Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[SkepticLance]

One of the funny things about suicide does, in fact, relate to intent. My own reading suggests that most suicide attempts are not actually that serious. Many are simply cries for help. That is why 98% of those who take drug overdoses actually survive. That is also why it is the more tragic when people use a firearm in their attempt. A firearm is 90% sure of killing in a suicide. 16,000 Americans in 2001 died that way. How many of them were not really serious and would have survived if they had access to only less lethal methods? I suspect the answer would be most of them. We will never know, since you cannot interview a successful suicide!

 

However, the comparisons I put up between USA and Canada, using real official statistics, shows that in Canada, where guns are less readily available, the rate of successful suicide is way lower than in the USA.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

One of the funny things about suicide does, in fact, relate to intent. My own reading suggests that most suicide attempts are not actually that serious. Many are simply cries for help. That is why 98% of those who take drug overdoses actually survive. That is also why it is the more tragic when people use a firearm in their attempt. A firearm is 90% sure of killing in a suicide. 16,000 Americans in 2001 died that way. How many of them were not really serious and would have survived if they had access to only less lethal methods? I suspect the answer would be most of them. We will never know, since you cannot interview a successful suicide!

 

I don't think you'd shoot yourself unless you really "meant" it. Perhaps a better explanation would be that drug overdoses just don't tend to be very lethal -- modern medical care can treat an overdose, but you can't treat a bullet to the head.

[insane_alien]

How many of them were not really serious and would have survived if they had access to only less lethal methods?

 

if they can get a gun they can get to a drug store. or at the very least, bleach is commonly available.

 

also, the point is moot, if you aren't serious, you aren't going to be going for a gun.

[doG]

How many of them were not really serious and would have survived if they had access to only less lethal methods? I suspect the answer would be most of them.

 

Based on what data? Your opinion? What percentage of them would or would not simply hang themselves? Consider, for the sake of argument, the trends in suicide in a Lithuanian urban population over the period 1984–2003.

 

Methods

Data from the regional mortality register were used to analyze suicide deaths among all men and women aged 25–64 years in Kaunas city' date=' Lithuania over the period 1984–2003. Age-standardized death rates per 100,000 persons (using European standard population) were calculated by gender, suicide method and dates. A joinpoint regression method was used to estimate annual percentage changes (EPACs) and to detect points where the trends changed significantly.

 

[b']Results[/b]

The frequency of death by suicide among males was 48% higher in 1994–2003 than in 1984–1993. The corresponding increase among females was 28%. The most common methods of suicide among men were hanging, strangulation and suffocation (87.4% among all suicide deaths). The proportions of hanging, strangulation and suffocation in males increased by 6.9% – from 83.9% to 89.7% – compared to a 24.2% increase in deaths from handgun, rifle and shotgun firearm discharges and a 216.7% increase in deaths from poisoning with solvents, gases, pesticides and vapors. Among females, the most common methods of suicide were hanging, strangulation and suffocation (68.3% of all suicide deaths). The proportion of hanging deaths among females increased during the time period examined, whereas the proportion of poisonings with solid or liquid substances decreased.

 

Now, would even stricter gun control, than they have now, in Lithuania result in saved lifes or even greater increases in hanging and poisoning deaths? Should people with the right to have arms be deprived of their right without proof, not opinion, that their rights somehow violate someone else's?

[SkepticLance]

doG

 

You keep harping on the suggestion that all intended suicides would kill themselves even if they did not have guns. The comparitive statistics Canada vs USA would deny that. High access to guns correlates with high rates of successful suicide. This is not my opinion. This is hard data.

 

Obviously a suicide does not occur unless the person affected has both intent and means. Increase the number of people with intent, and you increase the number of suicides. Increase the number of people with means and you also increase the number of suicides. That is why wider access to firearms leads to more suicides.

 

Of the two, reducing access to the means of suicide, and especially firearms, is the easiest means of reducing suicide rate. Sure, I agree that, if a person is determined enough, you cannot stop them. But most would-be suicides are not actually that determined. Like our friend Taktiq, who 'wanted' to commit suicide, but never tried using the gun he had access to.

