Saying “223s are baby ammo for rifles. If they are choosing them for their damage they are complete morons at best when it is one of the weakest rounds” isn’t comforting to parents who have lost kids. Perhaps the hunters here don’t realize it but these rounds have been effective at killing children.
Maybe they unsurprisingly weigh less than most deer you shoot. Either way, show a modicum of respect. No one is talking about banning ammo or even guns for that matter as far as I can tell. It would be nice if if we could make it slightly harder for someone to buy one of these weapons and use it a day or two later to kill children.

I have repeatedly said the worst outcome would be a law abiding citizen is held defenseless against someone with a gun that wants to do bad things. They don’t want to hear that. They hear hear, hey how can we balance rights but maybe prevent some deaths as you want to take my guns away so I hate you.

What is wrong with you?

Same question to you.

Yes, you did.

And yes, you have made personal attacks. In actual fact, you joined the debate (after flip flopping from your first post) solely, as part of your bizarre cross-thread weirdness and little shots, to comment that you too think I am stupid. Which is fine, I lay no claim to intellect. But once again you are simply factually wrong. What else is new?

Good evidence.

Race has nothing to do with this debate. There is nothing wrong with me for knowing this. You just like to screech and troll.

Because I don’t agree with you I am a screech and troll. I wish I knew how debates worked so I could cite your fallacies. Oh wait, I do. Not enough characters allowed in this post though.

No, you and only you appear to be a troll because that's what you came here to do, as the timeline posted earlier makes clear. You flipped your position only after you chose to extend your bizarre personal obsession into this.

PWCC is still a fraud ring.

I appreciate that you don’t take this issue seriously. Sigh.

Well no, you're trolling and obsession isn't a very important issue.

Don’t agree with me equals troll. You might be overusing that word.

Maybe one day you will learn to read. We can only hope.

You are looking at the issue emotionally. Some of us are being reasoned.

It is a tragedy when kids die, no matter how it happens. We all agree. You do not claim higher moral ground than anyone else in this thread, pretending someone else is insensitive because they make a factual statement regarding the weapon used.

A Swiss army knife is less powerful than a 12 inch meat cleaver or machete. Can we agree on that? The rounds fired from an AR-15 are likewise less potent than many other firearms out there. Just plain fact. But, since that fact upsets your anti AR-15 narrative, here's your opportunity to call ME insensitive (or whatever else your sidestep will be this time.)

What ammo isn’t going to kill or seriously a kid? What point are you or anyone else on “your side” trying to make?

1) Climb on pile of bodies to make political point while ignoring any other murders.

2) When faced with demands for a factual basis to your emotional appeals, make a claim to fact you pulled out of your ass or from your favorite left-wing op-ed.

3) Pretend it's true even though it isn't.

4) When 3 becomes untenable, insist it doesn't matter, and go back to 1.

5) When the loop between 4-1 becomes untenable, start screeching about race or abortions.

6) Repeat and restart the process the next day.

Actually so good. We are screwed.

Because that is how the money has been couching the argument for decades. "Be able to keep the tyranny at bay, while having fun at the range in the mean time. It is not only your Right, it is your Duty." And then marketing "Get 'em while they last! They're coming for you and yours!"

It is all about keeping the money rolling in and ZERO to do with Constitutional faithfulness to the 2nd amendment.

The "AR" debate has been skewed a bit with semantics. It is not an "assault rifle", it is a "low-powered" rifle. But the problem arises with it's marketing (official and otherwise) of being smaller, cheaper, lightweight, easier to use, and able to inflict serious damage to would be wrongdoers (or even deer).

There is a reason that it is a very popular firearm for enthusiasts and mass shooters alike. For the mass shooters, I don't know whether it is because it is ubiquitous, or the best bang for the buck.

I don't think that damage or lack of damage has much to do with that being their choice.

I think that choice is more often about the "image" the weapon presents.
In the graphic I posted, the bottom gun is in nearly every way functionally identical to the AR-15 in the center. But to some it looks more old fashioned than "cool" or "tactical". It's also marketed as a "ranch gun" a term I've never heard of before now. It also happens to be at least 600 cheaper than an AR-15 type from Daniel Defense.

That was one of my points about who buys them and why.
To use an example from a different field, I'd love to get one of the current performance cars from Dodge. But if it was performance, I'd get more for my money with a Tesla. Would I probably speed a bit in both? Well, yeah. Pretty much everyone does around here. Would I be more likely to get a ticket driving a bright green charger than a silver Tesla? Also yes.
Would the typical Charger owner be more likely to be caught doing burnouts somehwere? Yes. (My opinion, as is the opinion that burnouts a stupid and display nothing but how poorly your suspension is set up. )

Would someone troubled and potentially violent prefer the AR over the Ruger? Of course. (Not all AR buyers of course, as it includes options for accessories that have genuine real world function)

That top one? That's an M1 Garand, used extensively by the US military in WWII. 30-06, and very powerful. My friend says that with a bit of fairly expensive work it can be an excellent target shooting rifle. Still competetive after 80 years. And although limited still available through the civilian marksmanship program run by the government. (fairly strict qualifying requirements though so buying one elsewhere may be cheaper)
It's also good for hunting.
If it's damage you're looking for, it's a far better choice. But again, old fashioned looks, so the crazy people won't go that route.

