Yes, exactly. That freak hates guns too. You're in good company.Sooo...you'd do nothing until they were 18 then shoot them down or put them in prison?
What kind of pervert are you accusing me of being, Granny?
Anything like this?:
Canada bans handguns
- Thread starter Into the Night
- Start date
Exactly my point; once you start banning shit, what's next? It depends upon who is in charge. You want to empower a Democratic Administration with the power to ban/restrict/repeal the Second Amendment then hand over that power to a Republican Congress and probable Republican President in 2024? Don't you see that as rather self-defeating?
You're smart enough to know the difference between rates and totals. Yes, both are important, but if a person really wants to do the most good, they'll look at where and what is causing the most deaths. The CDC lists below show the difference between suicide totals and rates. Is it better to focus on the 11,000+ lives lost to suicide in California, Texas and Florida or the less than 700 lives lost in Wyoming, Alaska and Montana?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/suicide-mortality/suicide.htm
Yes, exactly. That freak hates guns too. You're in good company.
I love guns. You're the fucking moron who probably isn't allowed to own one...and that pisses you off, eh? LOL
You love lipstick and rouge. It's why you're in here arguing with 2nd Amendment supporters.
That's like asking why car accidents exist if you're aware that driving a car can lead to an accident.
You love lipstick and rouge. It's why you're in here arguing with 2nd Amendment supporters.
Lots of women do look great in lipstick and rouge, but I can see how an limp-dicked old geezer like you has no use for women.
I'm a Constitution supporter. The Second Amendment allows us to defend all the others. Why do you lie about me not supporting it? Or are you delusional in addition to being a limp-dicked old geezer?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so you're admitting that abortion is used for birth control. thanks
No. It would be better to focus on the places where whatever is driving high suicide rates is driving it hardest. That's going to be the way to figure out what changes can lead to lowering those rates.
Picture if I observed that heroin users kill themselves at higher rates, while people who work out on a regular basis kill themselves at lower rates, and so I suggested that a way to get fewer suicides would be to fight narcotics use and encourage exercise. Well, someone might turn around and say that there are actually more suicides, total, among those who work out regularly than among those who use heroin regularly, suggesting it's better to focus on the lives lost among those who work out. But that would be kind of silly, if the higher raw totals there were just because vastly more people work out than use heroin.
Abortion is generally going to be a form of birth control, in the sense that if the pregnancy isn't aborted, it will generally result in a birth. The issue pops up when religious zealots whose superstitions include taboos against birth control try to impose those taboos on others, by effectively using our shared laws to hijack women's uteruses for the duration of pregnancies.
If those religious people have a problem with abortion, that's fine -- they can choose not to abort their pregnancies, the same way as if your religion has a problem with blood transfusions you can avoid getting one, or if your religion has a problem with eating pork, you don't have to do so. People shouldn't use our laws to enforce their religions against others, though.
It's certainly valuable to take an expert assessment of the problem and come to a consensus on how best to focus our research. Most of that will divide into categories unlike getting to the Moon. The low hanging fruit is depression and there are many forms and degrees. Like Depression, many forms of mental illness are treatable and allow the person to lead normal lives. Like catching cancer in early stages, it's a matter of periodic health checks instead of the old "I'll just wait until it's bad enough to see a doctor".
Re Heroin vs. working out. A good example of why it's important to have experts assess the numbers. Right now, no party gives more than a token a shit for either.
Only tangentially on-topic here, but check out the correlation between elevation and suicide. With most sociological and economic problems in the US, there's a pretty standard pattern in the data, when you look at the state-by-state numbers. Generally speaking, life sucks in the Deep South, and is pretty good in the Northeast. You see that with, say, productivity numbers, or homicide rates, incarceration rates, school performance, credit ratings, STD rates, obesity rates, life expectancies, or infant mortality rates, etc. But suicide rates are weird. Instead of the Deep South being the Black Sheep of the nation, it's the Rocky Mountains, from New Mexico straight on up through Montana (and Alaska, as well). And you see something similar internationally, with countries where most people live at altitude having high suicide rates (e.g., Lesotho is a world leader, and its main city is a mile high.)
So, it at least appears that something about living at altitude makes people more likely to kill themselves. Even Utah, which is usually a red-state outlier, in that it's not a socioeconomic train wreck like most conservative communities, seems to be reflecting its elevation, with a top-ten suicide rate.
Who said anything about women, you confused fuck? lol.
You're a pervert and a degenerate and you play with dolls. You hate the 2nd Amendment and you hate America even more.
Now, who did you vote for in this last election?
