Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[SkepticLance]

I start by declaring my political stance on guns. I am in favour of much stricter gun control. I am a non American, but have visited the USA several times. I find myself tensing when in public due to my knowledge that guns, and especially hand-guns are in wide use among members of the public.

 

In today's local newspaper is a small article quoting American sources, and relating to hand-guns. Here are some facts they report.

 

1. According to Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, of all deaths from fire-arms in 2005, suicides accounted for 55%. Homicides 40%. Accidents 3%. 'Legal' killings 2% (such as police shooting someone.) Hand-guns are over-represented in suicide statistics.

 

2. Homes in which a suicide happened are 3 to 5 times more likely to have a gun than homes where no suicide happened.

 

3. According to the American Public Health Assn. the fatality rate for suicide attempts are 90% for firearm, 34% from jumping off a high place, and 2% for drug overdose.

 

Conclusion - permitting guns in the home, and especially hand-guns will dramatically increase the loss of life due to suicide.

[blike]

Conclusion - permitting guns in the home, and especially hand-guns will dramatically increase the loss of life due to suicide.

Therefore I, as a responsible citizen, should not be allowed to possess one? I don't see where you're going here.

 

Statistic #2 follows from statistic #3. If suicide is more successful with handguns, then of course homes in which suicides happen are more likely to have handguns at the scene.

 

It is interesting that the success rate is only 34% for jumping off a high place. I don't see how you could mess that up, unless you weren't really serious and jumped from a water bridge or the 2nd story window.

 

Given that handguns have such a high success rate, people chose who use handguns to commit suicide are much more likely to be successful in any method they chose, because they're obviously serious about suicide. Pills are kind of the soft way out -- I think a lot of people who aren't quite sure they want to kill themselves but definitely want to cause a stir use pills. If handguns were removed as an option, we might see the success rate of other methods increase. (There's gotta be some data on this out there somewhere, I just don't have the time to chase it down).

Edited July 1, 2008 by blike

[SkepticLance]

To blike

I made my view fairly plain at the beginning of the post. I am in favour of much stricter gun control laws. While it may be true that you are a very responsible adult, it is also true that lots of people out there are not.

 

I had a friend who used to get quite drunk, then drive home. That sounds bad, until you realise that he drove at snail's pace with incredible concentration. He knew he was a potential disaster when drunk and changed his driving habits accordingly. Now, because he can drive slowly, cautiously and safely when drunk, does that mean we should change the laws to permit anyone to drive drunk?

 

If banning hand-guns from personal possession will save thousands of lives each year, should we not do that? The suicide statistics suggest that a big saving in this tragic loss of life would follow.

[ecoli]

There's no indication that banning handguns will save people from suicide.

 

I can use the opposite argument. Banning handguns will cost thousands of lives for when the government descends into dystopia and starts enslaving the entire population of the US... we'll have no guns in which to protect ourselves.

 

Now, there's no indication that the Governments about to turn oppressive either, but that was the original intent of the right to bear arms... so citizens can protect themselves against tyrannical governments.

 

Honestly, I'd rather have the option to buy a handgun and learn how to protect myself and my family, and let a couple more people die from handgun deaths each year.

 

Let's be real here... the criminals are going to get them anyway, they get them illegally anyway, and people will always be attempting suicide (and I think it's their right to do so, at least its not the government's job to prevent them).

 

We have more to lose and not much more to gain in banning handguns.

[Pangloss]

People don't decide to kill themselves because handguns are readily available, they decide to kill themselves because their life sucks or whatever. If no handgun is around they'll just find some other way.

 

I'm not opposed to stricter controls than we currently have, though, but I'm mainly interested in assault weapon bans and restrictions. Arguing about handguns feels like arguing about whether computers or televisions are dangerous. The horse hasn't seen that barn in ages.

[bascule]

According to the American Public Health Assn. the fatality rate for suicide attempts are 90% for firearm, 34% from jumping off a high place, and 2% for drug overdose.

 

What about knives? Hanging yourself? Driving a car off a cliff? Or just routing the exhaust into the passenger cabin?

 

If someone wants to kill themself, taking away handguns isn't going to stop them.

[iNow]

There's a show on an US tv station called FX. The show is called "30 Days," and it's done by the same guy who did "Fast Food Nation," Morgon Spurlock, where he ate nothing but McDonald's for 30 days.

