Washington Should suicides be included in gun-death statistics?

[No_Regerts]

Well said. I'd also add that there are not many of my LEO brothers and sisters here in So Oregon who would take up arms against law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment RIGHTS. For that reason, I can't see Americans ever relinquishing their "Right to Bear Arms." Who is going to enforce it? It will only happen voluntarily.

I'm sure the anti-gunners are absolutely giddy over these recent murders by cowards. It supports their agenda.

Totally true. You and I both know how a savvy officer can drive administration crazy when it comes to some things

 

[CamoDeafie]

@Burnhaven , why don't you visit Texas, and Florida, and a few other States in which feral hogs are a problem, and tell the people shooting them with large capacity magazines that they're bad shots? Or visit Utah, Idaho, Nevada, other States where coyotes and prairie dogs are a problem for ranchers and farmers and ask them why do they need so many rounds....?

Why do the police have a need for "large" capacity magazines and semiautomatics, and body armor; they'd be just fine with a 30-30 lever (or a 308 bolt action rifle) and a .38 Special revolver, and armor is unnecessary, because most criminals are unarmed right?

 

[Kruel J]

To answer the OP....NO!

If someone wants to ventilate themselves, how should that in any way be lumped in to "murders" or "mass shootings"?

 

[DB is Here]

Seems many here have the same opinion on a few things...Curious how that would make it an echo chamber.

If an argument was to be made, then make it. However using echo chamber seems hollow and devoid of any real argument IMO.

 

[Kruel J]

Seems many here have the same opinion on a few things...Curious how that would make it an echo chamber.

If an argument was to be made, then make it. However using echo chamber seems hollow and devoid of any real argument IMO.

Saying that "standard capacity" magazines aren't necessary on a firearm forum is bound to attract attention. Mostly negative.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

They should not. sadly the stats they always quote lump everything together to push a narrative.

Defensive deaths
Leo defensive deaths
Suicide by cop
Suicides
Accidental (children finding loaded guns)
Assaults
Hunting accidents

All get lumped together to fool the low information types and it needs to stop. Statistics in general are a joke, at this point they are as credible as citing wikipedia. Info can be manipulated one way or another.

 

[Kruel J]

Oh and quoting a FB link that dumps into Everytown doesn't help either. Kinda like linking to PETA in the hunting section.

 

[ma96782]

Gun control advocates do that intentionally because they know that when they keep talking about 33,000 "gun deaths" many voters are going to think they are talking about murders. Whenever anyone uses the statistic "gun deaths" without explaining most of those deaths are suicides they are trying to mislead people. Including suicides makes the number much bigger. In Oregon more than 80% of "gun deaths" are suicides. The percentage is similar for several other western states but the gun control advocates never mention that.

Statistics.....like how the Dems used the 33k gun deaths to form a platform against the 2nd A.

Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year**, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

Taken from: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

But.....you can always tell that a POLLITICIAN is lying when his/her mouth is moving. IMHO, especially when they use numbers/stats (and emotion) to try and sway the voters to their camp. Well OK, Ok, ok.....numbers can/could make a point. But, some stats are definitely skewed to what picture/point of view the politician would like you to buy into.

When I hear a politician quote statistics while trying to convince me about how much a project will cost and what the benefits will be. I choke. Knowing the history of past projects has a lot to do with that gag reflex.

Do you get that too?

YES, it includes Republicans.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Kruel J]

Statistics.....like how the Dems used the 33k gun deaths to form a platform against the 2nd A.

Preventing Gun Violence
With 33,000 Americans dying every year**, Democrats believe that we must finally take sensible action to address gun violence. While responsible gun ownership is part of the fabric of many communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. We can respect the rights of responsible gun owners while keeping our communities safe. To build on the success of the lifesaving Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.

Taken from: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#gun-violence

But.....you can always tell that a POLLITICIAN is lying when his/her mouth is moving. IMHO, especially when they use numbers/stats (and emotion) to try and sway the voters to their camp. Well OK, Ok, ok.....numbers can/could make a point. But, some stats are definitely skewed to what picture/point of view the politician would like you to buy into.

When I hear a politician quote statistics while trying to convince me about how much a project will cost and what the benefits will be. I choke. Knowing the history of past projects has a lot to do with that gag reflex.

Do you get that too?

YES, it includes Republicans.

Aloha, Mark

LOL I always laugh at the "people are dying" statistics.

Eh.....people ALWAYS die.

 

[CamoDeafie]

LOL I always laugh at the "people are dying" statistics.

Eh.....people ALWAYS die.

