Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

If you have a point, please make it. Your last comment is quite unhelpful.

[Sayonara]

This thread is getting dull and lockable.

 

Please be much more entertaining and, well... better.

[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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

My point was about "redirection", not suicide - and it ties in with the relevance of suicide because I think you are misdirecting your energy by redirecting it to lifeless objects.

 

That story is a perfect example of people so lost and fully invested in their redirection that the source of the problem isn't even in their field of view - at least in terms of that story. Who cares about triggers that causes one to want to take their own life? Who cares about stopping that insanity? Instead, you want to ignore that entire self destructive process and merely focus your energy on denying them the "last step".

 

That's just silly, and inhumane. I find shame in your position. That's not be insulting, that's to be accurate. A position like yours ignores the cure and spends all of its resources on chasing symptoms.

 

And what's really bad about all of this is...if this were about ANY other subject you would totally agree.

 

No modern intellectual would disagree with total focus on solving a problem at its roots over peripheral focus coupled with symptom appeasement. I find it so hard to explain because it's like asking a fish to explain the importance of water. I'm just not sure I know how to explain the obvious.

 

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.

 

My thesis is that suicidal thoughts increase the fatality rate of suicide - and attempts. That has nothing to do with knives, guns, bridges, tall buildings and etc and that proof is found in your own numbers, as well as everyone else's that you've ignored.

 

FYI' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Thank goodness on both counts. Newspaper makes rough TP.

Edited July 27, 2008 by ParanoiA

[SkepticLance]

To ParanoiA

 

I suggest you re-read posts 166 and 168. Your point has already been made by Mr. Skeptic and made extremely well. My response agreed with his, and suggested that we need to follow two lines of action to maximise benefit.

[iNow]

And where did you substantiate the efficacy of those "lines of action?"

[falcon9393]

i dont think baning handguns from homes will fix suicide rates

there are many avaliable household ideams that would get the job done

and handgun bans would be very hard to do as well

[SkepticLance]

Falcon

Nothing will 'fix' suicides.

However, there are actions that will cut down the death rate from suicide.

 

The statistics already presented show that the death rate from suicide attempts using guns are 90%. About the same number of suicide attempts (90%) are impulse driven, and if they do not result in deaths, are not repeated.

 

Suicides from other methods are far less successful. For example : drug overdose results in only 2% death rate. Overall 43 of 44 suicide attempts are unsuccessful. And in the USA, 57% of deaths from suicide are from firearms. Plus the fact that states with stricter gun control have lower per capita death rates from suicide.

 

The inevitable conclusion, for everyone except those who totally lack the ability to put 2 and 2 together, is that easy gun availability increases the number of suicide deaths. Not the number of suicide attempts - most of which do not result in fatalities. But ready access to guns increases the number of people who actually get killed.

[iNow]

But ready access to guns increases the number of people who actually get killed.

 

Right, so basically you are here arguing in an attempt increase the population density of severely depressed people who will make several failed attempts at taking their own lives.

[Sayonara]

I think it would help the posters with vested opinions in this thread if they got some practical experience of dealing with suicidal people. Even if it's just voluntary work on the phones at a hotline; it doesn't have to be talking someone down off a roof or trying to establish what pills someone has taken (which unfortunately is standard fare for me these days).

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

As has been shown earlier, many or most cases of severe depression leading to suicide attempts are not permanent. If the person fails to kill himself/herself, then in time the depression is likely to be relieved. For a person to successfully suicide, when the alternative is eventual relief from depression and a long satisfying life, well that is tragedy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression

 

Quote :

 

"[edit] Prognosis

Major depressive episodes often tend to resolve over time regardless of treatment. Outpatients on a waiting list show a 10–15% decrease in symptoms over a few months, with approximately 20% no longer meeting full criteria.[127] The median duration of an episode has been estimated to be at least 23 weeks, with the highest rate of recovery in the first three months.[128]

 

Studies recruiting from the general population, which includes but is not limited to individuals who have had treatment, indicate that around half of those who have a major depressive episode do not have any further episodes, but around half have at least one more and a minority experience chronic recurrence.[129] Studies recruiting from selective inpatient sources suggest low recovery and high chronicity, but studies of mostly outpatients show that nearly all recover, with a median episode duration of 11 months. Recurrence occurs in 40% to 70% within several years, however, and overall about one tenth have poor, one third have intermediate, and one half have favorable outcomes. Around 90% of those with severe/psychotic depression, most of whom also meet criteria for other mental disorders, experience recurrence.[130][131]

 

There is a higher than average suicide risk in major depression. Although articles and textbooks have typically stated a suicide rate of 15%, the figure was based on hospitalized patients and more severe criteria. A reexamination indicates an approximate figure of 3.4%, with differing rates of around 7% for men and 1% for women.[132][133]"

[iNow]

As has been shown earlier, many or most cases of severe depression leading to suicide attempts are not permanent.

And as conceded by you multiple times in this thread already, there are also many attempts at suicide using guns that are not successful. So what?

[insane_alien]

does it really matter if suicidal people feel better after a while, they aren't going to feel better in the time it takes to commit suicide by most methods(be it gun, hanging or other).