 

This evening's episode was about guns. An attractive women who had some friends die and was fiercely against guns went to live with a family where guns played a major role. It was interesting to see some aspects from both sides of the equation, and you can check out a preview here:

 

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1312399069/bclid1543290411/bctid1552694895

 

 

Back to the topic at hand, I think it's an interesting proposition, Lance. The numbers suggest that guns are more for suicide than anything else. However, it's sort of a non-sequitur to suggest that guns are for nothing else. Further, as you can see by the responses above mine, there are other ways, and removing guns will not remove the intentional taking of one's own life.

 

We all need to find a better way to fix the problems we are experiencing with guns, as it truly is a social health issue. The solution has to be one that appeals to both sides, and that is not one that will be easy to find, nor likely very effective.

[YT2095]

it may also increase Suicide by Cop instances too, and that`s not fair.

[PhDP]

I can use the opposite argument. Banning handguns will cost thousands of lives for when the government descends into dystopia and starts enslaving the entire population of the US... we'll have no guns in which to protect ourselves.

 

Now' date=' there's no indication that the Governments about to turn oppressive either, but that was the original intent of the right to bear arms... so citizens can protect themselves against tyrannical governments.[/quote']

 

Actually, it's, IMO, one of the strongest legal argument against gun ownerships. The 'original intent' is obviously irrelevant to the modern world. The U.S army is not some royal guard devoted to their king.

 

I really like the fact that I live in a society where I don't need guns to protect my family, and because criminals know nobody have guns in their home, they also don't feel the need to have guns (and, no, we don't robbed all the time, actually I'm pretty sure robbery is much lower here).

[ajb]

I think the original point was that guns are very effective killing machines and this makes attempts at suicide more likely to result in death. No one is suggesting that guns make people suicidal, but they make it easier to commit suicide.

 

I also believe that if you are are responsible, law abiding adult then you would by your own choice not want to own a gun legal or otherwise.

 

Guns are for killing people full stop. They should not be in the possession of the general public. If you want to shoot targets etc then a BB-gun or an air-rifle would suffice. I see no logic in a person and especially a family to have guns in their possession.

 

Is it not now established that if you pull out a gun, knife or some other weapon in a confrontation that you are more likely to get hurt or seriously injured?

[SkepticLance]

The argument that the legal right to guns is needed to prevent an oppressive government is made clearly absurd by the fact that most of the governments that support human rights do not permit wholesale gun ownership. eg. My own country - New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, most of Europe etc. Of course, I understand that most Americans do not accept the existence of free nations outside their borders......

 

The most oppressive governments are in nations where gun ownership is widespread. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, Middle East, Iraq etc.

[YT2095]

 

Guns are for killing people full stop.

 

then I pray you`r not a gun owner!

[CDarwin]

What about knives? Hanging yourself? Driving a car off a cliff? Or just routing the exhaust into the passenger cabin?

 

If someone wants to kill themself, taking away handguns isn't going to stop them.

 

There's a psychology to it, though. All of those things are much more deliberate and seemingly unpleasant than just putting a bullet in your head. I could certainly see why people would be more likely to actually commit suicide if they had a firearm handy, though whether that justifies general restrictions is another matter.

[blike]

SkepticLance,

 

While it may be true that you are a very responsible adult' date=' it is also true that lots of people out there are not.

 

If banning hand-guns from personal possession will save thousands of lives each year, should we not do that? The suicide statistics suggest that a big saving in this tragic loss of life would follow.[/quote']Why don't we just ban fast food. Or maybe the government can come by and take the foods out of your cabinet which aren't good for you. Obesity-related comorbidities kill tens of thousands of people a year and costs the healthcare system billions and billions of dollars (no matter what healthcare system you live under). The statistics suggest that if the government were to tightly control what you eat, a big saving in this tragic loss of life would result. Not only that, the government would save billions and billions of dollars.

 

I really like the fact that I live in a society where I don't need guns to protect my family, and because criminals know nobody have guns in their home, they also don't feel the need to have guns (and, no, we don't robbed all the time, actually I'm pretty sure robbery is much lower here).

To each his own, I guess. The rate of property crime in Canada and the US is about equal, but the rate of violent crime is much higher in the US.

