Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[iNow]

That Japan data point seems to cut this argument off at the ankles.

[SkepticLance]

The Japan data point is actually irrelevent to the argument. All it shows is that cultural values are also important. Japan has had a long history of using suicide as a means of solving problems. Whereas the West has tended to regard suicide as a cowards way of opting out of your problems (and I know that is not true, but I am talking about attitudes), Japan has had for many centuries the cultural value that suicide is the ultimate apology - an honourable way of telling the world that you are sorry for your failures. Suicides are regarded in Japan as people with honour, compared to the West regarding them as ultimate failures.

 

The closest comparison that actually makes sense to the USA is Canada, since it has a culture that is similar (don't kill me you Canadians! I know there are also many differences). The US has more than 3 times the gun ownership per capita compared to Canada and about twice the suicide rate.

 

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/148/10/1721

 

Here is the abstract for this paper from the Canadian Medical Assn. Journal.

 

"To examine international correlations between reported rates of household gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide with a gun. DESIGN: Survey. POPULATION: People who responded to a telephone survey conducted by the 1989 International Crime Survey in 11 European countries, Australia, Canada and the United States. RESULTS: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership. CONCLUSION: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide. "

 

In other words, the hard data shows that more guns means more successful suicides.

[Mr Skeptic]

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

 

"Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns.

 

Considering the source is a gun control advocacy website, a bit of caution is in order. I looked for the original articles, but they weren't mentioned in that link. I found the same claims here (pdf warning), with references.

 

The source for the first quote is here http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/329/15/1084

One of the primary reasons for owning a gun is for self-defense. It is hardly surprising that people who feel the need to have a gun are the same people who are most likely to be murdered. Further, since that was limited to murders occurring in the home, it says nothing about the majority of murder.

 

Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home."

 

The source for this quote is here : https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/329/15/1117. However, I will not bother to get a subscription to check it out. The "article" doesn't even have an abstract!

[YT2095]

Are we are pretty much agreed that:

 

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

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

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

 

?

 

I agree completely with that.

[doG]

The closest comparison that actually makes sense to the USA is Canada, since it has a culture that is similar (don't kill me you Canadians! I know there are also many differences). The US has more than 3 times the gun ownership per capita compared to Canada and about twice the suicide rate.

 

That's a fine example of handpicking statistics in an attempt to support your point. The truth is that the U.S. has one of the highest gun ownership populations of the world and yet it is not even in the top 10 in the world in rates of suicide per capita. Again, are you also advocating tighter restrictions on rope?

[YT2095]

Again, are you also advocating tighter restrictions on rope?

 

shouldn`t you add "No pun intended"?

[D H]

Again, are you also advocating tighter restrictions on rope?

We would also need tighter restrictions on clothing. People hang themselves with belts, pants, neckties, ... Perhaps we should mandate that everyone in the US go nude? One problem with this is that, given the obesity rate in the US, the sight of all that unsightly nudity might drive more people to suicide.

 

Back on topic ...

Too much speculation and very little data are causing this thread to spin its wheels.

Speaking of lack of data and spinning on wheels: One instrument is conjectured to be commonly used in the commission of suicide, and yet this instrument is not included in suicide statistics because of lack of evidence and data. The suicide instrument of which I am speaking is the automobile. The vehicular death rate exceeds the firearm suicide rate by a factor of three, and a significant fraction of single vehicle automobile accident deaths are suspected of being suicides.

 

So, do we need tighter restrictions on automobiles because some people kill themselves with automobiles?

[doG]

I could add that tall buildings also increase the success rate of suicide jumpers....

[SkepticLance]

To doG, who said

 

"The truth is that the U.S. has one of the highest gun ownership populations of the world and yet it is not even in the top 10 in the world in rates of suicide per capita."

 

That is like the comparison with Japan. Logic that involves comparing apples with cucumbers is not logic. If you wish to compare USA suicide rates, you must do it with a similar nation.

 

And no-one has commented on the Canadian Medical Assn. report, which said :

"Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means;"

 

I think the data is strong enough to conclude with a high probability of correctness, that possession of guns in large numbers correlates with high rates of successful suicide. It makes sense in logic, and the data supports the conclusion.

 

I understand that those poeple who has an emotional need to own guns will object to my argument. However, I would ask them to step outside their own emotional bias, and look at this logically and use the data.

 

Here is a little additional data. An article from the New England Journal of Medicine, which is one of the world's most reputable peer reviewed medical journals.

 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/7/467

 

Here is their conclusion :

 

"CONCLUSIONS. Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it might someday be used in a suicide."

