Thats not common sense at all, IMO.

 

We will disagree. That is a small reason why we are where we are. What is common sense to one is not to another.

Short answer for Kentucky is that Kentucky is near the very low end of the Violent Crime Spectrum...Kentucky is Ranked 47th in Violent Crime per 100,000 at 198.8 per year.

 

By Comparison...

Ohio 32nd 275.5

Indiana 23rd 349.9

Tennessee 5th 579.7

Illinois 21st 372.5

 

Compared to our surrounding neighbors Kentucky is by far the safest place to be to avoid violent crime.

 

Kentucky Violent Crime Offenses

 

And if you remove Jefferson County.....

 

The fact is violent crime is generally prevelent in highly concentrated in urban, poor areas in very large cities.

 

Tennessee seems odd. Nashville, Memphis and Knoxville or are just the first two drivers?

 

With 3 major urban areas Ohio does not do bad.

 

Illinios probably looks super if remove Cooke County.

My guess is people who are down that far use the easiest method. If that is a gun then they use it. I doubt they worry about how bad it's making guns look.

 

Exactly. Just like they don't care how bad it would make a car or bridge look. Honestly, if you don't already own a gun, you probably have more immediate access to a car or bridge than you do immediate access to a gun. That's what I don't get about the gun/suicide correlation.

Now your really reaching. Take all the guns away in the world and its not going to stop people from commiting suicide. A car is as dangerous of a weapon as a gun, potentially more dangerous. Maybe we should limit the purchase of cars too.

 

I get it, you hate guns. That's fine, you don't ever have to touch one if you don't want to. However I'd like to keep mine.

 

Look, you said in the beginning of this thread you wanted this discussion to be apolitical. All I've done is posted numbers and asked questions about numbers. Now you're descending into personal insults over political beliefs I don't have.

Look, you said in the beginning of this thread you wanted this discussion to be apolitical. All I've done is posted numbers and asked questions about numbers. Now you're descending into personal insults over political beliefs I don't have.

 

You are right, but so was Spin. You cannot discuss this without it becoming political on BGP. It is what it is.

Look, you said in the beginning of this thread you wanted this discussion to be apolitical. All I've done is posted numbers and asked questions about numbers. Now you're descending into personal insults over political beliefs I don't have.

 

Your arguing that guns cause more suicides. I'm making a case that they do not and also pointed out an observation that you don't like guns. Nothing political about it.

 

If you dont have anything against guns and i misunderstood your posts I apologize for insinuating that.

You are right, but so was Spin. You cannot discuss this without it becoming political on BGP. It is what it is.

 

What have I said that is political? To be honest I'm one of the least political people on here.

Let's take away gun rights to law abiding citizens that want to live and protect themselves so that someone that wants to die may have to find something other than a gun to kill theirself with. Yeah, that's logical.

Can someone show the local coyotes how to commit suicide. That would then reduce 1 reason to own guns.

Has anyone seen any data on the type of gun owned by Americans these days vs. a time we had less gun violence?

 

Common sense tells me that suicides would be higher with more handguns, but I may be wrong.

Maybe, but I don't think it's as easy as that correlation.

 

And it seems the same could be said about the inverse.

Let's take away gun rights to law abiding citizens that want to live and protect themselves so that someone that wants to die may have to find something other than a gun to kill theirself with. Yeah, that's logical.

 

I think where this conversation goes off the rails is the line in the sand that you seem to have drawn whereby more controls means removing all guns from all people. That's not what anyone I have seen is posted. But an honest conversation about gun ownership rights and what, if anything, needs to be changed, has to include the conversation about accidental shootings and suicide. And I get that some don't consider those relevant when discussing gun violence. My contention is that gun violence statistics are incomplete without the inclusion of the statistics for those other statistics. The answer to the issue is not as simple as relaxing laws or tightening them. As has been discussed in the past, there are other issues involved that have to be solved. There is poverty and mental illness, as to examples. But everyone wants to simplify a very complex problem and present a "simple" solution. It isn't that easy, and all facets of the types of deaths and injuries have to be considered as well as socio-economic factors.

I think where this conversation goes off the rails is the line in the sand that you seem to have drawn whereby more controls means removing all guns from all people. That's not what anyone I have seen is posted. But an honest conversation about gun ownership rights and what' date=' if anything, needs to be changed, has to include the conversation about accidental shootings and suicide. And I get that some don't consider those relevant when discussing gun violence. My contention is that gun violence statistics are incomplete without the inclusion of the statistics for those other statistics. The answer to the issue is not as simple as relaxing laws or tightening them. As has been discussed in the past, there are other issues involved that have to be solved. There is poverty and mental illness, as to examples. But everyone wants to simplify a very complex problem and present a "simple" solution. It isn't that easy, and all facets of the types of deaths and injuries have to be considered as well as socio-economic factors.[/quote'] ...

I think where this conversation goes off the rails is the line in the sand that you seem to have drawn whereby more controls means removing all guns from all people. That's not what anyone I have seen is posted. But an honest conversation about gun ownership rights and what, if anything, needs to be changed, has to include the conversation about accidental shootings and suicide. And I get that some don't consider those relevant when discussing gun violence. My contention is that gun violence statistics are incomplete without the inclusion of the statistics for those other statistics. The answer to the issue is not as simple as relaxing laws or tightening them. As has been discussed in the past, there are other issues involved that have to be solved. There is poverty and mental illness, as to examples. But everyone wants to simplify a very complex problem and present a "simple" solution. It isn't that easy, and all facets of the types of deaths and injuries have to be considered as well as socio-economic factors.

 

I understand what your getting at. However it's not as simple as adding more gun laws. What about the guns that are already out there? Also, does anyone really believe that terrorists are going to obey the gun laws? They don't even obey the laws we have now.

 

As far as suicides go, I imagine most of those that are committed with a firearm are done by handgun. So that would mean banning all handguns, which is what most people use to protect themselves. I also imagine most accidental shootings involve hunters. So then we would have to take away shotguns and hunting rifles. So essentially the only thing we would be able to own would be "assault" riffles, which is what everyone is so concerned about. Thats my whole problem with the whole suicide and accidental shootings part of it.

Obama and his justice dept. could get thousands of guns off the streets in a matter of weeks in his home town if he would just enforce federal gun laws already on the books.. Can someone answer why the feds continue to let gun related criminals walk ??