 

I also believe that if you are are responsible' date=' law abiding adult then you would by your own choice not want to own a gun legal or otherwise.

 

Guns are for killing people full stop...I see no logic in a person and especially a family to have guns in their possession.[/quote']Are you suggesting that there is no situation in which a law-abiding logical adult would need to kill someone full stop?

 

Of course, I understand that most Americans do not accept the existence of free nations outside their borders......

Stop generalizing. It makes you come off as a pompous asshat.

[john5746]

The argument that the legal right to guns is needed to prevent an oppressive government is made clearly absurd by the fact that most of the governments that support human rights do not permit wholesale gun ownership. eg. My own country - New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, most of Europe etc.....

The most oppressive governments are in nations where gun ownership is widespread. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, Middle East, Iraq etc.

 

I agree with you that first world countries should make the oppressive government argument obsolete, but I don't think you are being intellectually honest with your examples. The Middle East is a nation? I can't find much info, but I doubt Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia have lots of citizens with guns. Most oppressive governments try to take rights - especially arms, away from the public. Countries that have conflicts, like Afghanistan and Iraq do not even have functional governments yet. Look at South American countries.

 

 

Top guns per 100 civilians from 2007 Small Arms Survey

 

US: 90

Yemen: 61

Finland: 56

Switzerland: 46

Iraq: 39

Serbia: 38

France: 32

Canada: 31

Austria: 31

Germany: 30

 

Of course, I understand that most Americans do not accept the existence of free nations outside their borders......

 

Compensating much?

 

Anyway, guns make killing easier, that is the main purpose. Of course you will have more deaths with guns around than without, but you can say that about many freedoms that people enjoy. It is a cost/reward equation with a big part of that equation influenced by individual attitudes and the culture of the society. People in a rural setting have much different needs than those in urban settings for example. Having said that, I do not think guns should be a right, but a privilege - especially in an urban setting.

[iNow]

On the plus side, if guns were banned, perhaps there would be a resurgence in archery clubs.

 

 

Too many people are focussed on treating the symptoms and not the source. Guns are not what cause people to die, they are just a tool which is sometimes involved in that process. Find the source of the issue, and let's focus our efforts on treating THAT.

[ajb]

Are you suggesting that there is no situation in which a law-abiding logical adult would need to kill someone full stop?

 

Yes. In the UK we would call that a disproportionate response. You don't need to kill some one to defend yourself.

 

And to YT, I am not a gun owner and that is why.

[Royston]

Too many people are focussed on treating the symptoms and not the source. Guns are not what cause people to die, they are just a tool which is sometimes involved in that process. Find the source of the issue, and let's focus our efforts on treating THAT.

 

I agree, it's a cultural issue nothing more. A rise in gun crime in the UK, is due to a cultural shift, not a sudden availability in guns. People forget that guns are legal in other parts of the world e.g Switzerland, and don't have nearly the same problems as other countries.

 

As for the OP, I think CDarwin pretty much nailed it.

[blike]

Yes. In the UK we would call that a disproportionate response. You don't need to kill some one to defend yourself.

You and I both can imagine scenarios in which this is clearly not the case.

 

If I'm attacked, should I have to risk my life to defend myself?

[Mr Skeptic]

Guns are for killing people full stop.

You don't need to kill some one to defend yourself.

 

Threatening to kill someone is surprisingly effective. Most guns are not used for killing people. Most gun owners have never killed anyone. Guns are usually used for threatening people, whether as part of a robbery, law enforcement, or self-defense.

[Pangloss]

The argument that the legal right to guns is needed to prevent an oppressive government is made clearly absurd by the fact that most of the governments that support human rights do not permit wholesale gun ownership. eg. My own country - New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, most of Europe etc. Of course, I understand that most Americans do not accept the existence of free nations outside their borders......

 

The most oppressive governments are in nations where gun ownership is widespread. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, Middle East, Iraq etc.

 

Oh geez, Lance, that's almost as poor an argument as the notion that people commit suicide just because there are guns lying around. Those regimes aren't repressive BECAUSE they have widespread gun ownership, they're repressive AND they have widespread gun ownership! You know better than such an obvious fallacy. Yeesh.

