NY Paper Publishes Legal Gun Permit Holders Names

[Disclaimer]

Concentrating on suicide for a moment. If a suicidal person did now have a gun available to them, what do we all think would happen? Would that person kill themselves using some different means, or would that person not kill themselves?

I wasn't even going to get into that... but, I think guns make it a quicker more viable option, since you actually have time to think about it if you're going to cut yourself, or take pills, or run your exhaust pipe into your passenger compartment. So, I think it would definitely reduce the number of suicides, by how much...

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF

I remember overhearing someone say that females are more likely to attempt suicide, while males are more likely to be successful. I don't know if you can connect the dots with that datasheet since "thoughts" are not "attempts". Though, males are more likely to use a firearm and if they're in an altered state

Based on data about suicides in 16 National Violent

Death Reporting System states in 2009, 33.3% of

suicide decedents tested positive for alcohol, 23%

for antidepressants, and 20.8% for opiates, including

heroin and prescription pain killers.

it makes whatever thoughts/actions you're having in that altered state more permanent by using a firearm.

[swingset]

The Swiss has been researched and it's a myth that they're "gun nuts", but I can only provide the abstract of the academic research until it's released in Feb 2013:

Irrelevant, we're not talking about fervor and you know it. It's about availability and prevalence. BTW, I've been to Switzerland. You? My aunt is German/Swiss and I've seen their gun culture first hand. You? Don't take my word on it, here's a thorough beat down to that piece of journalistic stupidity:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1403121_Some_Notes_on_the_Swiss_Firearms_Experience__and_Some_5_56_NATO_Ammo_for_Sane_Gun_Policy_Advocates_.html

And Kennesaw GA is questionable, I can only get crime statistics for the county, and they're just one small town in that county (not even the county seat) -- even so, I figured, if Kennesaw was so great, that'd constantly appear on cities with the lowest crime index or "safest places to live" -- they don't. They only appear on gun blogs and pro gun sites.

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/search/5027854/

That's just one link, there are more.

Irrelevant. If availability and prevelance increased murder rates, then 100% ownership would mean at least a single murder?

You haven't answered my question, you haven't debated it, you haven't even actually addressed it. If prevalence is more murder, then why can these places (among many many others) exist in clear defiance of your assertion and Harvard's study?

Ohh, you mean John Lott... the guy who was caught sockpuppeting as Mary Rosh (http://reason.com/archives/2003/05/01/the-mystery-of-mary-rosh) and who's research has been under fire by numerous academics who say his statistical model and use of econometrics was flawed? (http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm) The model that, since it was created, has been proven false by new data? That guy? Ok.

Alright, if you won't take Lott's study at face value how about Harvard:

www.law.harvard.edu/students/.../Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Pretty much contradicts the whole notion of gun ownership/prevalence and gun murder by looking at other similar nations.

That's the f*(king problem... people that think they're the smartest person in the room, and they're far from it. This is why research needs to be done to validate opinions. But no amount of statistics or analysis will convince you or Pokey about how it's just "liberal" number and you guys will go with your "gut feel" because "those are the facts" when they're far from it. That's the problem.

I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm smarter than you. I have proof of it. I can see that if guns in greater numbers were the catalyst for more death, then it would be universal and there couldn't be areas like El Salvador with an extremely low gun rate and astronomical gun murder rate, and places like Switzerland where most households have guns yet gun murders are rare.

It's not about you being a liberal anti-gunner, which you are. It's about common sense and you have none. Zero. Zilch.

A child could figure this stuff out, but you're so drunk on googling stuff that asserts the absurd you won't see it. Afraid your worldview will crumble if you accept a simple, undeniable, and utterly obvious truth?

That's pretty sad, man.

Edited December 27, 2012 by swingset

[Disclaimer]

First, your Harvard link is bad, and you should feel bad for being bad at the internet when you go on to assert your intelligence > mine.

Also, please tell me more about how you're an expert at Swiss gun culture because you visited a relative there once in 2004?

You haven't answered my question, you haven't debated it, you haven't even actually addressed it. If prevalence is more murder, then why can these places (among many many others) exist in clear defiance of your assertion and Harvard's study?

If the murder rate is 0, and more guns increase the likelihood of murder, 0*additional risk is still ZERO.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UNusXneCWSo

Holy crap! Ashland, OH also had zero murders and it's similar in pop. size to Kennesaw, and it doesn't MANDATE gun ownership. Crazy! Obviously Ashland has a zero murder rate because they have a liberal arts school there. That has to be the case... just like Kennesaw, one thing correlates and it's got to be the case.

http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/ohio/ashland.html#.UNustXeCWSo

I'm not the smartest guy in the room, but I'm smarter than you. I have proof of it. I can see that if guns in greater numbers were the catalyst for more death, then it would be universal and there couldn't be areas like El Salvador with an extremely low gun rate and astronomical gun murder rate, and places like Switzerland where most households have guns yet gun murders are rare.

It's not about you being a liberal anti-gunner, which you are. It's about common sense and you have none. Zero. Zilch.

A child could figure this stuff out, but you're so drunk on googling stuff that asserts the absurd you won't see it. Afraid your worldview will crumble if you accept a simple, undeniable, and utterly obvious truth?

That's pretty sad, man.

Keep pulling that Swiss card

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-gun-control-debate-what-can-we-learn-switzerland-732104

I understand and appreciate your oversimplification because "a child could figure this stuff out" and that's about the level of thinking you can handle, but we live in an adult world where the issues are a little more complex. You deserve a pat on the head for trying though, champ.

[shittygsxr]

Although I appreciate the statistics, I will not be one of them thanks to me being proactive and protecting myself. Hopefully luck will keep you from being a stat

[Scruit]

I wasn't even going to get into that... but, I think guns make it a quicker more viable option, since you actually have time to think about it if you're going to cut yourself, or take pills, or run your exhaust pipe into your passenger compartment. So, I think it would definitely reduce the number of suicides, by how much...

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.PDF

I remember overhearing someone say that females are more likely to attempt suicide, while males are more likely to be successful. I don't know if you can connect the dots with that datasheet since "thoughts" are not "attempts". Though, males are more likely to use a firearm and if they're in an altered state

it makes whatever thoughts/actions you're having in that altered state more permanent by using a firearm.

We keep saying this is a complex problem and I think the only way to even begin to answer it is to break down the individual components.

Suicide rate is very cultural. It's also a large part of the gun death statistic.

The Japanese are often compared to the US when it comes to them being a modern capitalist society with an almost absolute prohibition on guns. Their murder rate is one tenth of ours (0.4/100k versus our 4.2/100k) yet their suicide rate is twice our rate. I think that denying an easy suicide to people may reduce the the suicide rate, but I don't think the effect will be noticeable. I know that many suicide attempts are cries for help, but we're talking about successful suicides here.

If someone is unable to kill themselves using a gun then one of two things will happen: They will find another means, or they will not kill themselves. If they don't kill themselves then the problems in their life that make them suicidal will still exist, so that's why I don't see it as having a large impact. The only effect I see it having is in situations where people make rash decisions and reach out for an easy end. A permanent solution to a temporary problem. If someone has to put more effort in to killing themselves (researching/obtaining poison, harming themselves in a painful way like cutting or stabbing, or in a frightening way like jumping off building) then either the fear of a painful or scary death, or even just the cold reality of researching how to do it, might prompt someone to seek help rather than just reaching for a gun a shooting themselves.

A believe a greater impact on the suicide rate would come from a combination of improved availability of mental healthcare, and a stronger familial structure. If you know someone who is in danger then get them to someone who can help them. I think once a person identifies themselves as a suicide risk their guns should be confiscated and stored safely and they should be prohibited from purchasing more until such a time that they are no longer a danger to themselves.

I'm not saying guns ARE the problem is suicides, and I'm not saying they're NOT, but I do believe that a greater impact can be had using an approach that concentrates on addressing the desire to harm oneself, rather than removing individual methods.

