Skip to main content

View Diary: How Many Of Those are Veterans? Gun Policy, Suicide, and Our National Conversation (185 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The basic dishonesty of the diary... (9+ / 0-)

    ...is when the diarist insists that those who disagree with the unsupported assertions made, that:

    Gun enthusiasts do not want to acknowledge that 30,000+ Americans die every year so that gun enthusiasts can enjoy their guns ...
    My emphasis.

    In an attempt to minimize the arguments made against unsupported conclusions, the diarist apparently believes that he can dismiss those arguments on a false premise.

    Those who support a Constitutionally-protected Civil Right are not the ones here attempting to sidestep any actual points.  Those who wish to protect Civil Rights from pointless and needless infringements upon those rights are not simply wanting to enjoy some pastime.  It is dishonest to conflate the two stances (a desire to protect Civil Rights and an interest in a hobby or pastime) -- they are completely dissimilar.

    Rather, the diarist seems to believe (in the original diary, at any rate -- the comments show a wholly different stance) that prohibiting one of the many tools available for those determined to commit suicide will necessarily result in a reduction of suicide -- a conclusion in no way supported by the evidence presented.

    This is merely one example of the outright falsehoods leveled against those who disagree with the diarist, but it is a representative one.  Each of those falsehoods is an attempt to dismiss those calling out the fallacies in the diary itself as somehow not believable.

    There seems to be some imaginary "gun enthusiast" archetype that makes all of the arguments that the diarist rails against.  Sadly, however, those arguments are either wholly nonexistent, or taken so far out of context that their original meaning is lost.

    I suppose by creating a fictional character to provide all of these arguments the diarist may think that the basic premise of his diary is no longer a strawman argument.

    In this, as in his assertions and conclusions, he is, once again, incorrect.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 11:35:49 AM PDT

    •  The president supports efforts to reduce (0+ / 0-)

      I point out the president supports efforts to reduce the number of suicides among military personnel and veterans.

      Are those efforts gauranteed of success, of a reduction in suicide?  No.  

      Should the efforts be aborted because they are not gauranteed of success?  No

      OF COURSE we should try and reduce suicides, even when there is no gaurantee of success.

      And I'm hoping you or any gun enthusiast will explain to me why we as a nation have to suffer 30,000+ gunshot fatalities every year.  Surely, preventing the needless deaths of so many Americans is the ultimate preservation of civil rights.  

      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 11:54:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which assertions... (9+ / 0-)

        ...have absolutely nothing to do with the points I put forth.

        I can only take that to mean you have no response to any of those points.  Moving on to the rest of your post, though...

        I would love to see something done about the many fatalities suffered in this country every year.

        In my opinion, the best way to respond to, say, suicide and/or violent crime is to better support our crumbling social safety nets and to undertake meaningful healthcare reform, including that regarding mental health.

        So, with that in mind, in answer to your query:

        And I'm hoping you or any gun enthusiast will explain to me why we as a nation have to suffer 30,000+ gunshot fatalities every year.
        I believe we have this problem largely due to Republicans in office and the policies they put forth.

        If we could just stop Democrats from pointlessly trying to limit gun ownership (such limitations never having been shown to have any impact whatsoever on either violent crime or suicide rates), we would very likely have fewer Republicans in office, and we might be able to make some meaningful strides in the direction we need to go.

        Sadly, though, we seem to be encumbered with those who think that taking away what they perceive as a sin-object will necessarily take way the sin.  It has never worked that way, no matter how many times it's been tried.

        There, you've been answered.  I now expect you to never put forth the false claim that no one ever answers your questions.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 12:08:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you TG (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you for answering, and I promise I will never say that TG has failed to asnwer my questions.

          Truth be told, I could not understand the points you put forth in your initial comment.  If you wish to re-state them (KISS - keep it short and simple), and limit yourself to no more than two points, I will attempt to respond.

          You make an interesting point about Dems and Repubs and gun laws.  I am not aware of any current Democratic office holders that have proposed or even suggested any gun legislation, tho' I know gun industry groups pretned there are pages of laws just waiting to get passed as a way to get money for supporters.  And wasn't it Reagan who signed into law that most recent legislation that put any significant restrictions on gun sales?

          Here is a suggestion I have that might help reduce gun violence, suicides, and that crumbling social safety net: end the system by which corporate interests can buy the laws they want.

          "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

          by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 12:42:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure, I can re-state my points. (7+ / 0-)

            You have crafted a fictional "gun enthusiast" to whom you attribute arguments.

            Those arguments are either wholly nonexistent, or taken so far out of context that they are completely meaningless.

