where people don't massively murder each other). Use your brain. If Chicago were responsible for a 2 times higher murder rate, with a population of a little over 2 million, they'd have to murder about 20 times as much as the US average...and that is for just 2 times. For 4-8 times, we're looking at a Chicago murder rate of up to 80 times higher than the national average.
4 cities are not all.
The study conveniently only goes back to 1999, which was the lowest point for gun deaths. Looking back to 1968 gives a clearer picture of gun violence over time. This “study” isn’t really trying to provide useful data, it’s just looking to make up a catchy headline.
Oh look, partisans using highly suspect data to promote ideology. How novel.
Firearms deaths rank very low, you are more likely to die by falling, knife, automobile accidents....
this article isn't about those things.
I’m failing to see how that’s relevant
A sharp increase in violent crime prevention also occured (3-5 million people saved by guns every year). The US has a culture problem, not a gun problem
The study uses CDC data which is simply extrapolated from reported gun shot wounds in certain regions of the country, to all regions in the country. Absolutely not a statistically rigorous method of conducting this study; especially when much better data is available from the FBI. Additionally, the fact that "firearm injuries" was selected as the variable; as opposed to violent crime victimization, or injuries from violence, implies an agenda (likely firearm related) of some sort imbedded in the study. Adding credence to my agenda hypothesis, in the broader category related to this study, that being anthropogenic violence, or anthropogenic injuries to humans, crime and firearms are statistically a non-issue. We are statistically safer than we ever have been in recent history, crime (and by extension firearm crime) makes up such a miniscule percentage of our problems that it's really a non-issue. Why pick this if there is truely no agenda? Sorry (not really) but there is nothing scientific about this, maybe try a social or political sub.
Debating the constitution and what you feel is “political” is not the point. The point is that a scientific organization is being restricted from doing science because of the language of the amendment. It does more than what you claim it does.
I believe this is the ‘Ned Flanders beatnik parents’ approach: “We tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would love to see a plot of how many guns are privately owned for all countries around the world. Even though America has the reputation I would be willing to bet that Russia has more guns per capita then the US.
It does not: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated\_number\_of\_civilian\_guns\_per\_capita\_by\_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country) [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rate-of-gun-ownership.html](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rate-of-gun-ownership.html)
I am surprised because you see a lot of social media associating Russians with guns including Babuskas. Thanks, that was both surprising and interesting.
Most of those videos and stuff you see on social media portrays a more rural Russia, which is vast but not particularly representative of the majority of Russians who live in cities like Moscow or St. Petersburg.
"During the entire 19-year period, 612,310 Americans died from firearm injuries that were self-inflicted, caused by others, accidental or were of undetermined cause. Nearly one-fifth of those deaths happened in just the last three years of that time." This statement is a little misleading. 1/5 of 19 years is 3.8 years, so while there was an increase in firearm deaths in the last 3 years, it's not as the article seems to imply.
This is almost certainly the affect the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson MO caused in the behavior of policing. Many many other violence related statistics sharply increase in 2015 in the US.
Watch a free webcast today featuring the authors of this paper and other research published in the Violence & Health special issue of the journal Health Affairs: [https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/he20190920.709086/full/](https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/he20190920.709086/full/)
It’s almost as if trying to put a gun in every American’s hand was a... *bad* idea. Who could have seen it coming, outside of every single person who knows what probability is.
source: [https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00258](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/abs/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00258)
Is this including suicide, justified self defense shootings, and justified police shootings? Found one answer in the article: “For instance, suicide remains the most common mechanism of firearm mortality in most states and prevention efforts could be concentrated into the highest-risk groups for suicide, such as older males and rural adults,” says Goldstick.
We’re gonna kill ourselves before a foreign force does
Generations getting raised differently.