(and all that from a non-gun owner who has friends that target shoot and hunt)

I think a bigger and deeper problem is societal. *any use of you're or similar words are in the generic sense, not specifically you.
An overall impatience.
An absolute insistence that "I'm right"
A very self centered approach to solving a problem. Protest in a way that not only is a nuisance to the person whose actions you're* protesting, but to innocent people who may agree with your* protest.
An insistence that people don't disrespect someone. Again a self centered approach that respect must be given for merely existing rather than earned.
People on both sides of any political debate/argument dehumanize the "other side" through name calling etc.
Lack of if not outright disdain for personal responsibility.

All of that seems to make some people think violence is the quick fix for their grievances.
Why they ever think kids are the ones to go after for that is way beyond me.

And as supporting info, a complaint against Daniel Defense has been filed over their advertising imagery.

All reasonable and fair points, Steve. It's the bolded part that I keep coming back to. I remember a time not too long ago when I could go into a bar anywhere in the country and have a reasonable and respectful conversation with people whose views on things sometimes could not be further opposed to mine. These days, people ask "which side you're on" as if we are at war with our neighbors and compatriots.

I have rarely if ever have seen that in my 53 years and that includes when talking to most friends.

Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I take an interest in listening to people whose views are likely to challenge my own. This might explain why I'm still on this thread after being told I want elementary kids to die because I wouldn't immediately agree with someone's ideas about school safety policies :rolleyes:

LOL, not sure why any of us keep posting in this thread.:)

I have seen a few posts in which you have extended a fallacy that AR-15 type designed rifles are the choice of mass shooters or "ubiquitous" as just said now.

This is in no way true and I am sure you can find no proof of this over the past 20 years as handguns outnumber that statistic by a rather large margin (roughly 3 to 1). You have fallen for assumption, please research that number than go off thoughts. Also, understand that FBI statistics lump all shootings under the rifle category, which includes black rifles into the same number as any other rifle...thus that number is indeed much lower than the 3 to 1.

I am assuming you just are parroting things you have heard, so I am trying to help your statements become at least truthful in your defense.

This is why banning "assault" rifles is called a slope. It will not make much of an effect and then when the item that really is the greater use is noted it will be the new villain. And the beat goes on.

LOL now that is funny. PS invite me because that sounds fun.:D

An AR-15 style weapon was reportedly used by: 1) Uvalde shooter 2) Parkland shooter (Smith and Wesson M&P15, that manufacturer's version of the AR-15) 3) Las Vegas shooter (23 different weapons were recovered in the gunman's hotel suite, including multiple AR-15 style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition) 4) Aurora Colorado (One AR-15 variant from Smith & Wesson, a pump-action 12-gauge shotgun and at least one .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol, according to) 5) Sandy Hook (Remington AR-15-style bushmaster) 6) Waffle House in Nashville TN (AR-15 assault-style rifle) 7) San Bernadino Office party (Two AR-15 variants (Smith & Wesson M&P assault rifle and a DPMS Panther Arms assault rifle) a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Llama handgun) 8) Midland/Odessa (At least one AR-15 variant, as stated in a Justice Department press release about a case involving the man who sold the gun to the shooter.) 9) Poway Synagogue near San Diego 10) Sutherland Springs Texas (Ruger AR-15 variant) 11) Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh ("multiple firearms'' including a Colt AR-15 rifle)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...gs/7039204002/

In a 2016 blog post, the NRA referred to the AR-15 as "America's most popular rifle" https://web.archive.org/web/20191116...popular-rifle/

It has been reported that there are 20 million AR-15 style rifles in circulation in the USA: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-2...on-2022-5?op=1

Ubiquitous does not mean it is the most popular gun in the country. But it does mean they can be found pretty much everywhere.

Listing off instances it was used does not make it the most used gun in mass shootings, facts say it is not. FBI statistics slap it in a general rifle category which includes any and every rifle made and it's still not in the neighborhood...not even in the suburb.

That was my statement.

Okay, do you have any evidence supporting your facts?

It could be that the weapon was just used in virtually all high profile mass shootings, such as ones in schools and ones with particularly high amounts of deaths. I realize there are technically about 1 mass shooting per day or something like. I am sure a lot of those aren't with an AR-15 style weapon.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-types-used/

These are FBI statistics.

They also to not break down the rifle category by scary or that looks like my granddad's, this is all rifles.

That seems like a "slight" exaggeration. Since the FBI lists 132 over 40 years.

Thank you for sharing the statistics showing 75% of mass shootings are with handguns. I can't speak for Deertick, so I'll let him reply.

But I wonder if there is sort of a copycat situation with shooters in schools. I think they want to look badass, and they think the AR-15 does. I think a lot of them don't know much about guns. Supposedly the Uvalde 18 year old shooter had never shot a gun before.

That would be my guess also.

