and almost non-existent gun ownership...

Countries with a lower suicide rate than the US: Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan. If the data is true, I guess those countries have no guns.

Countries higher suicides than the US.
South Korea, Japan, Belgum, Iceland, Poland. Those countries must be overrun with guns. When I think of gun nuts, I think of Japan.

If so, we'd love to hear it.

Also, homeowners who own rope are at higher risk for hanging themselves.

Toddlers who live in a home with electricity are at a higher risk of electrocution.

...and so on

We have been repeatedly told gun ownership is plummeting. Yet old data is valid because

So Hemenway is saying ownership is not changing. Who is correct?

Huge coincidence, I'm sure, those three ultra low population states.

This gobblygook is intended to imply causation where only correlation exists, while conveniently leaving out raw numbers which paint a starkly different picture than the claims author wishes to paint.

With anti-gunner seal of approval, no less.

politifact: The 3 states with the highest percentage of household gun ownership - Alaska, Wyoming and Montana - also had the 3 highest suicide rates

beevul: Huge coincidence, I'm sure, those three ultra low population states

Huh? no comprende'. You overlooked this part of the article?: Conversely, the nine states with the lowest per-household gun ownership from 2001 to 2004 also had the nine lowest suicide rates. They were Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, California, Illinois and Maryland.

All those anti gun gun hater gun control states somehow reduced their suicide rates to the lowest levels, just by serendipitous chance, eh? Which would put all the other pro gun states as having HIGHER suicide rates, right? You lose any way you look at it, low population moot.

PF: Overall, the statistics show a distinct correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates in states

beevul: This gobblygook is intended to imply causation where only correlation exists, while conveniently leaving out raw numbers which paint a starkly different picture than the claims author wishes to paint.

You saying that suicide & gun ownership figures from high population California, New York, Illinois, Mass, NJ, & ~Md would somehow paint a different picture?
Why should anyone believe your gobbledygook?
Beevul evidently disputes the causation effect from states with household high gun ownership rates to states tending the highest in gun suicide rates, as if there could be no affect whatsoever from higher gun presence.
High gun ownership rates per HH don't CAUSE suicide, the causation by high gun ownership rates is in the facilitation of the suicide attempt.

Our {politifact} ruling: Signer said states that have "the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest suicide rates."
Exhaustive data collected by the CDC at the start of the century supports her statement. The three states with the highest percentage of household gun ownership - Alaska, Wyoming and Montana - also had the three highest suicide rates. The correlation between the availability of guns and suicide rates, while not as exact across the nation, certainly existed in most other states. The nine states with the lowest household gun rates also had the lowest suicide rates.
So we rate Signer’s statement True

CDC surveys showed that the top 3 states for percentage of household gun ownership - Wyoming, Montana and Alaska - often ranked as the three states with the highest suicide rates. Roughly 60% of households held firearms in those states, much higher than the national median of 40%. Their suicide rates, according to other CDC data, hovered around 20 people per 100,000 - nearly double the national average of about 11 per 100,000.

Nope. Sure didn't. I saw the word "rate" used there too.



No shit. Nothing new there for you. A for consistency.



Did they? Reduced them from what exactly?



Says you. Population NOT moot. The smaller a population, the larger the margin for error when applying a rate. That's a fact james. You know the game being played with the rate just like everyone else, so get off your pious horse and quit pretending you don't.



No, I'm saying that any actual figures from states, paint a different very picture than the one painted into a rate which relies heavily on population in its calculation.



Because its factual, that's why. We could take a poll in this group and see whether people believe you or me more. Feelin froggy?

I wrote: Huh? no comprende'.
beevul replied: No shit. Nothing new there for you. A for consistency

I comprehend normal english & rational reasoning just fine. What I don't comprehend is abnormal reasoning &/or ambiguous vague english, that being what you wrote when you said this:

source: The three states with the highest percentage of household gun ownership - Alaska, Wyoming and Montana - also had the three highest suicide rates.
Beevul replied: Huge coincidence, I'm sure, those three ultra low population states.