I feel sorry for all the 100% healthy people in the hospitals dying of nothing but old age and agreed, suicides should not be relevant to crime stats

I mean, just look at "suicides per capita" and you'll see that Japan of all places, where there is very low gun ownership, a homogenous culture, and low overall crime rates... has a far higher rate of suicides than US

 

[Burnhaven]

Well I expressed an opinion about large magazines and the next comment was "who let that libtard in here". I'll just write that person off as an aberration and continue.
You might ask why you can't operate a motorcycle on public streets without a muffler.... the regulation came about because although most motorcycle owners would take the peace and quiet for their neighbors into consideration and voluntarily put on a muffler, a few wouldn't...
there's always an alternative to acquiescing to laws and regulations passed by the majority , and that is to buy your own island..... the old adage is "your freedom to move your fist ends when it reaches my nose"
I suspect there will be further regulations on large magazines ....the gun-owning community just has to decide if they're going to compromise and negotiate for the best possible result or continue to dig in their heels , causing the opposition to come down with even more regulation that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

 

[Kruel J]

I feel sorry for all the 100% healthy people in the hospitals dying of nothing but old age and agreed, suicides should not be relevant to crime stats

I mean, just look at "suicides per capita" and you'll see that Japan of all places, where there is very low gun ownership, a homogenous culture, and low overall crime rates... has a far higher rate of suicides than US

If someone wants to self-extinguish they will find a way.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You mean like when there was 0.01% or less "turn ins/compliance" in New Zealand for example?

 

[Kruel J]

Well I expressed an opinion about large magazines and the next comment was "who let that libtard in here". I'll just write that person off as an aberration and continue.
You might ask why you can't operate a motorcycle on public streets without a muffler.... the regulation came about because although most motorcycle owners would take the peace and quiet for their neighbors into consideration and voluntarily put on a muffler, a few wouldn't...
there's always an alternative to acquiescing to laws and regulations passed by the majority , and that is to buy your own island..... the old adage is "your freedom to move your fist ends when it reaches my nose"
I suspect there will be further regulations on large magazines ....the gun-owning community just has to decide if they're going to compromise and negotiate for the best possible result or continue to dig in their heels , causing the opposition to come down with even more regulation that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

Consider these heels firmly dug. And I see what you are doing here.

 

[rick benjamin]

No
Guns don't cap themselves

 

[CamoDeafie]

Serious question here. What is the actual, documented, enforced penalty for non-compliance of illegal/unconstitutional Acts and laws?

Lets take the muffler analogy further. Most people don't wanna hear gunfire, and they don't wanna know someone is shooting some rounds off in the woods or at a range or some such... then the Hearing Protection Act, the bill that was going to remove firearm sound suppressors/"silencers" from the 1934 NFA laws should have passed easily, and should have had massive popular support but didn't, and died in committee .
Why is that? Why did the pols and the people refuse to allow safety and hearing protection to be accessible? Oh, its never been about that, its always been about control.

If gun control laws reduced crimes then the reverse must be true, that States with the least gun control laws should have higher gun crimes committed
But we can plainly see from the examples of Chicago/Illiniois, California, New York, Maryland (Baltimore), and New Jersey that it is not so.

 

[Kruel J]

Serious question here. What is the actual, documented, enforced penalty for non-compliance of illegal/unconstitutional Acts and laws?

Lets take the muffler analogy further. Most people don't wanna hear gunfire, and they don't wanna know someone is shooting some rounds off in the woods or at a range or some such... then the Hearing Protection Act, the bill that was going to remove firearm sound suppressors/"silencers" from the 1934 NFA laws should have passed easily, and should have had massive popular support but didn't, and died in committee .
Why is that? Why did the pols and the people refuse to allow safety and hearing protection to be accessible? Oh, its never been about that, its always been about control.

If gun control laws reduced crimes then the reverse must be true, that States with the least gun control laws should have higher gun crimes committed
But we can plainly see from the examples of Chicago/Illiniois, California, New York, Maryland (Baltimore), and New Jersey that it is not so.

There you go, being all logical and citing facts and pertinent information. How dare you.

 

[BSG 75]

I'm still trying to understand the need for large magazines ....let's just leave out of the argument those that think they need them because the government is going to send their black helmeted squads into your living room to confiscate your guns .......for self-defense generally in the home and for hunting you don't need a 15-round magazine .....if you do you're such a poor shot you shouldn't be hunting

Let me see if I can persuade you.

Law-abiding citizens need "large capacity" magazines for the same reason police officers use them: for self-defense. Studies have shown in a high stress life-or-death self-defense shooting even police officers miss with most of their shots A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty Those extra rounds in a "large capacity" magazine can mean the difference between life and death for a citizen in a self-defense shooting, especially since they lack the advantages of body armor, backup, and radios that police have. If police with those advantages need "large capacity" magazines, citizens need them even more.