 

However, you need to realise that people who contemplate suicide are not psychologically 'normal'. It is probably not too far from the truth to regard them as temporarily insane. And people in that state will sometimes resort to a gun even if they really do not want to kill themselves. Result, an unnecessary death.

 

http://www.urmc.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=282

 

I quote :

 

"A handgun in the home significantly increases the risk of suicide in men over the age of 50, researchers from the University of Rochester Medical Center show in an article in the July-August issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

 

People with a handgun in the home were more than twice as likely to kill themselves compared to similar people who don't have access to handguns. The finding wasn't true for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, whose presence did not boost suicide risk."

 

It is really easy to find credible references, such as University research, showing the relationship between gun availability and suicide rate. These are facts, not opinions.

 

The above reference relates primarily to older people. The reference below is more about younger.

 

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/10/1066

 

"Even after adjusting for differences in rates of psychiatric disorders between suicide victims and controls, the association between suicide and both any gun (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 17.5) and handguns (OR = 9.4, 95% CI = 1.7 to 53.9) in the home were both highly significant. Long-guns in the home were associated with suicide only in rural areas, whereas handguns were more closely associated with suicide in urban areas. "

 

This article recommends that, if an adolescent is suicidal, it is important to remove access to firearms.

Edited July 11, 2008 by SkepticLance

[doG]

doG

 

You keep harping on the suggestion that all intended suicides would kill themselves even if they did not have guns.

 

No, I keep asking you to prove that they wouldn't and you keep dodging the question. Now, can you show, with hard data, what percentage of people would not kill themselves with another method? What percentage of lives WOULD be saved, not could be saved.

 

The comparitive statistics Canada vs USA would deny that.

 

But in a world of 195 countries, i.e. 195 data points, you want to pick just one pair of points and claim they support your position while continuing to argue that the other 193 data points are irrelevant. As other data points, other countries, are brought to your attention that have stricter gun controls and yet higher rates of successful suicides you want us to believe that data doesn't matter, that we should only consider your hand picked data. IMO that's not a very objective, scientific approach.

 

BTW, don't forget that Canada still has a higher rate of successful suicides per capita than the U.S. Now, if it's your claim that tighter gun control in the U.S. will reduce the per capita suicide rate, why hasn't it had that effect in Canada?

 

High access to guns correlates with high rates of successful suicide.

 

That's another hand picked data point. What you're really saying is that high access to guns by determined suicidal people correlates with high rates of successful suicide. Now insert any other method and the data is just as true, i.e. "high access to rope by determined suicidal people correlates with high rates of successful suicide", or poison like solvents, gases, pesticides and vapors. The bottom line is you have to reduce access to all of methods if you really want to stop determined suicidal people. You cannot draw the conclusion that taking away just one and leaving high access to the rest will save many lives.

[SkepticLance]

To doG

 

You are absolutely determined to ignore all the data, and the supporting studies by reputable researchers, aren't you?

 

Instead you pretend that I am denying other suicide methods. Of course I am not. People use all sorts of methods to commit suicide. However, unless the would be suicide is absolutely determined to top himself, other methods are less successful than gun suicide.

 

Since I am talking about the USA, here is a reference from the NIH.

 

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention.shtml

 

"Suicide is a major, preventable public health problem. In 2004, it was the eleventh leading cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 32,439 deaths.1 The overall rate was 10.9 suicide deaths per 100,000 people.1 An estimated eight to 25 attempted suicides occur per every suicide death.2"

 

Showing as I said, that more attempts than successful suicides happen. So what makes an attempt successful? Clearly, if a more lethal means is used, like a hand-gun, there is a greater chance of a death resulting.

 

From my NIH reference.

