
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
David Lentz <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > Some Guy wrote: >> >> "COGunWoman55" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Interesting suicide rate chart, comparing nations: >> > http://tinyurl.com/wk4i >> >> The old causation gambit. >> >> Of course an inanimate object doesn't cause anything. But what do you >> think will be the difference in outcome to a suicidal person if he >> tries a non-gun method (average 5% "success" rate) or a gun (85% >> "success" rate). >> >> It's common sense. The country-by-country comparison is irrelevant. >> >> Just ask yourself, if you had a friend who had a clinically >> depressed teenage son, and your friend asked you if he should buy a >> gun, what would you say to him? >> >> By the say, Kleck claims there is no relationship between suicide >> rates and gun ownership, but he had to jump through some complicated >> statisical hoops to reach that conclusion. Again, it goes against >> common sense. > > Common sense, what the above author professes to have so much of > but which hs lacks, tells you that there various methods of > suicide. Some have a high probability of success and others do > not. If you deny a person one particular high probability > method, a handgun, he will select another high probability > method, say suicide by cop. > > David > What's it matter which method of suicide is more effective? Suicide is a VOLUNTARY ACT,it's the person's CHOICE. It's really irrelevant. -- Jim Yanik,NRA member jyanik-at-kua.net
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |