• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Tom Arnold Pens Passionate Essay Arguing for Gun Control After Losing Nephew

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snipp...

Speaking of which, to an apparently military-academician that may understand, my 1969 vintage General Classification Test score was 74.

The army called this test "GT" around 1969, if you scored 136 or higher before 1978 Mensa will accept the result as proof of being in the 98th percentile.

nightmare, you should have studied more efficiently...huh!!

just saying...

ipse
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
A GCT=74 qualifies for Triple Nine, IQ equivalent 160. By personal communication as I declined the membership invitation based on my MENSA experience.

It is not possible to study for an intelligence test.

hummm...really...not that the wiki that you peruse and make changes to would be incorrect, but, quote:

The Triple Nine Society accepts a minimum qualifying score of 157 (raw) for membership in its ranks, but only if the test was taken prior to 1976.

unquote

and i humbly apologize as i failed to provide a cite to my previous post which is the same as this one...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_General_Classification_Test

did you submit your information to TNS or MENSA or did they contact you. if the latter, didn't you believe it odd how they got the information from your Military Personnel Records w/o a release from you?

things to make you say...hummm

huh!!

ipse

added...now perhaps you meant to say the Naval General Classification Test (NGCT) w/an a score >74:eek:
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Furthermore, a very detailed, in-depth Harvard study firmly concluded that absent firearms, the suicide rate DOES NOT CHANGE, specifically stating that those who wish to take their own lives will find a way, using whatever means is available.

There are several stats that get tossed around to condemn firearms. In aggregate, they can sound convincing to those not familiar with differences between correlation and causality, or who don't hear other figures. Speaking of this nation only:

The old saw about having a gun in the home increasing the risk of suicide or homicide by some factor. Classic correlation vs causality. Very rarely does anyone ever develop lung cancer and then decide, "What the heck, might as well start smoking." In contrast, someone at higher risk of criminal violence (eg poor/bad neighborhood, engaged in criminal conduct, under threat from another) seems quite likely to consider obtaining a firearm. Similarly, someone who really considers and plans to end his own life might take time to acquire a firearm to do the deed.

On another front, firearms are used in over half (~55%) of successful suicides. But they are used in only a small fraction of attempted suicides. It just turns out that firearms have a success rate of 85 to 90% compared to 5 to 10% for many other methods. In fact, the term parasuicide is used in some literature to describe apparent suicide attempts where death was not really the desired outcome. The effort was really intended as a non-fatal, self-harm, cry for help.

Anti-gun groups also tout the number of suicides attempts that take place very quickly between first plan and attempted suicide. These groups suggest that removing lethal means will result in fewer successful suicides. They argue that if a person committing suicide in a rash moment doesn't have a highly fatal gun, he might use a different, more survivable method. Of course, it is a bit tough to ask successful suicide victims whether they really wanted to end their life, how long they'd been contemplating suicide, or other questions.

I'm left to ask whether it isn't entirely possible that those who have given suicide serious thought, planned it out, and really want to end it all are not more likely to use a gun knowing it is highly fatal, while those doing things in a hurry, perhaps not really wanting to die, are more likely to use cutting, attempted drug ODs, CO poisoning, hanging, or other methods will a higher chance of being saved. After all, is there anyone who doesn't understand that the typical self-inflicted gun shot to the head is very likely to be fatal? Does anyone expect or hope to survive a self-inflicted gun shot to the head?

I just haven't seen any studies attempting to answer this question directly.

The Harvard study by Kates and Mauser you cite seems to come the closest in terms of arguing that the presence of firearms doesn't materially affect overall suicide rates. But obviously, it is not attempting to address the underlying reasons for suicide.

Charles
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
There are several stats that get tossed around to condemn firearms. In aggregate, they can sound convincing to those not familiar with differences between correlation and causality, or who don't hear other figures. Speaking of this nation only:

The old saw about having a gun in the home increasing the risk of suicide or homicide by some factor. Classic correlation vs causality. Very rarely does anyone ever develop lung cancer and then decide, "What the heck, might as well start smoking." In contrast, someone at higher risk of criminal violence (eg poor/bad neighborhood, engaged in criminal conduct, under threat from another) seems quite likely to consider obtaining a firearm. Similarly, someone who really considers and plans to end his own life might take time to acquire a firearm to do the deed.

On another front, firearms are used in over half (~55%) of successful suicides. But they are used in only a small fraction of attempted suicides. It just turns out that firearms have a success rate of 85 to 90% compared to 5 to 10% for many other methods. In fact, the term parasuicide is used in some literature to describe apparent suicide attempts where death was not really the desired outcome. The effort was really intended as a non-fatal, self-harm, cry for help.

Anti-gun groups also tout the number of suicides attempts that take place very quickly between first plan and attempted suicide. These groups suggest that removing lethal means will result in fewer successful suicides. They argue that if a person committing suicide in a rash moment doesn't have a highly fatal gun, he might use a different, more survivable method. Of course, it is a bit tough to ask successful suicide victims whether they really wanted to end their life, how long they'd been contemplating suicide, or other questions.

I'm left to ask whether it isn't entirely possible that those who have given suicide serious thought, planned it out, and really want to end it all are not more likely to use a gun knowing it is highly fatal, while those doing things in a hurry, perhaps not really wanting to die, are more likely to use cutting, attempted drug ODs, CO poisoning, hanging, or other methods will a higher chance of being saved. After all, is there anyone who doesn't understand that the typical self-inflicted gun shot to the head is very likely to be fatal? Does anyone expect or hope to survive a self-inflicted gun shot to the head?

I just haven't seen any studies attempting to answer this question directly.

The Harvard study by Kates and Mauser you cite seems to come the closest in terms of arguing that the presence of firearms doesn't materially affect overall suicide rates. But obviously, it is not attempting to address the underlying reasons for suicide.

Charles

do you have any actual cite for the hyperbole you are spewing in this post?

the olde saw...? nada to support your statement so you are truly just passing the urban myth espoused by bloomberg, et al.

commentary on 55% successful suicides were by firearms after saying the olde saw, then contribute to the urban myth by saying those inclined to do self-harm take the time to purchase a firearm. so which is correct ~ the olde saw use the firearm readily available or run out and buy a firearm?

you state at the beginning of your nonsense that there are stats (don't provide any), then state at the end you haven't seen studies?

sorry once again spewing BS w/o a shred of objective evidence.

since9's,non-vetted via peer review, article has been scrutinized by scholars and discredited as biased and not worth the paper it was written on.

ipse
 
Top