 

"Suicide was the eighth leading cause of death for males and the sixteenth leading cause of death for females in 2004.1

Almost four times as many males as females die by suicide.1

Firearms, suffocation, and poison are by far the most common methods of suicide, overall. However, men and women differ in the method used, as shown below.1

Suicide by: Males (%) Females (%)

Firearms 57% 32%

Suffocation 23% 20%

Poisoning 13% 38% "

 

This shows clearly that the use of firearms increases lethality of suicide attempts. It also shows that, in the USA where guns are widely available, firearms are the preferred suicide choice. Hanging may be more common in places where guns are restricted, but in the USA it is guns that cause the most suicides, almost certainly due to the wide availability of guns.

 

The earlier studies I referenced shows that successful suicide is more prevalent where guns are available.

[Mr Skeptic]

Studies also show that women are far more likely to use a suicide attempt as a call for help than are men. Men who attempt suicide are far more likely to mean it, and therefore choose more lethal means. Men are three or four times as likely as women to own a gun, and women with access to a gun are less likely to use it in suicide compared to men.

 

However, I think SkepticLance has demonstrated that firearm ownership translates to higher successful suicides. He did, after all, cite several studies to that effect, and no one cited any studies showing no correlation. I still don't think it's worth banning guns for, though.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Studies also show that women are far more likely to use a suicide attempt as a call for help than are men. Men who attempt suicide are far more likely to mean it, and therefore choose more lethal means. Men are three or four times as likely as women to own a gun, and women with access to a gun are less likely to use it in suicide compared to men.

I propose we hereby outlaw men. They've always been trouble anyways.

 

 

 

Errr, wait...

[SkepticLance]

At last!!

Someone who can read references and think rationally. Thank you Mr Skeptic.

 

Your final comment about whether that is sufficient reason to ban guns is, of course, a matter of opinion. My opinion is that guns that are designed purely to kill people such as hand-guns should be strongly restricted, while hunting guns can be available to those with a genuine need. However, that is entering the world of opinion, and others will differ. Since it is opinion, it cannot be 'proved' either way.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just to be thorough, I figured I should look for studies showing guns in a good light re suicide. So, what better place to look than the NRA website:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=B4W&q=site%3Anra.org+suicide&btnG=Search

And their other website:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=a5W&q=site%3Anrahq.org+suicide&btnG=Search

 

No mention of suicide on their site. I find that quite surprising.

[doG]

To doG

 

You are absolutely determined to ignore all the data, and the supporting studies by reputable researchers, aren't you?

 

I'm not ignoring data. Why are you avoiding the questions? Canada, by your own reference, has very tight control on handguns, yet it still has a higher per capita rate of successful suicides than the U.S.. Why is that?

 

Yes, guns are a highly effective means of killing yourself, probably the MOST efficient means there is. Yes, maing those guns less accessible will reduce the suicides by that method but you cannot LEAP to the CONCLUSION that will automatically prevent determined people with access to other highly efficient methods from using them. The data shows in fact, that there are many places with tighter gun control and MUCH higher rates of suicide. Why isn't your claim supported in these places? Why would it be different in the U.S.?

 

I well understand that tighter control on firearms will reduce firearm suicides but that does not mean it will lower the suicide rate. The data shows otherwise. Look at it, ALL of it, and you will see that.

[ParanoiA]

SkepticLance...

 

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that loosened gun control increases suicide rates big time. How is that more important than the fundamental check our political system requires?

 

Freedom isn't free. Why should I put the structure of my entire country's political design in jeopardy because some people want to kill themselves, but they're not sure if they really mean it? That's ridiculous.

 

This is the kind of thing I label as liberal babble. This is exactly the kind of thinking that's always disgusted me. I'm supposed to weaken the entire citizenry to defend themselves for a small pool of weaklings that aren't bright enough to guess that using a gun isn't the best method for attention therapy; that it might not give them a second chance?

 

Cars are a far more frequent tool of accidental death and far more people die in them and are far less necessary than guns. Guns help me protect my home from invaders. Cars are a convenient way to travel and transport goods. I can live without cars long before I can protect my home successfully, consistently without guns.

