Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[SkepticLance]

To Deja Vu

 

Re the 47% average death rate for jumping off high places. That is an average for all attempts to suicide by jumping off high places. It is not an average height - it is an average death rate. For every 100 attempts to suicide by jumping, 47 will result in the person dying.

 

It seems to me that those who jump from higher points will die, and those who jump from lower points will live. They may be maimed, but they live. It may even be that maiming is the desired result in many cases, since that would result in gaining attention, which many would-be suicides are seeking, more than seeking death.

 

Your comment about survival of an attempted gun suicide by missing is probably correct. Of course, a miss with a hand gun may still cause enormous facial damage, or even brain damage. The death rate is 90%, though, so those misses are infrequent.

 

As far as saving suicides is concerned, I would have little concern if the intent was total. That is, if a would-be suicide was utterly determined to kill him/herself. In that case, removing guns from them would only mean they suicided by another means. And I would not want to take away their freedom to kill themselves. However, that is not the case.

 

Research into suicide, as I have pointed out earlier, shows that the majority of attempts are a result of people crying for help, rather than seriously trying to top themselves. If a person really does not want to die, but needs help, then providing them with a hand gun is not exactly doing them a favour! In terms of helping people to achieve what they really want, preventing would-be suicides from getting a 90% lethal means is absolutely the best thing to do.

[Taktiq]

I'm curious what you, Lance, are getting out of this discussion. It seems you came here, asked for opinions regarding a subject, received them and then dismissed them because they don't mesh with your so-called statistics.

 

My gut is telling me you're doing nothing more than what I like to do in real life......start a discussion that's emotionally charged just to see what happens and where it will go. My gut also tells me you don't really care about what you're arguing about either and are again just arguing to see what will happen. Much like what I like to do.

 

In my profession, whether it's the juvenile field or law enforcement and security, you learn to go with your gut and mine, with all due respect, is telling me you're full of s***.

[SkepticLance]

Taktiq

 

Your final comment is an ad hom attack and is offensive in the extreme. I am asking you, please, to refrain from such.

 

What am I getting from this? It is a subject I have always found of interest. I am definitely in favour of strict gun control. My country has much stricter gun control than yours, and I still think it is not tight enough. I am strongly in favour of human freedom and freedom of choice, as long as it carries no strong detriment. I have a number of liberalist friends, and a strong sympathy for their views, but I have a stronger belief in proper balance.

 

Everything in life is balance. Liberalist ideals must be balanced against the rights of society to be protected against irresponsible action. The ownership of hand guns with the intent of using them against people is a pretty good example of irresponsible action. If you use a hand gun to shoot at targets as a sport, then no problem. However, the hand guns should never leave the secure environs of the gun club.

 

I find the widespread ownership of hand guns by general citizenry to be foolish in the extreme. Even if most such owners are responsible and caring, a smaller irresponsible minority is sufficient to make restrictions sensible.

 

I am arguing this viewpoint from a strong personal conviction. Guns are dangerous. Guns that are designed as sporting rifles are dangerous enough. Those, like hand guns, that are specifically designed to kill humans are more so.

 

The suicide issue is only one aspect of this, but the statistics make it fairly clear cut, in spite of the strongly emotional arguments being levied against me. There is no good reason why average citizens should own hand guns, and that point is one I want to make, and feel strongly about.

[Taktiq]

I don't buy it and I'm standing by my last statement and going with my gut.

[Pangloss]

Well you need to tell your gut to be more civil on this forum. Capiche?

[Phi for All]

In my profession, whether it's the juvenile field or law enforcement and security, you learn to go with your gut and mine, with all due respect, is telling me you're full of s***.

Unacceptable fallacious logic. Flaming infraction issued. Let's keep it civil here, Taktiq. Resorting to personal attacks usually means you're losing the argument. You're way better than this.

[ParanoiA]

The suicide issue is only one aspect of this, but the statistics make it fairly clear cut, in spite of the strongly emotional arguments being levied against me. There is no good reason why average citizens should own hand guns, and that point is one I want to make, and feel strongly about.