            This is the "person" you are arguing against -- a non-existent person who makes non-existent arguments.

            Further, your conclusions do not logically follow from your premises.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 02:25:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ooooo, I know this one...! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, rockhound

              Something about constructing ersatz homonids out of agricultural grain-harvesting residue, yes?

            •  In response (0+ / 0-)

              When I tell gun enthusiasts (in diaries like this one) that 30,000+ Americans die every year due to gunshot injuries, I get feedback (like the comments appending this diary).

              The gun enthusiasts who provide that feedback may indeed be fictional - i.e. I don't know you actually exist or actually own and use guns or support and advocate guns ownership.  But the comments that appear after a diary saying that 30,000+ Americans die every year due to gunshot injuries are real in that they are archived on this site and you and I can go read them (tho' often the statements made in those comments are untrue and are therefore fictional).

              Now as I said above, when I say that 30,000+ Americans die every year as a result of gunshot injuries, I typically get two responses.

              A) The 30,000+ Americans killed every year by gunshot injuries is insignificant relative to the many Americans who are killed by other means.  Here's an example:

              More bad argument. (7+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:theatre goon, EdMass, IndieGuy, labwitchy, oldpunk, PavePusher, Robobagpiper
              (1) Who doesn't "acknowledge" that 30,000 people die of gunshot every year? 100,000 people die of medical errors in hospitals. 47,000 die of no medical care. ~50,000 people a year die of influenza. Cancer, organ failure, motor vehicle accidents, bathtub falls, electrocution, evil boyfriend/husband, drug overdose, house fires, wars... there are lots of ways to die. And every year millions of people do die. That is the nature of life (and death) on planet earth.

              (snip)

              by Joieau on Mon Sep 24, 2012 at 12:41:57 PM PDT

              (he accurately titles his bad arguments "more bad arguments"!!  To understand why they are bad arguments, read the diary above.)

              B) The number 30,000+ is exaggerated because it includes people who commit suicides and those deaths don't count.  Here is an example:

              Diary does not treat Suicide properly (12+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:KVoimakas, judyms9, rockhound, IndieGuy, theatre goon, Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker, Tom Seaview, Robobagpiper, oldpunk, deedogg, PavePusher, ER Doc
              Most deaths from firearms are by suicide and the diary is not upfront about this when using the term "violence" but not immediately clarifying that this number's biggest contributor by far is suicide.

               From CDC in 2009 there were 36,909 suicides.  Of which 18,735 the person chose to use a firearm.  There is nothing to show that removing the legal availability of firearms reduces suicides.  For. example, Japan has very low ownership of guns but a high suicide rate.
              http://webappa.cdc.gov/....

              At the same time just as women have a right to abortion, I and many others believe in a strong right of suicide.  

              If we look only at homicides, we get for firearms 11,493 with a rate per 100,000 of 3.74,  far lower than total deaths by firearm of 30,561 and 9.95 per 100,000.
              The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

              by nextstep on Thu Apr 05, 2012 at 09:23:31 AM PDT

              Notice all the RKBA members who "recced" this comment.  The guy who wrote this was supported by twelve others who we have to assume agree with his point!!  To understand why I think this is a rotten argument, read the diary above.

              So the "gun enthusiasts" may be hiding their real identities, but their comments are real.

              "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

              by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 01:45:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, you mischaracterize what I posted... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                It is not that the "gun enthusiasts" who give you responses may not be what they pretend to be -- it is that you create a fictional person to attribute arguments to that do not exist.

                You refer to all who point out the flaws in your arguments as "gun enthusiasts," which is simply not the case.  People disagree with you for many reasons -- as pointed out throughout this commentary.

                One of the main reasons people are here disagreeing with you is that your assertions are flatly false.  No need to be a "gun enthusiast" for people to disagree with you for that reason.

                Further, those arguments that you attribute to this non-existent "gun enthusiast" archetype that you refer to are either nonexistent themselves, or taken out of context.

                For instance, in the first comment you blockquoted, you are misrepresenting what was actually stated.  At no point did anyone say that suicides, no matter the number, are "insignificant," as you claim.  Therefore, it is simply false.  It simply pointed out that suicide is one cause of death among many.  You are trying to add something to the statement that is simply not there.

                And in the second comment you quoted, no one stated that suicides "don't count."  What was stated, however, and quite clearly, is that the numbers you provide are rather misleading in and of themselves, and that you go on to try and make them even more misleading in your own interpretation.

                In other words, the comment simply does not make the statement that you are here claiming it does.

                You've made that a habit throughout this discussion -- taking arguments completely out of context, and/or insisting that they state something that they simply do not state.

