Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[YT2095]

ill informed ignorant comments such as these do not help the general publics mindset!

 

Guns are for killing people full stop.

 

Wrong! so Very Wrong!

 

 

If you want to shoot targets etc then a BB-gun or an air-rifle would suffice.

 

yeah, You try and hit a competition target 200 yards away with a BB gun!

 

there`s been some Good comments in here, but ajb, I really have to completely and utterly disagree with those of yours.

Edited July 3, 2008 by YT2095

[doG]

To doG

 

I took a look at your reference. Not very convincing. They could not even quantify how many schoolboy 'weapons' were firearms and how many were knives, and they admit that the British firearms murder rate (and overall murder rate) are way lower than in the USA.

 

I only mentioned it because of the problems they have with keeping the guns out of the hands of people they don't want to have guns. You can only acquire guns illegally and yet they're still turning up at schools

 

 

Hand-guns are carried by police only because of their compactness. When it comes to their use, anyone with a rifle has a major advantage.

 

And just how often have you tried to use a rifle in close quarters compared with a handgun?

 

Aside from all of that though, one of the things I cherish most in the U.S. is my individual freedom and liberty. Why should I be punished by forfeiting any of my liberty in the least because of the actions of others? I've owned guns all of my life. Except when needed they are locked up and inaccessible to others. I've broken no laws with them and I use them responsibly when needed. Why should I suffer any consequences now when I've done nothing improper? Why would you think it should be OK for you and others to take any of my rights or liberties away from me?

 

You don't need to snipe at me, I just want folks to avoid blasting away with both barrels on all their gun stances without regard to the OP.

 

No snipes intended. Just pointing out a door that the OP himself opened.

[imp]

...... because criminals know nobody have guns in their home, they also don't feel the need to have guns ..........

 

Most often, I simply dismiss the more ludicrous statements and contentions presented, but here, I am compelled to remark on the above:

 

The implication is that criminals will disarm themselves while going about their business if they are assured their victims are unarmed?

 

This is among the most damn-fool lines of reasoning concerning firearms that I have ever heard!!imp

[Gilded]

The implication is that criminals will disarm themselves while going about their business if they are assured their victims are unarmed?

 

This is among the most damn-fool lines of reasoning concerning firearms that I have ever heard!!imp

 

This isn't about deliberate "disarming" that much; if someone has a gun and is planning to rob someone they probably won't leave the gun home. BUT if someone is planning a robbery, and is thinking of buying a gun from the black market for example, I'd imagine they don't necessarily do so if they're in a country where it is likely that the people they're robbing don't have guns at all. If they're spotted, no big deal since the person who noticed him isn't likely to have a gun, and even if they're arrested they'll spend less time in jail than they would for an armed robbery (in most legislations).

 

Of course, something that is more important in the "do I need a gun for this <insert criminal activity here>" scenario are self defense laws. In Finland for example, if someone is robbing your house and you notice them and they come at you with a knife you are likely to spend some time in jail for excessive self defense if you shoot them dead. But probably not if they have a firearm too. In this sort of legislations in most situations it's feasible for criminals not to use firearms at all. Then again, it somewhat sucks for everyone else.

[SkepticLance]

To imp

 

The reason why criminals do not carry guns will not be because their victims do not. The reason for criminals not carrying guns will be if, and only if, said guns are too difficult to obtain or too expensive.

 

Here in New Zealand, very very few burglars are found with guns. That is not because they are unavailable. I was once approached by a very seedy character who wanted to sell me a hand-gun for an exorbitant sum. Needless to say, I did not buy! If a criminal wants a gun, he can get one. However, he will have to pay dearly for it.

 

A small number of members of our gangs have guns. Usually sporting rifles stolen off legitimate owners. However, because of our much tighter gun control laws, possession of firearms by criminals is quite limited. Most violent crimes here in NZ fall short of murder. But many of them would actually be murder if guns were involved. Assaults with knives, clubs etc are common, but rarely lead to fatalities. Similar assaults with guns normally lead to fatalities.

 

Widespread possession of hand-guns means both ordinary citizens and criminals will have them, and the fatality rate goes up. Banning hand-guns will take a long time to make a difference, but in the end will cut the murder rate and the suicide rate substantially.