1. No you haven't. And I believe CG defined ubiquitous in context for you.

2. I neither agree nor disagree with your contention (other than the "assumption" part), as there has been no definitive data report that I am aware of. Using your logic that all are lumped into "rifles", then one could illogically claim that they are ALL AR style, no?

There is no consensus on what qualifies as a mass shooting. Some are based on number killed, some on number shot. Some exclude gang and drug related, some don't. There are databases that specify make/model used in nearly all cases, but I am not aware of any sortable. I do "feel" that a large majority of the '3+ shot' are handguns.

3. I don't "parrot" anything. I have pushed back on the notion that the 2nd provides unfettered access. I know that "unfettered" is not actually the case, but there are many that have fought EVERY.SINGLE.FETTER. tooth and nail. I'm *for* strict regulation, not banning guns.

4. See post 877. No one has argued against it.

Edited to add: I cannot see the source of the stats that you cited, but see that they are counting 3+ fatalities. Change this criteria to persons shot, and that number skyrockets.

"Since 2013, the source defines a mass shooting as any single attack in a public place with three or more fatalities, in line with the definition by the FBI. Before 2013, a mass shooting was defined as any single attack in a public place with four or more fatalities."

I guess it depends on how you define mass shooting.

According to the Rockefeller Institute for Government (which I had never heard of before) there are about 20 a year, I think as of 2020.

They define a mass shooting an incident of targeted violence carried out by one or more shooters at one or more public or populated locations. Multiple victims (both injuries and fatalities) are associated with the attack, and both the victims and location(s) are chosen either at random or for their symbolic value. The event occurs within a single 24-hour period, though most attacks typically last only a few minutes. The motivation of the shooting must not correlate with gang violence or targeted militant or terroristic activity.

https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/ma...ing-factsheet/

But Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research group that tracks shootings and their characteristics in the United States, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people, excluding the perpetrator(s), are shot in one location at roughly the same time. If you define it this way, the numbers are much higher: 611 mass shootings in 2020 alone.

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Now you have a somewhat logical conclusion.

These are usually mentally and socially challenged individuals for the most part and looking to cement themselves from a nobody into a media superstar. It's a Warhol effort to gain fame and thanks to the media, it works.

It is also fact that 690 people yearly win over a million dollars via lottery and that stat only includes logically people buying tickets.

The most biased website available everytown USA (because I am not cherry picking facts) states this -
Since 2013 there were at least 943 incidents of gunfire on school grounds, resulting in 321 deaths and 652 injuries nationally.

That number would include a large number of suicide and gang instances unrelated to mass shootings of course, but that helps their point and that's what people do.

It's a silly argument, but if I look at generally does it make more sense statistically to scare the crap out of kids by putting them in bunkers for infinitesimal chances or to teach them how to handle the more common chance of them winning a million dollars without going bankrupt?

Everything is perspective.

agreed, it's a silly statement (kinda) but the hyperbole of school shootings daily is also. One dead kid is too many, but chasing resolutions is not that easy of an answer. Your villain will just be replaced with another.

An agreeable commonality between all these recent kids is that everyone seemed to see it coming and all signs were ignored. As they were 18 years old, the childhood mental health and police notes do not show on a background check as they were juveniles. Would a more logical first step be addressing the loophole that juvenile records are not included? I can justify that and find ground.

Actually both links you posted make sense on how to count them. Thank you for the links.:)

I love that the gun violence archive accurately breaks down numbers to help remove shadows of vagueness purposely left off most reports.

The listed instances of defensive use should be eye opening to those unfamiliar and that think the news item the other day is somehow an anomaly.

Those numbers are verboten to show by many.

Others may wonder why it is 19% more likely to have an accidental shooting and 94% more likely to be used in a suicide, than a DGU?

One point of difficulty is that the early reports and media reports are often wrong on the specific facts. Any scary looking long gun with plastic furniture is an AR-15, if the scary looking long gun has wood furniture it is an AK-47, if it is a handgun it is a Glock.


These terms are used because these guns are in common use (and for Glock, I think it largely has to do with the fact it rhymes well and easily in rap lyrics that have pushed into the mainstream), and because the people reporting them do not know anything, on a purely factual level, about firearms. Back when I used to watch the news before giving up on it, it happened frequently that the photographs shown of the incident would not match the news description.


Nonetheless, it is likely that the AR-15 is used in a fairly significant amount of mass shootings wherein the criminal uses a long gun (which is a minority of mass shootings, rifles are not suited to stealth or surprise). This is not because it fires special or high-power bullets (it does the opposite). It is possible some people think it looks cool and edgy and that has influenced some. The same could be said of many guns of a similar aesthetic type, but it is possible. It seems to me it is most likely because it is, by far, the most common rifle in America. Honda Civics are involved in tons of accidents, not because they are difficult to steer or they are poorly made but because they are everywhere. Go to the rifle range, and there are probably at least as many AR-15's out on the tables as there are shooters. Half the rifles or more at your local gun store will be an AR-15. The advantages and disadvantages of the AR platform in particular don't really apply much to the type of situation under current discussion. A person shooting at unarmed and defenseless people in a 'gun-free zone' is not particularly helped or hampered by this platform as opposed to dozens of others.