                So, to sum up, you misrepresented what I posted, and then used misrepresentations of other posts to "respond" to it.

                If nothing else, you are consistent in your tactics.

                Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                by theatre goon on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 02:13:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The arguments DO indeed exist (0+ / 0-)

                  The arguments you say do not exist DO INDEED EXIST!!!!

                  I have shown you those arguments stated in print.  Go read my comment title "In Response" - there you will find proof of the existence of these arguments.

                  If we look only at homicides, we get for firearms 11,493 with a rate per 100,000 of 3.74,  far lower than total deaths by firearm of 30,561 and 9.95 per 100,000.
                  Here is a person arguing that ONLY 11,000 Americans die annually from gunshot injuries (a mere 11,000!) we s/he discounts suicides.  There is no other to accurately characterize this person's thinking!!!

                  Now I agree entirely that not EVERY gun owner in America thinks this way, and not even EVERY member of dk RKBA thinks this way.  But I can identify by name 7 and 12 members of dk RKBA who DO think that way: those who "recced" the two comments I copied above.

                  "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                  by Hugh Jim Bissell on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 03:36:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And yet... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, FrugalGranny

                    ...the "examples" you provided still did not, in fact, state what you insist that they state.

                    I can see this quite plainly by reading what the comments in question state and comparing that to your description of those comments -- the two are quite different.

                    You keep insisting on putting words and contexts onto the statements that are simply not there.

                    For instance, the example you use here is explaining the numbers.  It is you who are attempting to state that this is some sort of dismissal of suicides -- it is  not.  It is simply explaining how the different numbers are arrived at.  You are trying to put in a new meaning that does not exist.

                    It's really very simple -- people are not stating what you insist they are stating.

                    So, no matter how many times you insist that people are saying something that they are not, it still won't be true.  This has now been pointed out to you numerous times, quite clearly.

                    That being the case, the most reasonable explanation is that you are purposefully and intentionally misrepresenting what others are saying.  You've been caught out doing that enough times now that it's become exactly what we expect of you -- and you never disappoint.

                    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                    by theatre goon on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 03:56:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Is it time to consider him HOS yet? n/t (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, FrugalGranny
                      •  Probably not, according to site rules. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        rockhound, FrugalGranny

                        His little game, juvenile as it is, doesn't really impact the site as a whole -- and that's what it seems it takes to get HOS to stick.

                        I mean, he's not bad at this little tactic of his.  He re-writes the statements of others into things they didn't actually say, but he stays close enough to the actual words so that he can play at simply misunderstanding what was said.

                        We know the difference because it's our diaries he trolls most of the time.  Others aren't as familiar with the tactic.

                        Even then, what would be the point?  Look at how little support his last couple of diaries have gotten.  The tactic isn't working any better for him than it is for the Republicans with their "Obama Apology Tour" nonsense -- it is identical, and it's not working for either of them.  When you invest in that tactic, though, you have to really commit to it.

                        He plays his little game, we come in and point out just how foolish his little arguments are, and it moves off the list.

                        Making him HOS would just get him a bit of the support he's not getting now, out of a sense of pity, if nothing else.

                        Heck, if we ignored him, he'd get no response whatsoever.  I just goes against the grain to let such outright falsehoods go without pointing them out.  

                        I'm starting to wonder if it's not like responding to the wilder conspiracy theories -- to even take the time to refute them is to give them more attention than they deserve.

                        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                        by theatre goon on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:20:22 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm making this harder than it needs to be (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry to take so long getting back to you - I was out of town for a bit.

                      Anyways, I think I've been making this harder for us than it needs to be.

                      The issue is simple: the CDC reports that 30,000+ Americans die every year from gunshot injuries.  On hearing that statistic, people (you, I, others) will either accept that as a fact, or decide the statistic is wrong, for whatever reason(s).

                      After reading the two comments I previously quoted to you, I concluded these two commenters did not accept as a fact that 30,000+ Americans die every year of gunshot injuries; I understood that these two commenters were saying that the statistic was somehow wrong or in error.

                      If, as you say, I have misintepreted those two commenters (and all the people who "recced" those comments) and they do indeed accept as a fact that 30,000+ Americans die every year of gunshot injuries, then we are all in agreement, and nothing more need be said on the subject.

                      Thank you for setting me straight.

                      "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

                      by Hugh Jim Bissell on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 01:46:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  If those efforts violate the 2nd Amendment, yes. (6+ / 0-)

        They should be aborted.  The President is ill served by the prohibitionist junk science your side regularly spouts.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site