[Pangloss]

Lance, it's surprising to me that you use a correlative case here, given your opposition to global warming.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss

Please define 'opposition to global warming.' I am not a denier. I understand that the world is warming, and by how much and what the cause is. I am skeptical of the some of the silliness surrounding ideas of global warming. So please be more specific.

[bascule]

I'd like to see a comprehensive comparison of all methods of suicide, first and foremost comparing the number of suicides performed in a given manner to the success rate.

 

SkepticLance compared three methods, which seem more or less randomly sampled.

[Pangloss]

Pangloss

Please define 'opposition to global warming.' I am not a denier. I understand that the world is warming, and by how much and what the cause is. I am skeptical of the some of the silliness surrounding ideas of global warming. So please be more specific.

 

Well you're right, I should have been more specific, because I know you know where I was coming from but I didn't mean you paint you with the denier brush. Apologies again.

 

What I meant was that (iirc) you routinely challenge conclusions and assertions in the GW debate that are drawn on correlative evidence, on the general grounds that we haven't accounted for all the variables. I'm actually using my own phrasing here because I can't recall offhand how you usually put it, but I'm on the right track here, aren't I?

 

If not I'll withdraw the comment. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule

The three types of suicide I mentioned were the three listed in my source. They did not supply a comprehensive list. Maybe someone on this thread has one?

 

Pangloss

 

Your latest post was accurate. Yes, I frequently challenge on the grounds that variables are not accounted for, and thus conclusions are uncertain. You can indeed suggest that this should be the same. And I am taking a position. My position may be right or wrong. However, the logic seems to me to be fairly much valid.

 

Let me make this suggestion, relating to suicide. If a person wants to take his/her own life, the probability of success depends on the method. Guns 90% versus drug overdose 2%. A fairly extreme comparison.

 

If guns, and especially hand-guns, are not available, the would-be suicide will need to try another method, which will have a much lower probability of success.

 

Conclusion : Strict gun control, including a total ban on hand-guns, will reduce the number of successful suicides.

[iNow]

Conclusion : Strict gun control, including a total ban on hand-guns, will reduce the number of successful suicides.

 

If they want to take their own life, who are we to try stopping them (especially when you are advocating removing MY personal freedoms in the process)?

[Mr Skeptic]

My opinion? We have no right to prevent people from taking their own life, so long as they are in their right mind. The best thing to do IMO is to is to help them out. Offer them a quick, painless death like we do for our worst criminals. The catch is that they would have to receive psychological counseling, and testing for depression, before that. If they still want to go, that's their choice.

 

My guess is people would prefer this to shooting themselves in the face, or other methods of suicide.

 

Also, shotguns are for suicide, not handguns.

[SkepticLance]

I have been arguing that the wide availability of guns, and especialy hand-guns, increases the number of successful suicides. I think this argument really cannot be faulted, bearing in mind the very clear data.

 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

 

And of course, shotguns can be used for suicide. I suspect though, that most people would be a bit reluctant to use that method, since it is enormously messy! Does anyone have statistics on what kinds of firearms are used in suicides?

 

Whether people have a right to take their own life is, of course, a quite separate issue. If someone want to argue that point, I suggest they start a new thread. I am not terribly keen to get involved in that debate, since there are no right or wrong answers. That is a debate based on opinion, not data.

[Pangloss]

Ok, I'm going to change your subject line, then, since you've changed your mind from telling us that this is a bad thing to making an academic point about suicide rates.

[John Cuthber]

It would be essentially impossible to do a proper controlled study to see if gun ownership increases the rate of suicide so, as far as I can see the original question is never going to be answered.

If someone wants to kill themselves, they will find a way.

Handguns, being designed (so far as I can see) for killing people and no other purpose are an obvious choice for a suicide if they happen to be available.

The arguments for the restriction of gun ownership are not strongly influenced by the suicide rate, rather the murder rate and accidental death rates from firearms should persuade people they can do without their guns.

Of course this will never work because the owners of the guns always say that the accidents and murders- while clearly terrible- won't happen to them because they are too clever, carefull and well trained.

 

That's exactly the excuse used by most habitual drunk drivers.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

Not so much that I changed my mind. I still think suicide is a bad thing. Just that the argument about whether people have a right to kill themselves, as a part of their general right to liberty, is purely subjective and cannot be answered using data.