DGU's are impossible to count because many are never reported (it's hard for a massacre not to enter the statistics, or a suicide) and most never require discharging the firearm. Even the anti-gun CDC report, commissioned specifically for that purpose, found up to 3.5mm.

Well suicide seems obvious, not to be rude. If given the option and I am not in a correct state, I would prefer a painless path. That is no great statement however likely. I don't see too much relevance in gun suicide numbers as those are a mental health issue and would people be more pleased if they just died in a different more acceptable method? If gun ownership was related to suicide rates the United States would very logically be number one by a landslide, we are not even close as 2020 WHO information had us at 31st.

Accidental shooting you must remember is not likely a civilian shooting someone else. It is police collateral damage, a bit of Darwinian damage to oneself and poor judgement while cleaning or the hundreds of holster shootings into the groin or leg from Glocks that have caused many departments to change service pistols. (Glocks do not have a manual safety, they have a stage trigger. Having a gun in the same pocket as a keychain that could tangle into the trigger path is a bad recipe for the unskilled).

You could almost call them ubiquitous. ;)

I'm not sure if the DGU stat in the chart shows killed or shot. Based on the low number, I would venture that it is killed.
And you are correct about make/model in instances where the perp or weapon wasn't captured. But a couple of years ago I looked up something that happened in my childhood town in 1985. I found info was listed in most instances individually (she used a Ruger 10/22.), but I am not aware of a 'master database'. So any info is going to be skewed by the 'known/reported' (since the number of unreported is unknown), and the disjointed recording locations.

It appears that the Gun Violence Archive Defensive Gun Use (DGU) category is not necessarily when there is a death by the way, based on the link below, but a lot of the instances do involve death. It appears that the total number in the Gun Violence Archive table may be from news stories/police reports? I would think it difficult to comprehensively get a realistic total figure.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/q...1-b80987f753b4

By the way, I came across an article that confirms that the Gun Violence Archive only uses news stories/police reports to count DGUs. It also goes into the challenges of trying to extrapolate total DGUs across the country. In short, its complicated....
https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/def...uys-with-guns/

US rate is 2nd in suicides amongst nations with 100M or more people. Russia is 1st.

US rate of gun deaths is 30th overall. Rate of suicide by gun is 2nd.

The rates do not include failed attempts. Or prevented attempts.

Mental health screening, flagging, and treatment should be part of the deal

That is a insanely selective number as you are eliminating countries by limiting it by size and narrowing until you meet a statistic appreciated. So I have qualms with eliminating most of the world to select from 13 countries and eliminating the whole of Europe. Come on now, there are 195 countries and you took it down to 13 to prove a point. Please use functional stats as percentage of 100k citizens.

As for your last statement, I would need far more info but we are certainly not far apart.

I am not against reasonable rules, I just get frustrated by such stats when used as it demeans a discussion. It’s much like stating that there are more stair falls in a 2 story home vs a ranch. I am fully for reasonable debate toward guidelines, with give and take.

I was staying out and was a bit grumpy from a poor day and probably should not have jumped in. If you feel I was attacking, I apologize, probably should have kept my mouth out of it as I continue to feel this is an exercise in futility. I just think it’s sad as in reality there is some middle ground to be found if people could discuss. I’ll try to keep out to avoid causing frustration for myself and others.

Here is the complete ranking so we can feel better than Kiribati, Micronesia, and Suriname.