 

People kill themselves with cars who never meant to kill themselves - let alone meaning to "pretend" to kill themselves. Yet you have no issue with this. Weird.

 

If you want to save people from needless death, there are heaps and mounds of more death from other things than guns. If you're prioritizing accidental suicidal gun death, then clearly you're more concerned with the agenda of gun control / banning than saving human life. I'm more concerned with saving human life that wants to be saved.

[foodchain]

I think nerve gas should be legal like guns, I mean if we are to have liberty we really should have it else liberty I guess really would just become someone’s opinion.

[SkepticLance]

doG said :

 

"Canada, by your own reference, has very tight control on handguns, yet it still has a higher per capita rate of successful suicides than the U.S.. Why is that?"

 

There are a lot of countries that have a higher suicide rate than the USA. However, that does not impinge on the point I am making, which is that widespread availability of guns, and especially hand-guns increases the rate of successful suicide.

 

As I said before, there are two factors influencing overall suicide rate - motivation and means.

a. If motivation is high, that means lots of people attempting suicide. Certain nations, such as Lithuania have a lot more attempts at suicide. Even with a lower success rate, the end result can be more suicides, simply because of the larger number of attempts.

b. Access to a method of topping yourself is also important, and that is where guns come in. There may be fewer attempts, but if the 'success' rate is high, that means more deaths.

 

Bearing in mind that most suicide attempts are not genuinely serious, a reduction in success rate (by controlling firearms) will mean fewer attempts are successful. Many unsuccessful suicide attempts are never repeated, since they are really just cries for help. Thus we should try to reduce success rate, and thus reduce suicides.

 

This is what my references have been saying.

 

To ParanoiA

 

When you start arguing that the extra freedom justifies the extra corpses, then you are getting into a sphere of opinion, rather than scientific fact. We could argue that for ever, since we all have our opinion, and on matters of opinion there are no right or wrong answers. I prefer not to get into that discussion too much, since it is good to be able to nail things down with fact.

 

However, just because I am an imperfect human, let me express my opinion anyway. I see a reduction in personal liberty as being an essential part of living in societies. If you are Robinson Crusoe living on your own on a desert island, then you can do anything you like and harm no-one except yourself.

 

However, in society, you have to accept certain limits. The obvious example is not being able to drink and drive, since that may maim or kill other people. Keeping a hand-gun at home can do the same thing. If someone else gets hold of it and commits homicide or suicide, then your possession of the hand-gun has led to another death. To curtail your liberty in that small way, to avoid another human dying, to me is justified.

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so you spent an entire paragraph telling me how opinions aren't important to you only to follow up with two paragraphs of your opinion.

 

Well, I simply see a lack of critical analysis of your position. On the surface, it is sensible and seemingly obvious. But it fails to deal with legitimate concerns over the structure of our government's balance of power and a person's basic, animal right and obligation to defend one's self. There is nothing more obviously observable in life than every entity's duty to itself, and I believe that to be a natural born, inalienable right.

 

Guns are a tool to equalize the weak against the strong. When they are mishandled, like cars, electricity, knives, gasoline, lighters, firecrackers and etc then people get hurt. Punish accordingly. But just like automobiles are justified despite the corpses you mentioned above, guns are also justified despite the corpses.

[doG]

doG said :There are a lot of countries that have a higher suicide rate than the USA. However, that does not impinge on the point I am making, which is that widespread availability of guns, and especially hand-guns increases the rate of successful suicide.

 

But you keep ignoring the point that the widespread availability of rope, cars, belts. etc.. also increase the rate of successful suicides just like handguns. The widespread availability of anything that someone uses to commit suicide increases the rate of success if even one person succeeds. What you continue to fail to show is that the increase is greater for guns than other utensils. I have even shown you in fact the increase attributed to hanging at a rate greater than that of firearms as reported by the CDC.

