Senior men have higher rates of suicide than average, and firearms were involved in more than three-quarters of those deaths in 2021, according to a CDC report
Senior men have higher rates of suicide than average, and firearms were involved in more than three-quarters of those deaths in 2021, according to a CDC report
It has been repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated that means reduction (which the pro-gun community won’t allow) and survivability (which guns don’t have) play an extremely important role in suicide prevention.
Guns are absolutely part of the issue. Unfortunately, the pro-gun community prioritises sweeping gun deaths under the rug to maintain their profits and possessions over actually protecting anyone.
You like to talk a lot about studies and data without actually providing studies or data.
Just reading through your profile is just a mess of “it has been proven”, “debunked”, “repeatedly shown”, etc., etc., or just the simple “no, your wrong”.
Quite honestly, it’s weird. While we all tend to use simple phrases during a discussion, I also like to at least provide a link or two or have a study within reach to back up my assumptions.
Your motivation is simply to piss people off, it seems.
It’s not my responsibility to spoon feed you information and you shouldn’t be trusting posts on social media just because they do.
There’s no better way to feed people dogshit than studies and graphs stripped of context.
It’s not about spoon feeding me information. It’s about validating your own claims.
Also, links on social media are completely visible and transparent. You should know exactly what they link to and were information is hosted. A good study will generally have good sample sizes and plenty of peer reviews.
I have validated my own claims, to my own standard, under my own volition. That’s why I hold this opinion in the first place.
You either haven’t, or have chosen to dismiss the evidence because it’s inconvenient to the opinions you want to hold.
It’s not stupid to click the link, its stupid to let someone on the internet assure you they’ve provided all the context you need.
The British medical journal Lancet published a study back in 1998. It’s had hundreds of peer reviews. Does that mean that if somebody links it on social media, you’ll just accept it?
Because that paper was the origin of “vaccines cause autism”. It has been linked millions of times by a group of people who are spreading misinformation that kills people.
Want me to send you a link next time I see one? You can strut into their midst with links to the hundreds of studies that disprove it.
I’m sure it won’t be a waste of your time and I’m sure every counter argument will be made in only the best of faith.
This thread has just gotten boring now.
Then you’re enjoying yet another luxury that you strip from victims of gun violence.