Edited December 27, 2012 by Scruit

[shittygsxr]

We keep saying this is a complex problem and I think the only way to even begin to answer it is to break down the individual components.

Suicide rate is very cultural. It's also a large part of the gun death statistic.

The Japanese are often compared to the US when it comes to them being a modern capitalist society with an almost absolute prohibition on guns. Their murder rate is one tenth of ours (0.4/100k versus our 4.2/100k) yet their suicide rate is twice our rate. I think that denying an easy suicide to people may reduce the the suicide rate, but I don't think the effect will be noticeable. I know that many suicide attempts are cries for help, but we're talking about successful suicides here.

If someone is unable to kill themselves using a gun then one of two things will happen: They will find another means, or they will not kill themselves. If they don't kill themselves then the problems in their life that make them suicidal will still exist, so that's why I don't see it as having a large impact.

A believe a greater impact on the suicide rate would come from a combination of improved availability of mental healthcare, and a stronger familial structure. If you know someone who is in danger then get them to someone who can help them.

I'm not saying guns ARE the problem is suicides, and I'm not saying they're NOT, but I do believe that a greater impact can be had using an approach that concentrates on addressing the desire to harm oneself, rather than removing individual methods.

And when Japan had a natural disaster nobody looted and elders worked on the reactors knowing it was a death sentence.

Our culture is fucked up if it rains in this country we are ready to loot and riot. Some of us choose not to be victims of our fucked up culture.

[Disclaimer]

That's why I didn't care to discuss suicide and firearms. If someone wants to take their life, it's really not my business if that's the rational choice they made. Suicide is an issue and should get lumped into the mental health bucket, but I don't think the firearm has a drastic impact on the decision to commit suicide, just the ability to not reconsider that decision in the act of...

Homicide is where I've been focusing the firearms discussion -- because at that point, the possessor or user of the firearm begins infringing on others' rights. And that also has many cultural factors that can't be addressed if the singular focus is "MORE GUNS" or "LESS GUNS" without additional support in other areas.

But that discussion would've been more relevant to the other threads, not the one about publishing gun owners. We can start discussing registering and permits for firearms in some of those other countries to make comparisons there?

[Scruit]

And when Japan had a natural disaster nobody looted and elders worked on the reactors knowing it was a death sentence.

Our culture is fucked up if it rains in this country we are ready to loot and riot. Some of us choose not to be victims of our fucked up culture.

Looting Rears Its Head in Japan http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703410604576216293024644156.html

"Nobody looted" is not quite correct.

[shittygsxr]

Looting Rears Its Head in Japan http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703410604576216293024644156.html

"Nobody looted" is not quite correct.

Far cry from new orleans

[cOoTeR]

Jrmmiii where is your proof that less guns actually decreases violence? Your Harvard stats only show to me that violence breeds more violence. Meaning it would seem logical to buy a gun if you live in a violent area to protect yourself from the bad guys. Like its been stated before the bad guys will always have guns I want it to be a fair fight if they choose to use them against me.

Why do we as a country have a military? They are very violent when need be they kill lots of people yet no one is calling for us to get rid of them or restrict their power. Could it be that they realize that the military is necessary because there are "evil people" that we need protected from.

[Scruit]

Far cry from new orleans

I don't dispute that. But "Very little looting" <> "no looting"

[Scruit]

That's why I didn't care to discuss suicide and firearms. If someone wants to take their life, it's really not my business if that's the rational choice they made.

I discuss it because there's more gun suicides than homicides. If we addressed suicide we'd have the potential to save more lives.

[shittygsxr]

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495

[Disclaimer]

I'm more concerned with saving the lives of people that desire to live, but that desire was overridden by another.

Preventing suicides to bolster the metric of "saving lives" is noble, but to me it's interference in someone's personal choice regardless of the method they used to complete it. There are people that are mentally competent that no longer desire to live, and I respect that.

I guess the long and short is, I think we need more information on suicide cases, state of mental health, and if access to firearms influenced the decision.

[jagr]

You're right Jrmiii. We should make no attempt to help a someone choose not to take their own life. Especially Veterans right? Who cares what trauma their mind endured while fighting for our freedoms.