 

as has been said before, taking guns away isn't going to dramatically decrease the suicide rate. if a person really wants to kill themselves, then they will succeed. to remove all chance of someone commiting suicide you would need to ban EVERYTHING then add layers of padding. though i'm sure you could smother yourself on the padding if you tried.

[SkepticLance]

To i.a.

 

The logic is simple.

 

- 90% of all suicide attempts with guns leads to death

- 90% of all failed suicide attempts are not repeated

- 43 out of 44 suicide attempts are not successful

- 57% of all successful suicides in the US use guns

 

Since most suicide attempts fail, and most with guns succeed, then most suicide attempts do not involve guns. But those that do, drastically raise the death rate out of all proportion.

 

Therefore, if guns are not available, the death rate will fall.

[Pangloss]

For whatever it's worth, I think we've returned to "dull and lockable", as Sayo put it.

 

I don't know why there's all this fuss. I guess some people have a problem with evidence that doesn't agree with their philosophy. From where I sit Lance has made a perfectly valid statistical point. But it's also a point that doesn't in the slightest direct society to a specific, obvious coarse of action. The decision whether to do something about that is political, not scientific, because it involves infringing on one right for the sake of another one.

 

You have an opinion on it, and I think you've made that opinion clear. What else is there to say?

[iNow]

I don't know why there's all this fuss. I guess some people have a problem with evidence that doesn't agree with their philosophy. From where I sit Lance has made a perfectly valid statistical point.

SkepticLance has demonstrated a correlation, but that statistical insight doesn't follow toward achieving his stated goal.

 

He's shown that guns are highly successful tools for suicide.

He's stated that he wishes to reduce the rate of successful suicides.

He's asserted that banning guns will achieve this.

 

Fair assessment so far on my part? I should like to think so, but here's the rub.

 

As has been repeatedly shown, if someone wants to take their own life, they will find a way. It's really that simple.

 

So, banning guns does not achieve the stated end goal since we still have rope with which to hang ourselves, pills with which to overdose, cars with which to drive off cliffs, bridges off of which to jump, concrete with which to make shoes before jumping into the pool, poison to drink, wrists to slash, highways to walk across, planes to jump out of without parachute, bears to throw rocks at, insulin to over inject, swords with which to disembowel, sledgehammers with which to skull crush, and countless other ways limited only by the imagination.

 

Banning guns won't achieve the stated end. It arbitrarily removes a freedom form everyone under a stated motivation which it will not achieve. It's like saying that we should ban shovels at construction sites because there has been a rash of killings at construction sites using shovels. Taking away the shovel won't stop the killings. If the shovel is removed, some other tool will be found. That's just human nature, and part of our creative problem solving spirit.

 

It's not the tool that is the problem, so Lance's statistical analysis really matters not. His myopic view here reminds me very much of to his desire to ban pitbulls. It's short-sighted, misguided, and fails to address the root issues.

[ParanoiA]

From where I sit Lance has made a perfectly valid statistical point. But it's also a point that doesn't in the slightest direct society to a specific, obvious coarse of action. The decision whether to do something about that is political, not scientific, because it involves infringing on one right for the sake of another one.

 

Nicely summarized. The thing is, iNow and I would like to move on to that political decision and talk about rights and how much value you get out of foresaking one or the other. However, when we do that, we get statistics back as an answer. As you've agreed, that's not an answer, that's just data. I don't disagree with the data, so it creates this weird cycle that I've since given up on.

 

The data shows that outlawing automobiles will save literally thousands and thousands of lives per year. However, I'm sure Lance, and most of us, would argue that modern transportation needs are too important and ingrained to dismiss for the benefit of these lives. So if someone were to reply to that point by pointing out the thousands and thousands of lives again and again, then you get this invalid logical loop and the conversation is stuck in the mud.

 

I've acknowledged the data and am ready to talk about the political decision. I don't think Lance is. He's rolling the data and political desicion into one.

Edited August 16, 2008 by ParanoiA

[insane_alien]

Yes, lets get on to the discussion of what to do.

 

we all agree that

1/ handguns will give you a higher chance of success in commiting suicide

2/ handguns are used in suicides.

3/ handguns are the tool of choice in suicides.

 

now, i don't think you can justify banning the tool because someone misuses it. i have a screwdriver, i use it properly, it is an instrument of murder in many prisons as it can be made into a 'shank'.

 

banning screwdrivers would have a very negative impact on everything.

 

guns have their uses too. they are a tool. you cannot blame the outcome on the tool but only its user. to solve the problem of people killing themselves we need to treat the underlying issues. so,

 

WHY do people want to kill themselves? of course there are no simple answers to this and they range from mental disorders to emotional stress. but research into these and ways to lessen their impact would do a lot for lowering the suicide rate. far more than a ban on handguns as that will just cause a shift in the preffered tool.

[ParanoiA]

I think this proves insane_alien is an advanced lifeform.

[SkepticLance]

Just for the record, I have been arguing against those who deny data and the obvious logical conclusions to be drawn from data. If you want to make the argument that possessing guns is a human right, and should be upheld despite the price, then that is an opinion, and not data based. As an opinion, there is no right or wrong answer, and I have little interest in entering such an argument, since there is no chance of anyone 'winning' the argument.