See? what are you talking about when you say you're sure there's a 'huge coincidence'? what exactly are you wanting to say, because it comes out as clear as mud, whether you're facetious or factual.
Are you contending the fact that those 3 states with small populations ~1 million or less, is a huge coincidental sinister plot by author Mira Signer to rig the results? Your answer makes little sense to those of us with above average comprehension skills. You're 'sure' there's a 'huge coincidence'? of what? Vermont, NHamp, hawaii, RI, Delaware, also have 'ultra low populations', so explain the 'huge coincidence'.

beevul: Did they? Reduced them {suicide rates} from what exactly?

The 9 gun control states with the lowest rates of firearm suicide were less than, reduced from all pro gun states' firearm suicide rates.

beevul: Says you. Population NOT moot. The smaller a population, the larger the margin for error when applying a rate. That's a fact james. You know the game being played with the rate just like everyone else, so get off your pious horse and quit pretending you don't.

I'd not heard this statistical analysis of yours before, when using actual figures. What you contend might apply to estimated statewide election poll predictions, but I don't see how it applies when using actual comparable official data from a state. After a suicide is adjudged a suicide, that's how it is treated for statistical purposes, unless later reversed due updated info.
You're not contending montana, wyoming, & alaska do not have high gun ownership rates are you, roughly 60% in households? that would be subject to a MOE, but since their HH-GO rate holds fairly steady for recent years, a weak limb.
Please direct me to, or link to where the 'margin of error' for wyoming's suicide rate is greater than the same MOE for California. I'm dying to see it. Or a link which contends that either wyo, montana, or alaska have lower HH gun ownership rates.
Your argument is stupid anyway, since texas (among many others) is not a small populated state, and has a higher firearm suicide rate than any of the 9 gun control states with the lowest suicide rates & HH gun ownership rates.
As I said, all the other 41 states will have higher firearm suicide rates than those 9 gun control states. This correlates firearms with firearm suicide, duh, and firearms are obviously a causative for successful completion of a suicide attempt. To argue otherwise, as you apparently are trying, is spitting in a hurricane.

beevul:No, I'm saying that any actual figures from states, paint a different very picture than the one painted into a rate which relies heavily on population in its calculation

What you say is specious & misleading & in our case absurd. You cannot contrast crime or suicide totals between smallest & largest states by population, and get much of anything meaningful in a state by state statistical comparison. Of course california will have far more suicides & crime, because it has over 35 times more people than each of those 3 states. The usual meaningful way is by rate comparison.

beevul: Because its factual, that's why.

You wouldn't understand a cogent factual argument on gun control if it smacked you in the head. Your main counter to when you've been refuted is either a tap dance or a coma where you feign sleep & disappear.

beevul: We could take a poll in this group and see whether people believe you or me more.

Here is where your above moe mentality comes into play. A high margin of error would result, since the larger majority of posters here are progun & would side with you, similar to what the progun crowd did with donP when he wrote his malicious lying post about gun control advocates & knives; the poll would not be of Knowledgeable random readers & thus not a scientific poll. It would be a meaningless poll of biased people.

CDC surveys showed that the top 3 states for percentage of household gun ownership - Wyoming, Montana and Alaska - often ranked as the three states with the highest suicide rates. Roughly 60% of households held firearms in those states, much higher than the national median of 40%. Their suicide rates, according to other CDC data, hovered around 20 people per 100,000 - nearly double the national average of about 11 per 100,000.
Conversely, the nine states with the lowest per-household gun ownership from 2001 to 2004 also had the nine lowest suicide rates. They were Hawaii, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, California, Illinois and Maryland.
Overall, the statistics show a distinct correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates in states.

Asserted without evidence, dismissed likewise. And then you provide evidence to the contrary:



Everyone else knows, james.



Maybe you should let those people speak for themselves instead of presuming to speak for them, or be one of them.



Once more in clear common English, please.



That's your opinion, which hasn't proven to be of even minimal value to the discussion of firearms.




It would be a poll of people familiar with your shenanigans, which was my criteria. If you rub people wrong, that's on you james.