Even when you hit with all of your shots sometimes the threat will not stop, especially if they are delirious or intoxicated. In the video below the knife-wielding man was threatening police officers but ordinary citizens have had similar encounters. This officer had his partner with gun drawn backing him up, he probably had body armor, and he was in radio contact with dispatch with help on the way. A citizen would have none of that. Count how many times the assailant was shot initially, and what happened next. And that's with all of his shots hitting. Do you really want to be fumbling around, dropping your magazine that is limited to the arbitrary number of 10 rounds, trying to reload with another magazine limited to the completely arbitrary number of 10 rounds while a crazed knife-wielding man is attacking you?

Facing one threat is bad enough. How about multiple threats? Unfortunately home invasions by multiple criminals have become more common. In the video below THREE armed criminals enter a woman's home that she was also using as a business. Do you really want to confront THREE armed home invaders with your little government-limited 10-round or less magazine? Do you think criminals are good sports who will play fair and only use limited capacity magazines?

Recently a homeowner used his AR-15 and "high capacity" magazine to defend himself from FOUR armed intruders.

Homeowner Shot in Home Invasion; Used AR15 to Kill Half the Crooks
His AR kept him alive.

Homeowner Shot in Home Invasion; Used AR15 to Kill Half the Crooks - AllOutdoor.com

Four armed crooks reportedly stormed into a quiet country home on Marion County, Florida in a dramatic home invasion robbery attempt on the evening of July 10, 2019. Only two lived to tell about it because the disabled-veteran homeowner was armed with an AR-style rifle. Unfortunately, the good...

www.alloutdoor.com

Next you mentioned hunting, and people who use "high capacity" magazines must be "poor shots" who "shouldn't be hunting". While "high capacity" magazines aren't necessary for all types of hunting, they can be useful when hunting herds of wild hogs that cause millions of dollars of crop damage every year.

So I think a good case can be made for the usefulness of so-called "high capacity" magazines for citizens, both for self-defense and for some types of hunting. For self-defense it is better to have extra rounds and not need them than need them but not have them.

But even if you dismiss all that, the people who are advocating for magazine capacity limits - and apparently that includes you - have to make the case for magazine capacity limits. You don't get a free pass. You can't just say we should limit magazine capacity because it will save lives. Where's the evidence? Prove it.

• Over 15,000 rank and file cops were polled on various gun control measures. They overwhelmingly said laws limiting magazine capacity would not reduce violent crime. PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives
  

  1. Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.​

  
  

  ​

• Magazine capacity laws do not prevent mass shootings. California has had a ban on "large capacity" magazines for many years and continues to have mass shootings, including the Thousand Oaks shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Oikos University shooting in just the past 6 years. The Parkland, FL school shooter did not use "large capacity" magazines. Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review
• The topic of this thread is how most "gun deaths" are SUICIDES. In Oregon more than 80% of "gun deaths" are SUICIDES. You don't need a "high capacity" magazine to commit suicide. In fact you don't need any magazine. Banning so-called "high capacity" magazines would have ZERO effect on the #1 leading and most common type of "gun death" in this state and this country.

To sum up:

• So-called "high capacity" magazines are useful for both self-defense and certain types of hunting. They can be life-saving in high-stress self-defense situations where many people will miss with some or most shots, and especially when confronted by delirious/intoxicated threats or multiple threats.
• There really is no evidence that banning so-called "high capacity" magazines will prevent or reduce casualties in mass shootings. They certainly won't reduce or prevent the majority of "gun deaths" in this country, which are suicides. And I always wonder why those who favor limiting magazines to 10-rounds think it is acceptable for a madman to shoot 10 people quickly, but 11 or 12 or 13, why that's just unacceptable!
• Even with non-mass homicides criminals don't usually fire more than 10 shots, so limiting magazines to that completely arbitrary number won't help with those either.
• There are already tens if not hundreds of millions of so-called "high capacity" magazines in circulation. Criminals will always have access to them, even if you ban them for the law-abiding.

Hope that helps!

 

[CountryGent]

I'm still trying to understand the need for large magazines

I find it nothing short of bizarre that a free people in a free society would tolerate a government dictating one's "need" for anything. How I live my life, how take care of business, my thoughts on religion, whom I go to bed with, what literature I read, and most certainly how I defend my family is no one's business but my own. And I'm certainly not leaving that up to some weak, corrupt, incompetent, mental defective in Salem or DC.

