Discussion in 'The War Room' started by abiG, May 22, 2019.
Who cares about thoughts? Isn't net preservation of life whats important here?
That's just not true. a rope or a 200 foot bridge are pretty solid tried and true methods also. I will side with part of your argument. many drunken distraught people have picked up a gun and killed themselves in the heat of the moment. many times in front of family members in a domestic dispute etc. had they not had the gun near them they probably wouldn't have done it. but then one would have to determine whether a mentally unfit individual should have access to a strong drug such as alcohol. at the end of the day, a gun is just a tool.
And how do you know this?
Do you have some magic mirror that you can talk to the dead.
Yes it’s a fact that a gun is more effective in killing yourself.
Allan the fact could be when someone uses pill or other means it’s more of a cry for help and attention then a real attempt. They don’t want to die so they choose a means that they are most likely to be saved from.
Those that use a gun or jump off a building or step in front of a speeding train actually want to die and select a ,eans to assure this.
As for the thread , as normal the anti 2nd don’t want facts that they don’t like. Just like they don’t care if their proposed “common sense “ gun control measures would have actually reduced the shootings they talk about.
They don’t care as long as they can work at getting U.K. type gun control.
They don’t want to talk about programs that work that go after criminals that use guns for the overwhelming gun violence numbers.
No not at any cost.
Well, studies have been done on this you know
So, let me get this straight. If stricter gun control leads to a net reduction in loss of life, that's not worth the cost of having stricter gun regulations?
Wow . . . you're clueless.
Is it? Then maybe folks should actually focus on what takes more lives . . .
Here's a hint . . . boy . . . it ain't firearms.
And did they have a way to talk to the dead to ask them if they would have commited suicide if they didn’t have a gun?
Not at the cost of taking the rights of citizens.
With enough rights removed and control of citizens we can stop almost all crime.
Is that what you want?
Because I sure as hell don’t.
So, by your logic.. If say (hypothetical since I dont know the actual numbers) obesity related heart attacks claim more lives than cancer caused by excessive smoking.. We should stop focusing on cancer?
I dont trust known liars.
Do you actually think this is the only way you can obtain accurate data?
Are you the suicide police?
Sure, fight me
It depends on the data.
When you want to know if a dead person would have killed themselves if they didn’t have a gun then any data you would get would be a guess at best and most likely one that was highly influenced by your preconceived goal.
If guns are more effective then taking pills at killing yourself is data that can be gotten.
What was it you said before?
Sure, but with a large enough sample and controls for other variables, you can make a pretty reliable conclusions
No, in question like that you would not. Like I said it would highly subjective at best.
Are you trying to say that more lives will be saved if we completely dropped all efforts into fighting cancer and focused it all into fighting heart attacks? Do you think its like a 1:1 correlation between resources allocated and net lives saved?
Is any survey based data then "highly subjective at best"?
Separate names with a comma.