Country T Suicide Rate Male Female 2022 Population
Lesotho 72.4 116 30.1 2,305,825
Guyana 40.3 63 17.4 808,726
Eswatini 29.4 55.1 4.7 1,201,670
South Korea 28.6 40.2 16.9 51,815,810
Kiribati 28.3 48.6 8.7 131,232
Micronesia 28.2 43.2 12.7 114,164
Lithuania 26.1 45.4 9.6 2,750,055
Suriname 25.4 38.8 11.8 618,040
Russia 25.1 43.6 9.1 144,713,314
South Africa 23.5 37.6 9.8 59,893,885
Ukraine 21.6 39.2 6.5 39,701,739
Belarus 21.2 36.7 7.7 9,534,954
Uruguay 21.2 34.5 8.9 3,422,794
Montenegro21 31.7 10.4 627,082
Latvia 20.1 35.5 7 1,850,651
Slovenia 19.8 31.4 8.3 2,119,844
Belgium 18.3 24.9 11.8 11,655,930
Vanuatu 18 28.1 7.6 326,740
Mongolia 17.9 30.7 5.4 3,398,366
Kazakhstan17.6 29 6.8 19,397,998
Hungary 16.6 25.9 8.3 9,967,308
Croatia 16.4 25.3 8.1 4,030,358
US 16.1 25 7.5 338,289,857
Botswana 16.1 26.3 6.4 2,630,296
Japan 15.3 21.8 9.2 123,951,692
Finland 15.3 23.2 7.6 5,540,745
Estonia 14.9 24.3 6.5 1,326,062
Sweden 14.7 19.9 9.5 10,549,347
Moldova 14.7 26.1 4.1 3,272,996
Solomon I 14.7 27 1.9 724,273
Austria 14.6 22.8 6.7 8,939,617
Cuba 14.5 23 6 11,212,191
Switzerland14.5 20.2 9 8,740,472
Zimbabwe 14.1 20 8.8 16,320,537
Sri Lanka 14 22.3 6.2 21,832,143
France 13.8 20.4 7.6 64,626,628
Mozambi 13.6 22 5.7 32,969,518
India 12.7 14.1 11.1 1,417,173,173
Samoa 12.6 18 6.7 222,382
Australia 12.5 18.6 6.4 26,177,413
Germany 12.3 18.6 6.2 83,369,843
CAR 12.3 19.6 5.2 5,579,144
Slovakia 12.1 21.2 3.4 5,643,453
Iceland 11.9 19.8 3.9 372,899
Canada 11.8 17.6 6.1 38,454,327
Netherland11.8 15.5 8.3 17,564,014
Norway 11.8 15.8 7.7 5,434,319
Portugal 11.5 17.9 5.7 10,270,865
Serbia 11.4 16.6 6.3 7,221,365
Poland 11.3 20.1 3.1 39,857,145
Luxembourg11.3 15.3 7.1 647,599
Singapore 11.2 15 7.1 5,975,689
New Zealand11 16.5 5.8 5,185,288
Eritrea 10.9 16.6 5.2 3,684,032
Bosnia And Herzegovina 10.9 17.6 4.5 3,233,526
Denmark 10.7 14.9 6.5 5,882,261
Romania 9.7 16.5 3.3 19,659,267
Bulgaria 9.7 15.3 4.4 6,781,953
Namibia 9.7 16.7 3.2 2,567,012
Haiti 9.6 11.8 7.6 11,584,996
Ireland 9.6 15.4 3.9 5,023,109
Djibouti 9.6 12.6 6.4 1,120,849
Mauritius 9.5 16.3 2.8 1,299,469
N Korea 9.4 11.2 7.6 26,069,416
N Macedonia9.4 13.9 4.8 2,093,599
Georgia 9.2 16 3 3,744,385
Nepal 9 16.4 2.7 30,547,580
Cameroon 9 13.6 4.4 27,914,536
Chile 9 14.9 3.2 19,603,733
Fiji 9 12.2 5.7 929,766
Pakistan 8.9 13.3 4.3 235,824,862
Ivory Coast 8.9 14.9 2.8 28,160,542
Bahrain 8.9 12.5 2.4 1,472,233
Thailand 8.8 15 2.9 71,697,030
Togo 8.8 13.8 3.9 8,848,699
Trinidad And Tobago 8.7 13.9 3.6 1,531,044
Argentina 8.4 13.7 3.3 45,510,318
Gabon 8.4 14.2 2.4 2,388,992
China 8.1 9.8 6.2 1,425,887,337
Costa Rica 8.1 14.1 2 5,180,829
Seychelles 8.1 14.4 1.4 107,118
Uzbekistan 8 11.3 4.8 34,627,652
United Kingdom 7.9 11.8 4 67,508,936
Somalia 7.9 12 3.8 17,597,511
Equl Guinea7.9 9.4 6 1,674,908
Saint Lucia 7.9 14.3 1.7 179,857
Benin 7.8 11.8 3.8 13,352,864
Spain 7.7 11.4 4.2 47,558,630
Ecuador 7.6 11.6 3.6 18,001,000
Vietnam 7.5 10.4 4.7 98,186,856
Burkina Faso7.5 11.3 3.7 22,673,762
Kyrgyzstan 7.4 11.7 3.2 6,630,623
Zambia 7.3 12 2.7 20,017,675
Morocco 7.2 9.7 4.7 37,457,971
Belize 7.1 12.5 1.7 405,272
Guinea 7 9.2 4.9 13,859,341
Guinea Bissau 7 10.2 3.9 2,105,566
Brazil 6.9 10.9 3 215,313,498
DR Congo 6.7 10.6 2.8 99,010,212
Italy 6.7 10.1 3.5 59,037,474
Sierra Leone 6.7 8.3 5.1 8,605,718
Ghana 6.6 11.8 1.2 33,475,870
Chad 6.4 9.6 3.3 17,723,315
United Arab Emirates 6.4 8 3 9,441,129
Burundi 6.2 9.2 3.4 12,889,576
Bolivia 6.2 8.4 4.1 12,224,110
Kenya 6.1 9.1 3.2 54,027,487
Angola 6.1 10 2.3 35,588,987
El Salvador 6.1 10.5 2.1 6,336,392
Malta 6.1 9.8 2.3 533,286
Saudi Arabia 6 8.9 2 36,408,820
Senegal 6 9.2 3 17,316,449
Paraguay 6 8.7 3.2 6,780,744
Guatemala 5.9 9.3 2.6 17,843,908
Yemen 5.8 7 4.6 33,696,614
Qatar 5.8 7.2 1.7 2,695,122
Malaysia 5.7 8.9 2.3 33,938,221
Turkmenistan 5.7 8.8 2.7 6,430,770
Rwanda 5.6 8.2 3 13,776,698
Madagascar 5.5 7.6 3.4 29,611,714
Ethiopia 5.4 7.7 3.1 123,379,924
Malawi 5.4 9.2 1.7 20,405,317
Laos 5.4 7.6 3.2 7,529,475
Comoros 5.4 7 3.8 836,774
Mexico 5.3 8.5 2.2 127,504,125
Niger 5.3 7.2 3.3 26,207,977
Israel 5.3 8.4 2.3 9,038,309
Iran 5.2 7.7 2.8 88,550,570
Greece 5.1 8.4 1.9 10,384,971
Cambodia 4.9 7 2.8 16,767,842
Dominican Republic 4.9 8 1.8 11,228,821
Oman 4.9 6.8 1 4,576,298
Gambia 4.8 6.6 3 2,705,992
Uganda 4.6 7.6 1.7 47,249,585
Bhutan 4.6 6.3 2.7 782,455
Libya 4.5 6 2.9 6,812,341
Liberia 4.5 5.6 3.3 5,302,681
Nicaragua 4.4 6.9 1.9 6,948,392
Tanzania 4.3 6.6 2 65,497,748
Tajikistan 4.3 5.7 2.8 9,952,787
Albania 4.3 5.9 2.7 2,842,321
Afghanistan 4.1 4.6 3.6 41,128,771
Mali 4.1 5.3 2.9 22,593,590
Azerbaijan 4.1 6.6 1.6 10,358,074
Colombia 3.9 6.1 1.8 51,874,024
South Sudan 3.9 5.7 2 10,913,164
Sudan 3.8 4.9 2.8 46,874,204
Tonga 3.8 5 2.6 106,858
Bangladesh 3.7 5.7 1.7 171,186,372
Timor Leste 3.7 5.3 2 1,341,296
Iraq 3.6 5.2 2 44,496,122
Cyprus 3.6 6 1.3 1,251,488
Nigeria 3.5 5 1.9 218,541,212
Bahamas 3.5 5.9 1.3 409,984
Tunisia 3.3 4.7 1.9 12,356,117
Armenia 3.3 5.6 1.3 2,780,469
Mauritania 3.1 4 2.2 4,736,139
Egypt 3 4 2 110,990,103
Papua New Guinea 3 4.3 1.6 10,142,619
Myanmar 2.9 4.9 1.1 54,179,306
Panama 2.9 4.7 1 4,408,581
Kuwait 2.9 4.3 0.7 4,268,873
Peru 2.8 4.2 1.4 34,049,588
Lebanon 2.8 3.8 1.7 5,489,739
Maldives 2.7 3.9 0.8 523,787
Brunei 2.7 4.4 0.8 449,002
Algeria 2.5 3.1 1.8 44,903,225
Indonesia 2.4 3.7 1.1 275,501,339
Turkey 2.4 3.6 1.2 85,341,241
Jamaica 2.4 3.7 1.1 2,827,377
Philippines 2.2 3.1 1.2 115,559,009
Venezuela 2.1 3.5 0.7 28,301,696
Honduras 2.1 3.3 0.8 10,432,860
Jordan 1.6 2.5 0.7 11,285,869
Sao Tome And Principe 1.5 2.2 0.8 227,380
Saint Vincent And the Grenadines 1 1.3 0.6 103,948
Grenada 0.7 0.6 0.7 125,438
Barbados 0.6 0.9 0.3 281,635
Antigua And Barbuda 0.4 0 0.8 93,763