Is it a direct necessity to life? No.

Perhaps. However, where I live is a rural area in a impoverished county, plagued by substance abuse, violence, and property crime. For the police to arrive to our patch on an emergency call under an hour is not guaranteed. Not knocking them; the sheriff's department does good work on a shoe-string budget. It is just the reality though. If "it" goes down, the only defense we have is two adults who are armed, trained and determined.

 

[Burnhaven]

Let me see if I can persuade you.

Law-abiding citizens need "large capacity" magazines for the same reason police officers use them: for self-defense. Studies have shown in a high stress life-or-death self-defense shooting even police officers miss with most of their shots A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty Those extra rounds in a "large capacity" magazine can mean the difference between life and death for a citizen in a self-defense shooting, especially since they lack the advantages of body armor, backup, and radios that police have. If police with those advantages need "large capacity" magazines, citizens need them even more.

Even when you hit with all of your shots sometimes the threat will not stop, especially if they are delirious or intoxicated. In the video below the knife-wielding man was threatening police officers but ordinary citizens have had similar encounters. This officer had his partner with gun drawn backing him up, he probably had body armor, and he was in radio contact with dispatch with help on the way. A citizen would have none of that. Count how many times the assailant was shot initially, and what happened next. And that's with all of his shots hitting. Do you really want to be fumbling around, dropping your magazine that is limited to the arbitrary number of 10 rounds, trying to reload with another magazine limited to the completely arbitrary number of 10 rounds while a crazed knife-wielding man is attacking you?

Facing one threat is bad enough. How about multiple threats? Unfortunately home invasions by multiple criminals have become more common. In the video below THREE armed criminals enter a woman's home that she was also using as a business. Do you really want to confront THREE armed home invaders with your little government-limited 10-round or less magazine? Do you think criminals are good sports who will play fair and only use limited capacity magazines?

Recently a homeowner used his AR-15 and "high capacity" magazine to defend himself from FOUR armed intruders.



Next you mentioned hunting, and people who use "high capacity" magazines must be "poor shot" who "shouldn't be hunting". While "high capacity" magazines aren't necessary for all types of hunting, they can be useful when hunting herds of wild hogs that cause millions of dollars of crop damage every year.

So I think a good case can be made for the usefulness of so-called "high capacity" magazines for citizens, both for self-defense and for some types of hunting. For self-defense it is better to have extra rounds and not need them than need them but not have them.

But even if you dismiss all that, the people who are advocating for magazine capacity limits - and apparently that includes you - have to make the case for magazine capacity limits. You don't get a free pass. You can't just say we should limit magazine capacity because it will save lives. Where's the evidence? Prove it.

• Over 15,000 rank and file cops were polled on various gun control measures. They overwhelmingly said laws limiting magazine capacity would not reduce violent crime. PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives
• Magazine capacity laws do not prevent mass shootings. California has had a ban on "large capacity" magazines for many years and continues to have mass shootings, including the Thousand Oaks shooting, the San Bernardino shooting, and the Oikos University shooting in just the past 6 years. The Parkland, FL school shooter did not use "large capacity" magazines. Report: Parkland Shooter Did Not Use High Capacity Magazines | National Review
• The topic of this thread is how most "gun deaths" are SUICIDES. In Oregon more than 80% of "gun deaths" are SUICIDES. You don't need a "high capacity" magazine to commit suicide. In fact you don't need any magazine. Banning so-called "high capacity" magazines would have ZERO effect on the #1 leading and most common type of "gun death" in this state and this country.

To sum up:

• So-called "high capacity" magazines are useful for both self-defense and certain types of hunting. They can be life-saving in high-stress self-defense situations where many people will miss with some or most shots, and especially when confronted by delirious/intoxicated threats or multiple threats.
• There really is no evidence that banning so-called "high capacity" magazines will prevent or reduce casualties in mass shootings. They certainly won't reduce or prevent the majority of "gun deaths" in this country, which are suicides. And I always wonder why those who favor limiting magazines to 10-rounds think it is acceptable for a madman to shoot 10 people quickly, but 11 or 12 or 13, why that's just unacceptable!
• Even with non-mass homicides criminals don't usually fire more than 10 shots, so limiting magazines to that completely arbitrary number won't help with those either.
• There are already tens if not hundreds of millions of so-called "high capacity" magazines in circulation. Criminals will always have access to them, even if you ban them for the law-abiding.

Hope that helps!

BSG 75. Well written response there.. I'm going to have to give this more thought .....it does sound though like the cat's already out of the bag -- the weapons and the magazines are out there and aren't likely to be going away so the only sensible response is to carry in be prepared.