 

As I said before, there are two factors influencing overall suicide rate - motivation and means.

a. If motivation is high, that means lots of people attempting suicide. Certain nations, such as Lithuania have a lot more attempts at suicide. Even with a lower success rate, the end result can be more suicides, simply because of the larger number of attempts.

 

First of all, all suicides are successful. They would not be classified as a suicide if the attempt did not succeed. Do you have any cold hard numbers on the rates of attempts versus the rates of suicides? Exactly how many attempts are made in Lithuania versus Canada versus the U.S.? How can you say Lithunai has more attempts and a higher or lower success rate? Can you support that statement at all? Without that data all that you can perform statistics on is actual suicides.

 

b. Access to a method of topping yourself is also important, and that is where guns come in. There may be fewer attempts, but if the 'success' rate is high, that means more deaths.

 

OK. Access is important but if its access you want to debate then what is the rate of success for people with access to firearms versus people with access to rope? Does access to either give a higher rate of success than the other among those determined to succeed? What are the number of "attempts" with one method versus the other? Can you support that claim specifically with data? Are you simply leaping to conclusions about attempts versus successes?

 

Bearing in mind that most suicide attempts are not genuinely serious, a reduction in success rate (by controlling firearms) will mean fewer attempts are successful. Many unsuccessful suicide attempts are never repeated, since they are really just cries for help. Thus we should try to reduce success rate, and thus reduce suicides.

 

Yet another claim you cannot support. The U.S. has controls on firearms. Background checks and waiting periods have been required for years now. Canada has even tighter controls and yet it still has a higher rate than the U.S.. Again, WHY IS THAT? Why is your claim failing in Canada? Lithuania, Belarus, Japan, South Korea all have even tighter gun controls but still have higher suicide rates with much smaller populations than the U.S. Why isn't gun control in those nations lowering their suicide rates?

 

And then back to the other point about liberty and my right and everyone else's right to protect myself and my family from harm and from tyranny. Why should I suffer ANY CONSEQUENCE at all over the actions of those that want to kill themselves. Especially when you cannot show that my loss results in any gain at all in decreasing suicides as you claim.

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

I think I will decline your debate. I weakened and expressed my opinion earlier, but when the argument is one person's opinion against another, we get nowhere. Thus, I decline.

 

To doG

 

How can I get you to see that your arguments are red herrings? Sure, people without guns can hang themselves. And no. We cannot ban ropes. They are too important to everyday living, which guns are not. The authorities I quoted have said that restricting access to guns would reduce suicide deaths. What they say makes perfect sense.

 

Since 70% of all suicides in the USA use guns ( around 17,000 deaths each year), we can say with close to 100% certainty that the death rate would drop if non hunting firearms were banned to non soldiers/non police. Also, since most homicides in the USA use guns, we can say that the death rate from homicide would drop also. Not immediately by too much since enough guns already exist, but eventually.

 

The short answer is that, if those guns were seriously restricted, a lot of people (many thousands) each year would live who now die.

 

And if they do not have a gun, they will NOT all switch to hanging. That is why the statistics show a 2 to 5 fold increase in suicide risk in homes that have guns.

[Mr Skeptic]

Two hundred and thirty three years ago, Patrick Henry said,

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 

Now, that may have only been Patrick Henry's opinion, but it is that opinion that gave us our independence. It is funny that you now say, (paraphrased)

We must take away this liberty, lest people put themselves to death.

 

For what it's worth, it is also a fact that a well-armed citizenry is a huge deterrent to a malicious government.

[doG]

How can I get you to see that your arguments are red herrings?

 

When you realize that they aren't red herrings at all. When you realize that arguments are based on looking at all of the data, not some small, hand picked subset of data picked only to support your opinion.

 

The authorities I quoted have said that restricting access to guns would reduce suicide deaths. What they say makes perfect sense.

 

If it made sense then it would be true for any population, not just the ones you want to consider. It would be true in all populations that have tighter gun controls. The fact is that it isn't. The U.S. has the largest per capita rate of gun ownership in the world and it is not in the top 20 nations ranked by suicides or homicides. Further, the nations that have the highest suicide rates also have more strict gun controls than the U.S. Over the years the U.S. has also increased restrictions by requiring background checks and waiting periods and the CDC data shows a higher increase in hangings than firearms.