Suicide by gun rank is all countries regardless how tiny they are. And I misspoke as I looked at a ranking from 2016. We are currently #1.

Country Firearm-related death rate per 100K population per year Homicide rate per year Suicide rate per year Total death number per year
United States 12.21 4.46 7.32 40,175

I just used a cutoff that accounted for 5BN people as a point of reference for a minor issue of "Total Suicide Rate" as it pertained to the topic. The "Suicide by Firearm is still a /100K and was not filtered by population totals.

I didn't mean to distort the overall point.

Why are you using suicide by gun vs actual suicide numbers? That again is vastly misleading.

Under what reasoning is that number a better debate point than a general suicide count for the country? The method is unimportant unless you are purposely using selective data points. It is duplicitous to set a data point using an entirely assumed reason that suicide would decline if they are requested to change method, that is a public health issue.

This is a sensitive issue for me as a mental health volunteer who has lost many amazing people to mental illness and value them and continue to be angered by the disregard of our government to address an issue that is not proving a debate point by disregarding human lives with this type of statistic as politicians tend to take advantage of tragedies.

This goes entirely back to my statement and much as to why people get defensive.

I am also with you on waiting periods even if they help in a small case (I say that only in example, I do not know if they will help...but waiting a couple days in a depression circle can't hurt as it gives time to seek help. Sadly those requests are often overlooked, but that is for another discussion.)

Again, I am not attacking. This was a selected statistic located in which your answer was obvious based on ownership numbers, but leaves the most important fact off the table. It falls in the same bucket as changing the number deciding a mass murder, the weapon type percentages stay the same.

I again am trying to stay out for today, and I again state that I think we likely have more similarities than differences...this one stat used hit a little close to home for me and my experience and this is my response.

