When one understands the true agenda underlying this global push to provide governments with a monopoly on force, the pattern becomes all-too-clear.
You don't need a firearm to commit suicide. So with essentially negative results, I'm surprised that they decided to publish. Rebecca Peters, go cry in your beer.
Beer is for real people. She's probably more of a whine and cheese type.
When you disarm the law-abiding public, only criminals your "govenment" have guns. What does that say??
And the liberals just continue to work hard at inventing rules that criminals will obey. Idiot morons.
Gary Kleck did an exhaustive study on the relationship between availability of firearms and suicide rate. Bottom line: there is no relationship. Only effect is on what methods people use to commit suicide, not on how many people do it. Substitution factor is 100%.
"You don't need a firearm to commit suicide."
Japan doesn't allow private ownership of firearms at all, but still has the highest suicide rate in the world.
"Publish or perish." Even though the results are negative, if it's a good-quality study, it's publishable. Since it got past the peer reviewers, it's a better than even chance it's quality research.
When one understands the true agenda underlying this global push to provide governments with a monopoly on force, the pattern becomes all-too-clear.
Check out some of his votes on 2nd amendment rights
YES....the new law made a BIG difference.....just not a GOOD one! lol....Dummies Down Under!
No, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that a handgun or other firearm increases the "convenience" factor of suicide and makes a successful attempt more likely than alternative methods. I'm not saying that's the case (pretty hard to determine causation in suicide reliably... you can't survey the participants!) just saying it's plausible. So with essentially negative results, I'm surprised that they decided to publish.
Well, if one is looking at it as a scientist, negative results are also interesting. Given the very low correlation quotients that are accepted in the social sciences, a determination of no correlation is very interesting. Not much surprise to those of us who support gun rights and have been reading this material for decades.
I suspect what you are saying is that from this source, you would expect them only to publish data that supports their a priori beliefs. Social scientists are funny that way. Some will publish regardless, and some will try to redesign the experiment to get the desired result. Unlike hard sciences, where, if the data do not match the theory, you are expected to discard the theory, not the data!
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F