 

Since 70% of all suicides in the USA use guns ( around 17,000 deaths each year), we can say with close to 100% certainty that the death rate would drop if non hunting firearms were banned to non soldiers/non police.

 

Yet another unsupported conclusion that can't be drawn at all. That claim would only be true if it could be shown that people choose to commit suicide because guns are available. The reality is that the availability of a method is not why people choose to commit suicide. They do not choose to kill themselves because guns are available. They choose to kill themselves and then some of them use a gun because a gun is available. When guns are not available they use another method, such as hanging, and higher suicide rates in populations of people living under tighter gun restrictions shows that you cannot conclude that tighter gun controls will reduce suicide rates. If that were true the leading suicide nations of the world would not be those with tight gun restrictions.

 

Also, since most homicides in the USA use guns, we can say that the death rate from homicide would drop also. Not immediately by too much since enough guns already exist, but eventually.

 

Again, where's your data. Time and time again you make these unsupported assertions.

 

According to the Small Arms Survey by the Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies, Cambridge, South Africa is 17th in the world in per capita gun ownership yet it has the second highest murders per capita in the world according to the Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, covering the period 1998 - 2000 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention). Non-firearm homicides outnumber firearms homicides 2:1 in South Africa according to the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation.

 

The correlation you allege is not supported.

 

The short answer is that, if those guns were seriously restricted, a lot of people (many thousands) each year would live who now die.

 

If that's true then the nations with the tightest restrictions would reflect that. The problem is that they don't. There are plenty of nations with tighter gun restrictions than the U.S. that have both higher suicide and homicide rates. The data does not support your claim.

 

And if they do not have a gun, they will NOT all switch to hanging.

 

There's no data to support what they will or will not do. There is data that shows that populations with large rates of per capita suicides under higher gun restrictions manage to kill themselves by other methods. That's because they do not choose to commit suicide just because one method or another is available. They choose to kill themselves because of mental problems and then use a gun, a rope, a tall building, a car or whatever is available. Taking away any of these methods does nothing to alter their mental state. If it did then the national prison per capita suicide rate of 47, where the victims have no access to guns of any kind, would not be higher than the national per capita rate of 11. Determined people find a way regardless of your proposed restrictions on the rights of others.

[foodchain]

When you realize that they aren't red herrings at all. When you realize that arguments are based on looking at all of the data, not some small, hand picked subset of data picked only to support your opinion.

 

 

Yes but pros and cons may be indicative of little more the progression amongst various cultures containing guns. For instance why has not the malicious government of the U.K taken over is weaponless citizenry? Yet in another instance you can find that Japan committing a crime with a gun is a very rare thing. I just want to add that as your correlations seem to be applied in a deterministic stance for humans in general.

 

Going along with the thread I don’t see how gun restriction could work in such gun saturated environments really. Unless you have money to build lots of prisons for example, and police the world and shipping ports/containers and everything else. I still do not see how having so many deaths in America because of such compared to other nations with guns could be labeled an ok thing even under an interpretation of liberty, basically could you apply that argument to global warming? Because we will never infringe on some selected personal liberty but on others it would be ok to even pollute the world to death? How or what makes guns into something that can never be acted upon save in the fashion it supports, what humanity it makes it above change?

[SkepticLance]

Mr Skeptic said :

 

"Now, that may have only been Patrick Henry's opinion, but it is that opinion that gave us our independence. It is funny that you now say, (paraphrased)

We must take away this liberty, lest people put themselves to death."

 

I stated earlier that we already have liberty taken away from us as individuals for the greater good. Liberty must always be a balance. Where greater individual liberty lead to detrement to the greater number, it is regulated. For this reason, all nations regulate against a wide variety of crimes. They remove the liberty to carry out those actions classified as crimes.