[Disclaimer]

Convieniently skipped over my qualifying statements about being mentally competent and of good mental health, huh? That's ok, I really am as evil as people say :devil:

[The King]

Are you this passionate about DUI's? I assume since more people die from DUI's than gun homicides you are for sweeping alcohol restrictions? After all, people don't really need to drink do they?

How many children have died by DUI's this year?

[Tpoppa]

Cases have been stated. Perhaps an exit poll can bring closure to this debate.

[jagr]

Convieniently skipped over my qualifying statements about being mentally competent and of good mental health, huh? That's ok, I really am as evil as people say :devil:

Negative. Not being mentally competent is when/why assistance/counseling/hugging is needed. If you no longer desire to live you are not mentally competent.

Do not bring up cancer patients either you evil bastid.

[Strictly Street]

Moving back to the original topic, we have this:

In response to Gannett's Jounal News headquartered in White Plains, New York publishing an interactive map containing the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties (previous related posts are here and here), blogger Robert Cox at NewRochelleTalk.com (HT Instapundit) has produced an interactive map at a post entitled "Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood?"

It contains names, addresses, and various forms of Internet presence. Some of his narrative follows the jump:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2012/12/26/blogger-creates-interactive-map-employees-paper-which-published-names-an#ixzz2GG7y5FrO

If in fact the pen is mightier than the sword doesn't it just make sense to publish their names? After all they could go off at any time.

[Casper]

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495

Yup. Exactly. Something fishy going on in Newtown.

[Scruit]

Are we suggesting that the murders were actually carried out by the handguns and that the AR is a "plant" to win support for an AWB?

There would have to be a lot of people complicit in such a scam. Someone would have to plant a hundreds or so 5.56 cartridges that would have to matched against the rifle. Someone would have to hide all the 9mm and 10mm pistol cartridges. Someone would have to lie about the bullets found in the victims or in the walls and say they were 5.56 instead of 10mm.

Interesting theory, but far fetched. Remember they said Lanza's mother was a teacher in the early reporting - I'm not aware of anyone pushing conspiracy theories about that claim now that is has been proven wrong.

[Tpoppa]

Not sure about conspiracy theories, but I will say the quality and accuracy of the reporting has been unacceptable

If you don't know the facts, let's not report bad information for the sake of filling airtime.

The shooter was Ryan Lanza...wait no it's not.

His mother was found dead at the school...wait no she wasn't.

His mother was a teacher at the school...wait no she wasn't.

Adam Lanza went to that school...wait no he didn't.

There were 2 handguns used in the shooting and an AR15 was locked in the trunk...no the AR15 was the murder weapon...no 4 handguns were used to commit the crimes the AR15 is back in the trunk again...wtf

Nothing more than irresponsible journalists that are more worried about getting in front of a camera that reporting accurate information. Unacceptable.

[Casper]

Not sure about conspiracy theories, but I will say the quality and accuracy of the reporting has been unacceptable

If you don't know the facts, let's not report bad information for the sake of filling airtime.

The shooter was Ryan Lanza...wait no it's not.

His mother was found dead at the school...wait no she wasn't.

His mother was a teacher at the school...wait no she wasn't.

Adam Lanza went to that school...wait no he didn't.

There were 2 handguns used in the shooting and an AR15 was locked in the trunk...no the AR15 was the murder weapon...no 4 handguns were used to commit the crimes the AR15 is back in the trunk again...wtf

Nothing more than irresponsible journalists that are more worried about getting in front of a camera that reporting accurate information. Unacceptable.

Don't forget about the gunman in camo found in the woods by the school that was supposedly Adam Lanza... wait, nevermind, that never happened, Adam was the shooter and Ryan was nowhere nearby....

[jagr]

Don't forget about the gunman in camo found in the woods by the school that was supposedly Adam Lanza... wait, nevermind, that never happened, Adam was the shooter and Ryan was nowhere nearby....

Wait! what?

I admit I haven't read the details on the case.

They did find the brother as you say?