Except that it is intended to imply that there is a large problem where none exists.



Wyoming with its whole 109 suicides.

Montana with its 180.

Alaska with its 124.




I could, and AM making the argument, james, that Overall, the statistics show an equally distinct correlation between low population and suicide rates in states.

My argument holds water, which is why the original really just doesn't signify much.

I imagine you'd figure it out if you really wanted to, given enough time.

jimmy wrote: I comprehend normal english & rational reasoning just fine.
beevul replied: Asserted without evidence, dismissed likewise. And then you provide evidence to the contrary:

How about the below? refutals of your factless assertions, & your going comatose when shown to be wacky:

Beevul: Deaths: Final; data for 2013. The top 15 causes of death, in order, are: {1-13,
14.Parkinson’s – 25,196
15.Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids 18,579 }
Shooting doesn't seem to make the top 15
..... I then posted a breakdown of suicides: 2013 (suicide) by discharge of firearms .......... 21,175
Which places firearm suicide at #14.
Yet where did beevul acknowledge his glaring error? nowhere. He only wrote this childish ad hominem before going comatose: So much bla bla bla, so little substance

Beevul's warped position on suicide, oblivious to impetuous suicide amongst young people:
beevul: As a second reason, I support people being able to take their own lives for any reason

Beevul argued till blue in his face his signature line was valid, until I posted this, then he suddenly went comatose, unable to even gasp out a parting shot:
beevul's signature line: 99.9 percent of gun owners do not shoot or kill anyone. Focus on the .1 percent who misuse guns, and leave the rest of us who don't, and our guns, the hell alone. Member of the 99.9 percent.

jimmy replied: If we go with 100 million gun owners in 2016, 0.1% of them = 100,000. Beevul's current premise is that 0.1%, or approx 100,000 gun owners, do not shoot or kill anyone, ever, in their lifetimes. His figures are indeed borne out close enough to a one year crime report on gunshot injury by shooting or killing.
So, in the year we are in, 2016, we can estimate that 100,000 gun owners will shoot or kill someone this year.
However, beevul's sig line falls apart, since it assumes that NONE of the other 99.9 million gun owners alive in 2016 have EVER SHOT OR KILLED ANYONE in their past lives.

I can understand reasoning quite well, despite your asinine bleating that you're some kind of superior brain. I've stuffed you more times than I've stuffed a thanksgiving turkey, actually kind of the same thing.

Asserted and likewise dismissed, without evidence.

What you believe you have done is not relevant.

beeevul: Except that it is intended to imply that there is a large problem where none exists. Wyoming with its whole 109 suicides. Montana with its 180. Alaska with its 124.
Overall, the statistics show an equally distinct correlation between low population and suicide rates in states.

Nah nah nah, that's BS, you don't have a cogent argument again. Delaware, RI, & NHamp, & Hawaii are low populated states, and rank relatively low in gun ownership rates and relatively low in Firearm suicide rates. Wyoming Alaska & Montana are in an opposite way.
Also, look at the high HH gun ownership rates from #5 thru #20, all progun states excepting minnesota & perhaps wisconsin. Your hypothesis collapses. Care to revise & play again? or will you go into a coma?

(sorry, couldn't get rid of the duplicate, dunno why either):
<img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-111354103900" alt="SPR08staterankprevalence" src="" width="585" height="286" srcset=" 470w, 585w" sizes=&quot max-width: 585px) 100vw, 585px">
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/

And Japanese automobile sales??



Any ideas to help with the problem of Japanese car sales??

mtn man: Any ideas to help with the problem of Japanese car sales??

I wouldn't worry about it, beevul apparently argues no problem exists:

beevul above: Except that it is intended to imply that there is a large problem where none exists. Wyoming with its whole 109 suicides. Montana with its 180. Alaska with its 124.

<img src="" border="0">

Beevul argues that "no large problem" (in the context of gun suicides) exists, in those states.


Which is a fact. A problem exists, but not a large one as the rate would have everyone believing.

Which is the entire point of this exercise.

What will you misrepresent next?