 

The proper way to run a country is to operate a careful balance maximising individual liberty while restricting that which harms others. This is precisely what I am talking about with firearms. Widespread access to firearms harms many people, both through increased suicide and through increased homicide. Limiting that access is a small reduction in liberty to maximise the benefits to the greater number. This is part of the proper balance.

 

The argument that access to guns is needed for personal liberty is one that must be balanced against the need to reduce harm to the greater number of people.

 

Obviously, where you draw the line - where you put the balance point - is highly debatable, which is why I said it is pure personal opinion, and no argument on personal opinion can ever be won by one side or the other, since there is no objective data to force a conclusion.

 

To doG

 

You still continue to push illogic. Let me explain again.

 

If we were to put the factors influencing suicide success rates into an equation, it would be something like this.

 

Sd = Sa.Fs

 

Where Sd is numbers of deaths by suicide

Sa is number of attempts at suicide

Fs is the fraction of attempts that are successful and result in a fatality.

 

So if there are 10,000 suicide attempts, and 60% result in fatalities, then the number of deaths is 10,000 times 0.6 or 6,000 deaths.

 

The number of deaths depends on two factors. Countries like Lithuania and Japan have lots of suicides because the first factor is very high. However, countries like the USA have so many suicides mostly because the second factor is very high.

 

In theory, to reduce suicides, you have to reduce both factors, but sometimes it is easier to concentrate on the dominant factor to get the best result. In Japan, to reduce suicide deaths would require a reduction in attempts - a culture change. In the USA, the best way to reduce suicides is to concentrate on the second factor - the success rate, which would be easily reduced by cutting down on access to firearms.

 

Of the two, it is much easier to reduce access to firearms than to change a culture.

 

Now, if you remember the references I have posted, you will remember that (where guns are not used) there are normally 5 to 25 attempts for every success. Since a large number of those who attempt suicide only try it the once, then reducing the success rate is going to save a hell of a lot of lives.

[doG]

You still continue to push illogic. Let me explain again.

 

Now, if you remember the references I have posted, you will remember that (where guns are not used) there are normally 5 to 25 attempts for every success. Since a large number of those who attempt suicide only try it the once, then reducing the success rate is going to save a hell of a lot of lives.

 

You're still being illogical. You picked references that only consider a few data points from the larger set of data and you refuse to see the errors of your attempt at statistical analysis. In reality, you would have to reduce all successful methods in order to reduce the overall success rate. Reducing one method and leaving all the other successful methods intact still yields a high success rate. It's shown by the data in all populations currently living under the restrictions you claim would change the picture.

 

The short answer is that you only care about your biased point of view and only want to disregard any and all data that doesn't support your claims. You could care less about the rights of others, all that counts is your opinion and your flawed analysis at their expense. I don't see much point in discussing it further when you just want to cast aside all of the data that doesn't support your claims. Ciao!

[SkepticLance]

I think that doG's departure from this thread is a sign that some logic is finally getting through to him. The concept that making death dealing weapons widely available leads to more deaths is so simple that it takes a major amount of emotion laden illogic to permit denial. When statistics from universities and other reputable sources backs this up, then that illogic becomes more and more based on the emotional.

 

You can follow the argument that Mr Skeptic and ParanoiA presented, in which liberty is given more value than a bunch of extra deaths. As I said, that is an argument based on opinion, and not one that either side can win, because it depends entirely on your individual set of values.

 

However, to deny the basic facts is just illogic.

[doG]

I think that doG's departure from this thread is a sign that some logic is finally getting through to him.

 

No. You're wrong and you can hold any assumptions you want to make on my behalf. The U.S. has more guns per capita than in other nation in the world and yet, 42 countries have higher suicide rates, many of them with much tighter gun restrictions. Your logic is totally flawed and you refuse to consider any analysis of the data but your own biased one. We've been round and round this point over and over and you're convinced that you're right regardless of the data or your offensive attack on the rights of those you wish to oppress. I might as well argue with a wall.