Population density seems to be a more important factor than altitude. The NE has a much the same elevation but a much higher population density than the South. The NE also has the most money. Guess who all the laws favor? Hint: those with the money to pay for it. LOL
Population density: https://ecpmlangues.unistra.fr/civilization/geography/US-census-maps-demographics.html
Per capita income by county: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2018/comm/acs-5yr-income-all-counties.html
See? All that excitement and you're still a limp-dick. At least that explains why you're such a lame liar. Sad.
Dr. Jo. Romney was my last Republican vote, I've never voted Democrat. To paraphrase my favorite President, "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me." Mostly because it filled up with limp-dicked assholes like you, Granny.
Did you vote for Pedo Don?
Yes, it may be. It makes sense that living in denser settlements would help to prevent the kind of isolation that can lead to high suicide rates.
But there appears to be more going on than that. Like by some measures, no states have more isolated populations than Maine and Vermont -- their urbanization rate is the lowest in the country by a margin (about 10 points lower than third-place West Virginia, and about 25 points lower than suicide capital of America, Wyoming):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States
So, what's with the middle-of-the-road suicide rates there? How are they able to live in such sparse settlement patterns without offing themselves at high rates?
It's not money. Maine and Vermont have the 12th and 13th lowest GDP per capita in the country.... far lower than Alaska and Wyoming (Alaska's 35% higher than Maine).
Most likely it's a combination of all kinds of factors -- isolation and money and altitude, but also culture. In Northeastern culture, there's an attitude where people are in things together. Even when it was the frontier, it was a frontier where communities worked together, such as at Plymouth, rather than the isolated-homestead version of the frontier out west.
That more collectivist culture includes a view that people owe a duty to the community, such that even conservatives in the area tend to be more open to collective social action (e.g., pro-gun-control Charlie Baker, or pro-socialized-medicine Mitt Romney back when he was MA governor). By comparison, the "Big Sky Country" states are more likely to have that homestead mentality, where it's supposed to be every family for itself, with nobody helping you with your bootstraps. That mentality probably inspires more despair when people are struggling, because they feel they can't lean on others for help.
You're assuming it's the "isolation" resulting in suicide and not the fact they are 30 minutes from a hospital and 2 hours from a shrink. Regardless of the motivation, what would the solution be the same or different?
How many times have Democrats have ever said "It's not the money they are making"? LOL Is that because all the rich people live there and, like Mitt Romney, don't have "income"? The evidence clearly depicts the distribution of wealth is isolated disproportionately in the high density areas.
Well, those are forms of isolation, too. They're isolated from help, whether that's medical, psychological, or social.
I'm not clear what you're asking here. But if your point is that possible policy solutions could reduce excess suicide from people being too far from psychologists and hospitals, I think that's true. Telehealth should already be reducing the gap if psychologists are the answer, because these days you can literally call up a psychologist whenever for a video conference and even get, say, anti-anxiety drugs prescribed over the phone. Presumably that's not as good as seeing someone in person, but it's also presumably better than nothing, so if that's a big factor, we'd expect to see the gap narrowing.
We could also focus on building out more rural medical infrastructure. I've seen some analysis suggesting that investing in more rural trauma centers would have a good cost-per-life-saved ratio... not just from saving would-be suicides, but also people who have heart attacks, or get in car accidents, etc. I'm a little reluctant to go that way, since building out far-flung infrastructure is less efficient than encouraging people to live in more compact settlements (which would also help with social isolation, and health problems from car-dependent lifestyles). But it's an option.
One way or the other, though, we'll be fighting an up-hill battle if we don't tackle guns. For example, put more high-quality quick-response healthcare near Wyoming residents and maybe you'll save more lives among those who swallow a bottle of pills and then change their minds and call 911. But 75% of Wyoming suicides are with firearm's (relative to 52.82% nationally). Maybe some small share of people who shoot themselves in the head will live if an ambulance gets there fast enough. But most could be sitting in the middle of the world's greatest emergency surgery theater, with an all-star team of trauma surgeons standing by, when they pulled that trigger, and they'd still be dead. As long as the society is saturated with guns, we're going to have a high suicide rate.
Yes. High density settlement favors higher productivity, which generates more wealth. That's another reason we should think long and hard about further subsidizing rural life (e.g., building out more rural trauma centers), rather than using the same money to ease people's path to more efficient and productive settlement patterns.
I see, so you're a wasted vote. Good job, fuckface. You're no better than those invertebrates at the so-called center.
You see, stupid, if you're a Republican and it comes down to either Trump or Biden, you choose Trump. You don't throw your vote away and help Pedo Joe win, which is exactly what you did.
Do you see the problem here? Of course you don't, because the truth is, you're a secret admirer of the biggest fuckup in US Presidential history (Joe Biden). Congratulations, you've been outed.
Canada doesn't have a 2nd Amendment, so the call for a ban on firearms here in the US is irrelevant.