 

It would appear from the last few posts, though, that there is now little argument against the clear cut data and clear cut logical conclusion from that data, with one sad exception.

 

iNow is still arguing against some of the data when he says :

 

"As has been repeatedly shown, if someone wants to take their own life, they will find a way. It's really that simple."

 

since the data clearly shows that most people who attempt suicide and fail will not repeat the attempt and will survive. iNow is correct only for minority of suicide attempts. The data also clearly shows that states of the USA that have tighter gun laws have a lower rate of death by suicide. Thus, iNow's repeated assertion that a potential suicide will kill himself regardless of gun availability is simply wrong. The data shows that this statement is wrong.

 

If you want to discuss people's rights to own guns and use them for suicide, and argue that this right is more important than a few thousand deaths each year, then that is a subjective opinion, and not something I can use data to argue against. That is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. But on this forum, denying clear cut data shows a person who does not think in a proper scientific way.

[Sayonara]

The data also clearly shows that states of the USA that have tighter gun laws have a lower rate of death by suicide.

That correlation may lead you to deduce that tighter gun control reduces suicide rates, but it is not necessarily a direct or even indirect consequence of said control.

 

Have you checked to see how these states compare in terms of the proportion of suicides (attempts and successes) where a gun was used as the method? That might be closer to the mark.

 

But on this forum, denying clear cut data shows a person who does not think in a proper scientific way.

"The data clearly shows..." is only a good phrase to use when the data can only support one conclusion, so I think it's fair to say there is an element of pot, kettle going on there. One doesn't take a correlation and simply decide on a causal factor which suits one's beliefs.

 

p.s. This thread is on suicide watch. That means that if it recycles, it will probably get locked.

[iNow]

Lance - How about you focus on the topic and not on me, shall we? You do that far too often, and it shows just how weak your position truly is.

[Pangloss]

I think this proves insane_alien is an advanced lifeform.

 

Not bad for a unearthly entity with mental issues.

[Sayonara]

Thus, iNow's repeated assertion that a potential suicide will kill himself regardless of gun availability is simply wrong. The data shows that this statement is wrong.

Incidentally, you cannot make this claim without more detailed data. You seem to be completely ignoring the successful suicide attempts which occur without any firearms involvement whatsoever, which means you cannot have considered whether firearms access plays any kind of role there at all. Perhaps I need to re-read the thread, but I don't recall you dealing with this aspect at all, or producing data which would specifically and conclusively support that claim.

 

No matter how many times you repeat "the data clearly shows", you cannot circumvent the holes which result from a poor analysis of that data.

[Pangloss]

since the data clearly shows that most people who attempt suicide and fail will not repeat the attempt and will survive. iNow is correct only for minority of suicide attempts. The data also clearly shows that states of the USA that have tighter gun laws have a lower rate of death by suicide. Thus, iNow's repeated assertion that a potential suicide will kill himself regardless of gun availability is simply wrong. The data shows that this statement is wrong.

 

The data does NOT prove that, it only suggests one aspect of the picture. It does support your point, but it doesn't lay the case to rest -- not by a long shot. (Wups, cross-posted with Sayo.)

 

It's also not a scientific point at all, and I think it's a cop-out to pretend that it is. You're deliberately interpreting the data in a specific manner. That's a political message.

 

I think using science in this faux-logical manner is dangerous, and we see it all too often. It's the sort of thing that gets politicians and activists all riled up, and then six months later when another factor is discovered you have to tell these people "oh, sorry, never mind", and by then it's too late, you've got six new laws on the books and 30 or 40 innocent people rotting in jail and thousands of corporate employees out of work. Or you've spent billions on last-ditch-salvation technology that never mattered in the first place.

 

And then we wonder why people turn away from science.

[Sayonara]

Lance seems so dead set on the idea that the USA's figures prove his hypothesis, that he is ignoring alternative explanations to the extent that he dismisses any data supporting the alternatives (e.g. the Japan data).

 

I have to say that the vast majority of the suicides which occur in the UK on a day to day basis are executed without the use of a firearm. Usually it is some kind of ligature, the front of a train, or a nice long fall. I have responded to plenty myself, and believe me they are very very effective methods for those who are serious about ending it all. It is not a trivial matter to change one's mind when one is liberally scattered over a large area of ground.

 

The "failure" rate is easily explained by a lack of conviction on the part of the attemptee, and this is well documented, understood, and handled by all the mental health, social support, and medical agencies who deal with the depressed every single day. This failure rate is usually down to one of three factors (incompetence, pathological compulsion, or the fact that it was simply a cry for help), and the latter two take the vast majority. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with the availability of firearms.

 

Taking no other data than that already presented in the thread, the correlation between increased suicide rates and poor gun control is just as easily ascribed to social misery as it is to a direct link. Perhaps people are more likely to top themselves when they live in a culture where any half-witted idiot or mentalist can buy a gun and slaughter a class of school-children. Just a thought.

 

The OP's hypothesis is in serious need of substantial scientific support.