 

And this is where you're wrong. You've picked ONE tool out of thousands that are capable of killing humans (the current most "popular" tool) and decided that IT is the reason the humans are being killed.

 

That's just silly Lance. That's not critical thinking by any stretch of the imagination. That's left over dreams and invalid correlations from childhood naivety.

 

To pick an inanimate object and restrict access to that object is to never cure the problem - people killing people. You keep investing so much interest in the tools and objects used for it, thereby short changing humanity since you've spent no energy stopping people from killing themselves and other people with ANY tool. Good thing they aren't using skill saws to kill people or I might not have been able to remodel my kitchen this weekend....

 

Your tack is to regulate tools that are popularly being used for killing. That's like regulating game fish by restricting access to fishing poles.

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

The problem with your argument is that the statistics support my thesis. My earlier reference showed that states in America with tighter gun control have lower suicide rates. Suicide attempts by non-gun methods have a much lower death rate. And a sizeable percentage of those who attempt suicide and survive never try again. In other words, because they did not use a firearm in their attempt, they lived.

 

Now, I would love there to be an effective system of preventing suicide attempts (and homicides). But, in spite of all kinds of systems, and all sorts of theories put to work, nothing works to any significant extent. If we could stop people getting depressed and attempting suicide, that would be a very desirable outcome. No method has been discovered that can achieve this to more than a minor extent.

 

However, restricting access to guns, and especially hand guns does lower death rate from suicide.

[Sayonara]

The problem with your argument is that the statistics support my thesis. My earlier reference showed that states in America with tighter gun control have lower suicide rates. Suicide attempts by non-gun methods have a much lower death rate. And a sizeable percentage of those who attempt suicide and survive never try again. In other words, because they did not use a firearm in their attempt, they lived.

And the problem with YOUR argument is that you assume that removing the guns removes the death toll, which is a bit of a leap.

 

You need to recognise the difference between drawing a sensible inference (which is what you are doing, and I have to say understandably so given the information we are presented with), and arriving at a solid factual conclusion.

[SkepticLance]

Tighter gun control reduces suicide rate.

 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w58181164l7412lt/

 

The conclusion from this article in the Atlantic Economic Journal is below :

 

"Paul M. Sommers1

 

(1) Middlebury College, USA

 

 

Conclusions This paper has analyzed a number of gun control laws in different states and found that as a group the laws were significantly correlated with the suicide rates in those states. In other words, strict gun control may have a preventive effect on suicidal behavior, a conclusion supportive of Boyd's view. "

[ParanoiA]

If we could stop people getting depressed and attempting suicide, that would be a very desirable outcome. No method has been discovered that can achieve this to more than a minor extent.

 

So then I'm left to infer that you must believe that banning guns will achieve more than a minor extent. And, thus, have to negotiate this notion, that it's better to ignore focusing solving problem on the source and instead redirect it to inanimate objects because of your short term aspirations.

 

I vehemently disagree with this approach of treating symptoms over disease and it's rather thoughtless and disrespectful to your fellow man. Let's "shoot" for long term solutions with exponential humanitarian payoff.

[Sayonara]

Tighter gun control reduces suicide rate.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w58181164l7412lt/

The conclusion from this article in the Atlantic Economic Journal is below :

"Paul M. Sommers1

(1) Middlebury College, USA

Conclusions This paper has analyzed a number of gun control laws in different states and found that as a group the laws were significantly correlated with the suicide rates in those states. In other words, strict gun control may have a preventive effect on suicidal behavior, a conclusion supportive of Boyd's view. "

The key words there being "correlation", and "may", as opposed to "causally represented" and "does".

The conclusion draws the same inference that you draw. Supporting that inference with studies which agree with it is not the same as turning it into a fact.

[Pangloss]

Well, at least until 50,000 other researchers conclude the same thing (using exactly the same statistical approaches and exactly the same data), then hold an international summit and declare the debate to be over, and then it magically becomes "causally represented" and "does".

[Sayonara]

Also they should brutally murder anyone with an alternative hypothesis, just to be sure.