 

And it's not a question of "accepting the existence of other free nations" (though I guess you meant that mostly as a joke). The point is moot because it's written into our Constitution. We keep it in a big stone container with little statues of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington on top, and we carry it around to all of our conflicts and it zaps our enemies with lightning from heaven.

[cellbioS]

To blike

I made my view fairly plain at the beginning of the post. I am in favour of much stricter gun control laws. While it may be true that you are a very responsible adult, it is also true that lots of people out there are not.

 

 

If banning hand-guns from personal possession will save thousands of lives each year, should we not do that? The suicide statistics suggest that a big saving in this tragic loss of life would follow.

 

 

Do you know what the gun control laws are and know that they vary from state to state as well as city to city? Eg. in Illinois, you can not legally carry a loaded weapon but in Arizona you can legally carry a concealed weapon. Some cities in Illinois do not allow firearms in the home while others do. It's interesting that the city of Chicago (unless it's changed recently) does not allow for firearm ownership but there have been many shootings this year. How would gun control prevent these shootings if those who have the guns aren't supposed to legally have them and obtain them without a Firearm Owners ID? They are already operating outside the law so, chances are, more laws will not impact them.

 

As far as suicide, yes, my life gets yucky some days but I don't want to kill myself. We have 4 handguns in our house. So, according to your assumption of the stats, I should have been dead already by gun-assisted suicide. Banning handguns will not eliminate suicide what it will more likely do is cause more people to have unsuccessful suicide attempts, from the stats you give, until they find another more successful way.

[ecoli]

The argument that the legal right to guns is needed to prevent an oppressive government is made clearly absurd by the fact that most of the governments that support human rights do not permit wholesale gun ownership. eg. My own country - New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, most of Europe etc. Of course, I understand that most Americans do not accept the existence of free nations outside their borders......

 

The most oppressive governments are in nations where gun ownership is widespread. Afghanistan, Pakistan, most of Africa, Middle East, Iraq etc.

 

It's interesting that one of the first actions when the Taliban took power in Afghanistan was to make firearms illegal for everyone except the Taliban. So guns are widespread, but only to those who are 'in' with the oppressive government.

 

This pretty much rendered the populace as helpless to defend themselves against ruthless, brutal dictators.

 

The reason why nations like New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Canada, exist in the first place is because of firearms. The British empire (and others) had superior weapons that took over a helpless populace. It's a common theme in history.

 

Now, obviously these countries are not presently in danger of being taken over by some dystopian government, but a lot of that is because the governments are decentralized enough so that a minority can't get absolute power. I wonder how quickly that can change, however. How hard to you think it is for a government to take power from a scared, fearful, poor populace. Hitler didn't even have to try very hard to do it... it can happen again.

 

America is different from a lot of British colonies, in the fact that we actually fought our colonial overlords, rather then just getting abandoned when it got too expensive. This makes gun ownership an integral and important part of our history and culture.

 

I, for one, am thankful that we don't yet have the type of nanny state that European states and Canada currently have to deal with. Ultimately, I don't trust a government to protect myself and family... especially because its so easy for a government to obtain absolute power when the populace has no means to arm itself and mount a resistance.

[John Cuthber]

Interesting point about that data. "Honestly, I'd rather have the option to buy a handgun and learn how to protect myself and my family, and let a couple more people die from handgun deaths each year. "

Fair enough, but for each person who kills an intruder in the legal defense of their home (ie one of the legal killings) there are roughly 1.5 people killed by accidents. (of course the cops killing people make up a lot of the legal killings so the figure is more than 1.5:1)

You are, it seems, more likely to have one of your family accidentally killed by that gun than to defend one of your family with it. Perhaps you would be better off without it.

[ecoli]

Cuthber - Which is one of the reasons I don't actually currently own a gun, and I realize that accidents are an important problem.

I do believe that guns should be harder to get control of. I'm glad they stopped selling them at Walmart, and realize that people with criminal and criminal psychological do not have the right to own guns. People who own guns should be required by law to attend safety training courses, and have to pass a safety inspection to renew a gun license. I have a similar idea for car ownership.

 

The important point, is that we can improve safety without having to ban guns entirely. I also realize there are regional differences. Urban areas should be allowed to have different restrictions than rural areas.

 

Gun ownership isn't really a fundamental right, IMO, but it is a privilege that everyone has a right to applicable for.