Justin, this is my point entirely, along with the need for a REAL commitment to MH care. The point that was trying to be made (not a fact by any stretch, as info is only obtainable via anecdotal reporting by friends/family and failed attempt survivors) is that most MH professionals who analyze the subset of suicides by firearms suggest that a large number are 'spur of the moment' decisions that may have been prevented without access to that particular firearm at that time. Can anything be done to prevent these instances that are truly effective? Who knows.

It appeared that an attempt was made to pooh-pooh the suicide by gun rate, by pointing out that someone could be successful in countless other ways. IMO, the stat of overall suicide rate in relation to all countries is virtually meaningless in this discussion. The fact that the US is in the top tier overall, and #1 in firearm use, seems that we have several significant factors involved.

Also, I am intimately aware of the stress that those who are in the MH community experience. I commend you on your service. It is not a job it is a calling. People don't realize the enormous emotional capital that is expended daily.

If by attempt you mean successfully destroyed this ignorant argument, then yes, an attempt was made.

We have more firearms here than any other country in the world, so naturally there are going to be more suicides by firearm. In fact, I'm shocked we're not number 1.

What's appalling is your lack of care behind what is causing people to commit suicide, by your lack of care for the overall number instead of just the suicide by firearm statistic. You and many others are so hellbent on taking away firearms that you ignore the real problems.

Thanks for adding your self-righteous indignation and outrage KMay. You never fail on that.

The idea that suicide rates go up with gun ownership (not just suicide by guns, but overall suicide rates more generally) is well-documented.

“Suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, driven by transient life crises,” the authors write. “Most attempts are not fatal, and most people who attempt suicide do not go on to die in a future suicide. Whether a suicide attempt is fatal depends heavily on the lethality of the method used — and firearms are extremely lethal. These facts focus attention on firearm access as a risk factor for suicide especially in the United States, which has a higher prevalence of civilian-owned firearms than any other country and one of the highest rates of suicide by firearm.”

Deertick acknowledged the mental health crisis underlying the suicide crises in this country, and that more attention/funding is needed to address the issue.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne...cide-risk.html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazin.../guns-suicide/

https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/...tudy-confirms/

I'm not sure if you are just being trollish or you truly have a comprehension issue.

My fear is that’s just what he thinks is an acceptable way to talk to people.

In a firearm suicide, who pulls the trigger?

Go one step back.

What caused that person to put a gun to their head?

Go one step back.

What was society doing while the person was going down a dark hole?

Spoiler alert: probably arguing about restricting/banning inanimate objects.

And that's the issue.


Speaking of suicide: Epstein didn't kill himself.

How could he? He didn't have a gun.

Arguing about restricting/banning inanimate objects is probably what drives people to suicide? That’s special.

No it's the lack of respect for the laws and law enforcement in todays society backed up by your first paragraph.

I think he did for one reason: his life for decades was one of opulence, luxury, immense wealth, power, beautiful young women, and he knew that was all gone and he would have to live a menial life the rest of the way and wanted no part of it. I also believe the powers that be wanted the same result and purposely enabled him to do it by turning the cameras off and putting incompetent guards in charge of watching him.

For the amount of money he had i am surprised of the girls he picked...sort of a fast food option has Heidi Fleiss put it with Robert Kraft and the day spa...

i do think after a few years, with his power he may of gotten some sort of pardon or favor from many of his political friends.. especially once all the claims against him got resolved and there are new other matters from other people's drama for the media to focus on...

Wow

I’m curious if you went back and read this, after typing it out, and then hit submit.

I may be an optimist these days, but I think we just might have found something we can all agree on now...

I was pointing to the fact in was praying on unsophisticated girls.... its always the people that are looking to troll on an issue that you wonder is it themselves that have the same issue.. ( not saying you, just generally)...

Predators often choose their prey based on what they think they can get away with. Did you expect to find that he had been raping all his ultra-wealthy friends' children instead?

Let’s be clear. You are accusing people, in general, who think your comment about the victims being the ‘fast food’ option for abuse was bizarre, of possibly being pedophiles? Because that is what you have written here.

Are you in your right mind?

Funny when people say lets be clear, they then say something that isnt clear..

i am saying that TO the predator, they were 'fast food' options (someone that can be delivered quickly for cheap and other people used that terms before which i just requoted) someone opined they were easier targets than well off people......your 'outrage' is misplaced but its common these days on the boards to have lots of 'outrage'

well there is a lot of space between 'utlra-wealthy' friends children..



so all predators only pray on the same people that he got away with..i think not...

your comment seems to imply that victims are either from high schools with lesser means that are recruited or children from ultra wealthy friends. I beg to differ


I do believe people that pray on the vulnerable are the biggest criminals out there and should do more time or just as much time as the worst of the worst criminals.....

I was responding specifically to these two comments of yours. I'm not sure why you would refer to child victims of a sexual predator as "fast food options" but to your claim that they were "unsophisticated" I am saying that Epstein would have been less successful in committing his crimes had he been targeting the children of more privileged people (more "sophisticated"). I suppose there is a chance that by "unsophisticated" you simply meant "young"–if so, that's a really weird way of making the point.

well child high schoolers was the point I was making of being unsophisticated versus adults, say in their 20s...