[SkepticLance]

ParanoiA said

 

"So then I'm left to infer that you must believe that banning guns will achieve more than a minor extent."

 

I don't believe I have ever said ban guns. When a gun is needed for a legitimate purpose such as hunting, and the real need exists - then fine. And yes!! Reducing access to firearms will cut suicide deaths very substantially.

 

You might be interested in what Harvard University says.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hphr/social-health-hazards/guns-and-suicide/index.html

 

"In the United States, suicides outnumber homicides almost two to one. Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms. "

 

That is pretty straightforward.

Access to firearms = death

No access = life.

 

Note the large number of failed attempts - 44 out of 45. Yet the success rate when using firearms is 90%. And you still think reducing access to firearms will not reduce suicides deaths, and to a substantial degree?????

 

Read on...

 

"The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

 

But few can survive a gun blast. "

[Mr Skeptic]

So then I'm left to infer that you must believe that banning guns will achieve more than a minor extent. And, thus, have to negotiate this notion, that it's better to ignore focusing solving problem on the source and instead redirect it to inanimate objects because of your short term aspirations.

 

I vehemently disagree with this approach of treating symptoms over disease and it's rather thoughtless and disrespectful to your fellow man. Let's "shoot" for long term solutions with exponential humanitarian payoff.

 

I agree with this. While SkepticLance has shown a correlation between guns and suicide, it seems to me that he is more concerned with restricting guns than with reducing suicides. It is the symptom that he appears interested in, rather than the cause (otherwise he would have opened a thread on preventing suicide, rather than on the role of guns in suicide).

 

To be fair, I had not provided references with regards to the role of depression in suicide, which I will do now. For example:

Clinical Determinants of Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Geriatric Depression

During the index episode, suicidal ideation was predicted by previous suicide attempts with serious intent (odds ratio [OR], 2.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-5.80), severity of depression (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.16), and poor social support (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.18-2.65). Suicide attempts during the year prior to entry were reported by patients with a severe index episode (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.11), impaired instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.93), and limited impairment in activities of daily living (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.10-2.14). At the initial evaluation, severity of depression, previous attempts, and seriousness of suicidal intent during previous attempts predicted the course of suicidal ideation (concordance correlation, 0.78). During follow-up, contemporaneous severity of depression was the most important determinant of suicidal ideation over time (concordance correlation, 0.88).

 

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3841238

Based on the well-known relationship between depression and suicide, we investigated the regional distribution of the suicide rate, rate of diagnosed depression and prevalence of working physicians in Hungary. A strong significant positive correlation was found between the rate of working physicians and rate of diagnosed depression, and both parameters showed a strong significant negative correlation with the suicide rate. The more physicians per 100,000 inhabitants, the better is the recognition of depression and the lower is the suicide rate in the given region. The rate of working doctors was significantly higher in the counties located in western Hungary, which may have a role in the lower suicide mortality in this area of the country

 

Suicide Mortality among Patients Treated for Depression in an Insured Population

Studies of inpatient and specialty samples have estimated that 15% of depressed patients eventually die by suicide.

 

Now I didn't find any study which says so, but I suspect that about 99% or more of people who committed suicide suffered from depression. Anyhow, diagnosing depression, helping people make friends and feel part of the community, and improving quality of life all seem like a far better and more effective solution than restricting access to guns.

[iNow]

While SkepticLance has shown a correlation between guns and suicide, it seems to me that he is more concerned with restricting guns than with reducing suicides. It is the symptom that he appears interested in, rather than the cause

 

Ding ding ding.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

Actually I agree with your last post. I have said all along that there are two factors determining the number of people who kill themselves.

1. The number of attempts

2. The fraction of attempts that are successful.

 

Of course the first factor is related to psychological state, and probably due to depression, and of course if you reduce the depression you will reduce the rate of suicide. These days there are drugs that provide some relief from depression, and so attention by doctors is a very good thing, and undoubtedly reduces suicide rate.

 

None of which alters my thesis in any way whatever. Because there are two factors. If you ignore the second factor, you are condemning a heap of people to death. This is shown by the statistics that demonstrate that states with stronger gun control have lower rates of successful suicide.