 

My own view is that human life is the most precious thing we have. A very large percentage of those who try, and fail at suicide, later recover from their depressed state and realise they are very glad to be still alive. Thus my personal view that anything that reduces the rate of suicide is a good thing. However, that view is subjective.

 

I think it is clear that access to firearms increases, not the rate of attempts at suicide, but the rate of successful suicide attempts. And this, according to my subjective view about the value of human life, is a very bad thing.

[YT2095]

Of course this will never work because the owners of the guns always say that the accidents and murders- while clearly terrible- won't happen to them because they are too clever, carefull and well trained.

 

That's exactly the excuse used by most habitual drunk drivers.

 

so you`re saying we should ban cars as well then, or that gun owners are drunk?

or was your post just Non Sequitur?

[Sayonara]

No, he is pointing out that the rationalisation is common to at least one other group who society treats very harshly (and rightly so) for their willingness to abdicate from their responsibility for their actions.

But that is not the most on-topic direction we could take from John's post.

[John Cuthber]

"so you`re saying we should ban cars as well then, or that gun owners are drunk?

or was your post just Non Sequitur?"

Strawmen, and you should know better.

 

I was pointing out that people don't recognise themselves as part of the majority.

The people who get killed (and kill others) while driving home drunk would almost certainly have said (if they had been asked just before the accident) "I'm OK I can handle it".

The people who get killed in gun accidents would have made similar claims.

 

We take a dim view of drunk drivers and, where I am, we take a similar view of gun owners.

[insane_alien]

anyone who touts that accidents won't happen to them because they are too well trained/careful/etc are idiots, i have to agree with john on this one.

 

the moment you become complacent is the moment you mess up bigtime.

 

ontopic though, i think it is possible that handgun availability will increase suicide rates, mainly due to the fact that it is a pretty easy way to do it. i'm not however sure if this would increase suicide rates significantly.

 

i also agree with the idea that if someone seriously wants to kill themselves then they will succeed. the handgun availability would do the most harm to the people doing it to seek attention.

[Mr Skeptic]

We could compare suicide rates for America (lots of guns) with Japan (fewer guns). The biggest cause of suicide is people who want to kill themselves, not people who have an easy way to kill themselves. I doubt that handgun availability is a significant factor.

[iNow]

The biggest cause of suicide is people who want to kill themselves, not people who have an easy way to kill themselves. I doubt that handgun availability is a significant factor.

 

Agreed. Very well said, Mr.Skeptic. Too much speculation and very little data are causing this thread to spin its wheels.

[Sayonara]

Are we are pretty much agreed that:

 

(a) if someone wants to kill themselves, they are not going to change their mind just because they do not have a handgun within reach,

(b) having a handgun within reach does not make people intent on doing themselves in, and

© handguns might well make for a more effective means of topping oneself, but this is beside the point.

 

?

[SkepticLance]

Sayonara suggested

 

"Are we are pretty much agreed that:

 

(a) if someone wants to kill themselves, they are not going to change their mind just because they do not have a handgun within reach,

(b) having a handgun within reach does not make people intent on doing themselves in, and

© handguns might well make for a more effective means of topping oneself, but this is beside the point."

 

I will rephrase these three points (purely for argument sake).

 

(a) If someone wants to kill themselves and use something other than a firearm, they are much more likely to survive. If they decide to try for a drug overdose, they have 45 times the chance of surviving.

(b) Having a handgun available does not change suicide intent - true.

© handguns make a more effective means of topping oneself, and this is exactly the point. If we want would-be suicides to fail, and continue living, then it is best not to have handguns available.

 

iNow claims we have too little data. iNow, did you read the earlier reference ...

 

 

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html

 

"Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns. Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home."

 

Plus a whole lot more data showing clearly that more guns means more suicides and more homicides.

[doG]

If we want would-be suicides to fail, and continue living, then it is best not to have handguns available.

 

That conclusion is unsupported. Japan has the second highest suicide rate in the world and yet she also sports some of the tightest handgun restrictions. All your proposal would achieve is having those that might opt for a handgun to opt for another method. As you mention, drugs have a low success rate but you ignore the fact that hanging, for instance, has a very high success rate. Would you advocate tight restrictions on rope, sheets, clothes or anything else someone could use to hang themselves just because of the success rates of those that hang themselves?