Again you give a non answer. Saying Epstein would of been less successful against 'sophisticated' kids of wealth people, does not seem to include a LOT of woman in between those genres in which he would also be super successful...he was promising victorias secret access i believe which people older than high school age could have easily been fallen pray

Weinstein was pretty successful with woman older than kids in high school who i will go out on a limb and say they were more 'sophisticated'...that the girls that were with epstien..

well child high schoolers was the point I was making of being unsophisticated versus adults, say in their 20s...

Again you give a non answer. Saying Epstein would of been less successful against 'sophisticated' kids of wealth people, does not seem to include a LOT of woman in between those genres in which he would also be super successful...he was promising victorias secret access i believe which people older than high school age could have easily been fallen pray....you also ignore my post in which to Epstien he considered the girls the FF option.

Weinstein was pretty successful with woman older than kids in high school who i will go out on a limb and say they were more 'sophisticated'...then the girls that were with epstein

we can all agree it was a terrible outrage..not sure why you direct posts to me on this....perhaps you may want to move on..

So, it surprised you that a pedophile chose to prey on children? Weinstein isn't a pedophile as far I know. To your second paragraph, if your point is that my statement doesn't include a thing that it wasn't meant to include, you are absolutely correct.

Yeah. You’re not helping yourself with this comment either.

hmm its not my first time around the block on this forum..i dont think anyone really cares at this point..this is a gun ownership poll thread......you are not helping yourself either..

it didnt surprise me actually he would pray on children....i thought weinstein had victims as well. to show you that you can be a victim without being a child... i guess you feel that if you are not a child you cant be a victim....my point was you can have victims far less than kids or young people of wealthy parents ..not just high schoolers.

however Weinstein was with at least one underage girl allegedly that was 16 years old so if true, plus who knows who else we dont know about, but that would be considered pedophile behavior i would submit,

this is a gun ownership thread..maybe you may want to direct to your responses about the thread......

Epstien was with girls that were over 18...so was Weinstein..not sure why you are trying to make a difference...we can all agree both of their behaviors were terribly bad..

Considering that you seem to struggle with writing in the English language and do not understand how capital letters, sentence structure, or periods work, this is an odd point to try and make.

This is a complete, outright lie. You did not say that TO the predator. What you said was, in post 1024 and as I quoted in post 1026: "its always the people that are looking to troll on an issue that you wonder is it themselves that have the same issue.. ( not saying you, just generally)..."

That is not a statement TO Epstein. Epstein wasn't 'trolling' on the issue, nor is he plural. You are explicitly addressing the people here, the 'trolls', by which you seem to mean the people who think your post is bizarre at best, might themselves "have the same issue", which is obviously being a pedophile. At least have the guts to own it if you're crazy enough to claim it.

What is wrong with you? I've seen a lot of stupid shit on Net54 (just like everywhere in the world), from the low effort scammers to the guy who was virtue signaling about how people shouldn't post pictures of Cap Anson while using a picture of Cap Anson as his avatar, but saying that most people here (nobody seems to think your fast food comment or joke is appropriate, tasteful or possibly sensical, thank God) might be pedophiles for that takes the cake. Are you insane or just off your meds this week?

what is wrong with you.. when i see you attack the poster and not debate the message we all know you are just a trolling....nobody wants a troller...

you also misidentify and spin almost everything i said as well.....i .ive seen some crazy posts as well.....all this fake outrage as well...i continue to advise of the bad actions of these eptsien, wienstien and lets add R. Kelly over and over and all you do is attack the poster. All I keep saying is how terrible these people are and you are calling me insane... so its insane for me to say Weinstein is a sick and terrible person. Please stop lieing and mischaracterizing my posts...Yes I said to Mr. Epstein he looked at the victims as FF options (thats what my intent was that was explained)...and i also said he was a terrible person and should be in jail as long as any of the worst criminals in the world , dont hear you comment a peep on that.. You took the liberty to say i am calling people on the board pedis, when i said 'generally' and was not implying anyone on the these boards AND was not referring to just pedis, was referring to all things as i said AN ISSUE, (example, some people see too much violence in all matters in life, but they themselves have a violence issue )I thought you were the grammar king as i did not say THIS issue.........just a crazy narrative...

facts do not care about your feelings...


this is a gun ownership thread...i am just responding to personal attacks, i am not the one initiating them..

You are definitely unhinged. There's no spin, just your outright lunacy and bizarre pedo claims on open display. Get help.

Everyone can read and make their own decisions..not sure why you continue to banter back and forth, nobody else cares..but you right i am luny to go back and forth with you on this thread. Perhaps you will make another personal attack but is what it is.... we both like cards so does everyone else...maybe you want to put an end to it or make another post which many would deem luny at this point...

You're not getting the support you think you are.

If we can get back to topic instead of this nutter's rants about how disagreeing with his shitposts makes one possibly a pedophile, that would be great...

Each sidetrack off topic just gets crazier and crazier. I'm not sure we can top this one, it's probably peaked.