 

To concentrate only on one of the two factors is stupidity itself. Attending to depression is an excellent action. However, there are always a heap of people who 'fall through the cracks' and do not get treated. Restricting access to firearms gives them a better chance of surviving, as my references show most clearly.

 

So accept that good medical attention is one excellent tactic in reducing suicide. Also accept that strict gun control is an excellent second tactic to supplement the first. Both need to be implemented.

[ParanoiA]

And so apparently it's knives on the hit list, in Britian. Oh, the level of ignorance being weilded here is stunning.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1468998.ece

 

Here's where your redirection technique leads you Lance. Guns, then knives, then slingshots, then sticks, then rocks....gee, how long before you finally start focusing on the disease?

 

I hear a lot of conspiracy theories about suppressed cures for cancer and other diseases, because there's more profit in treating symptoms - letting the patients die after years and years of expensive treatment. If I didn't know any better, I might think the same of British law makers; avoid treating the disease so they can ensure years and years of elected employment treating the symptoms, passing law after law until every sharp edge and blunt instrument doesn't exist on the continent.

 

From the article:

“He should lose his job. One teenager a week is being murdered on the streets of Britain and here he is brandishing a knife.

 

“Enough is enough – we need to get tough on knives in this country and our judges should be handing out tough sentences, not brandishing their own.”

 

I about fell out of my seat. That is priceless. I will likely die of laughter when slingshots really do become their new "killer of teens".

 

Yeah, keep concentrating on those inanimate objects. You'll get there....

 

Actually I agree with your last post. I have said all along that there are two factors determining the number of people who kill themselves.

1. The number of attempts

2. The fraction of attempts that are successful.

 

No. No. No. There's a whole freaking shit pot full of factors determining the number of people who kill themselves. You just don't care about saving them until the last step - the attempt.

[Pangloss]

"Look out, he's got a board with a nail in it!"

 

(One of my favorite Simpsons quotes.)

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

You are so far off the beam in your post that you should be starting a new thread entirely.

 

Our discussion has been about suicide. Not teenagers wielding knives as weapons against other people, or judges showing their pocketknives. You ever heard of someone attempting suicide with a knife? It has gotta be really painful. And how many people successfully kill themselves with a knife? I bet the number is close to zero.

 

My thesis has been that the ready availability of firearms, and especially hand-guns, increases the fatality rate through suicide. That has nothing to do with knives. And I have proved my case.

[iNow]

You are so far off the beam in your post that you should be starting a new thread entirely.

This does not even begin to rebut ParanoiA's extremely valid post. Do you want to try again, or is this your final answer?

 

 

Our discussion has been about suicide.

I know this is a thread you started, but it looks to me like this thread has been about banning guns to reduce suicides. If you wish to take the gun part out of the dialog, I think you'll ultimately find many fewer people challenging your unfounded assertions.

 

 

You ever heard of someone attempting suicide with a knife? It has gotta be really painful. And how many people successfully kill themselves with a knife? I bet the number is close to zero.

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, but you're quite clearly missing the bigger point. If guns go away, people will kill themselves with something else. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you already, you are not treating the root of the problem, nor are you even treating one of the symptoms.

 

 

And I have proved my case.

I'm not seeing it. Where again did you do this? Was it when you blanketly dismissed the arguments of others that showed how silly your own is?

[Sayonara]

And so apparently it's knives on the hit list, in Britian. Oh, the level of ignorance being weilded here is stunning.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/justice/article1468998.ece

 

FYI, The Sun is a newspaper which anyone with the native capacity for balanced thought would not even think to use as toilet paper.

 

Just so you know.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I am really not interested in chasing red herrings. Look again at the title of this thread. It says nothing about British teenagers attacking people with knives.

 

As far as guns and suicide are concerned, let me re-quote from my Harvard University reference.

 

"Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway, the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

 

But few can survive a gun blast. "

 

That really says it all.

[iNow]

Okay, then. So intentionally obtuse it is.