Edited July 7, 2008 by SkepticLance

[doG]

To doG, who said

 

"The truth is that the U.S. has one of the highest gun ownership populations of the world and yet it is not even in the top 10 in the world in rates of suicide per capita."

 

That is like the comparison with Japan. Logic that involves comparing apples with cucumbers is not logic. If you wish to compare USA suicide rates, you must do it with a similar nation.

 

Uhhh....no you don't. If you want to make the claim that high availability of handguns leads to high success rates in suicide then you only have to look for comparative data where there are high success rates of suicide. According to Wiki, admittedly a source I don't like, Japan is down at number 10 in the world but the U.S. is down at number 43. People in the U.S. that commit suicide with a firearm do so because of the convenience but the U.S. has the 3rd highest population in the world and still only comes in at 43 when ranked by numbers of successful suicides. Canada on the other hand has only 1/10th the U.S. population so you are not comparing apples with apples.

 

BTW, why do you consistently ignore the success rate of hanging? From your source, the CDC:

 

Suicide Trends Among Youths and Young Adults Aged 10--24 Years --- United States' date=' 1990--2004

 

In 1990, firearms were the most common suicide method among females in all three age groups examined, accounting for 55.2% of suicides in the group aged 10--14 years, 56.0% in the group aged 15--19 years, and 53.4% in the group aged 20--24 years. However, from 1990 to 2004, among females in each of the three age groups, significant downward trends were observed in the rates both for firearm suicides (p<0.01) and poisoning suicides (p<0.05), and [b']a significant increase was observed in the rate for suicides by hanging/suffocation (p<0.01). In 2004, hanging/suffocation was the most common method among females in all three age groups, accounting for 71.4% of suicides in the group aged 10--14 years, 49% in the group aged 15--19 years, and 34.2% in the group aged 20--24 years. In addition, from 2003 to 2004, hanging/suffocation suicide rates among females aged 10--14 and 15--19 years increased by 119.4% (from 0.31 to 0.68 per 100,000 persons) and 43.5% (from 1.24 to 1.78), respectively (Figures 1 and 2). In absolute numbers, from 2003 to 2004, suicides by hanging/suffocation increased from 32 to 70 among females aged 10--14 years and from 124 to 174 among females aged 15--19 years.[/b] Aside from 2004, the only other significant departure from trend among females in these two age groups during 1990--2004 was in suicides by hanging/suffocation among females aged 15--19 years in 1996 (Figure 2).

 

Considering that hanging took the lead are you going to advocate for tighter controls on ropes, belts, bedsheets, etc.?

 

You also ignored this request from above:

 

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

Edited July 7, 2008 by doG

[SkepticLance]

To doG

 

I have ignored hanging because it is irrelevent to the discussion. I also ignored seppuku. Slitting open your gut and then having your head cut off has a remarkably high success rate in killing yourself also! However, it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a high rate of gun ownership leads to a higher rate of successful suicides. Which it does.

 

Arguing about hanging is a red herring. A tactic designed to distract attention from the main point without actually making any valid arguments.

 

I should also ask you why you ignore my very good data proving my case?

 

And in relation to your query about having the liberty to own guns, I have 2 points.

1. I have no problem with you owning guns as I have made clear earlier. I am saying that is sheer bloody insanity to allow people to own guns that are designed for nothing else except killing people. Would you want to own an AK47? It's sole function is killing people. Ditto for handguns. If you want, as a responsible adult, to own a hunting rifle, because you have a genuine need to use it for hunting, then there is no argument. If you want to own a gun that has no function other than killing people, then there is something seriously wrong!

2. On certain matters, liberty has to be curtailed. It is a relative value - not an absolute. No-one argues that we should stop people drink/driving. If I get plastered and drive my car down the freeway, the cops will stop me and I will end up in jail. And that would be my own damn fault. In exactly the same way, preventing people from owning weaponry that is designed purely to kill people is a sane and sensible restriction on your liberty.

 

Bombs are also designed to kill people. Do you insist on your rights as a free person to own bombs?

[Pangloss]

No, but bombs aren't as easily limited to just killing the suicider.

[doG]

I have ignored hanging because it is irrelevent to the discussion. I also ignored seppuku. Slitting open your gut and then having your head cut off has a remarkably high success rate in killing yourself also! However, it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a high rate of gun ownership leads to a higher rate of successful suicides. Which it does.

 

Again you can't support that. Lithuania has the highest suicide rate in the world and has tough gun control laws. Belarus is number 2. Guns are issued with a police permit only and must be stored disassembled in a locked box with the ammo stored separately. Russia is number 3 and all guns are registered with the government, allowed by permit only with strict inspections on storage.

 

South Korea has the 7th highest rate in the world and has very strict gun control as does Japan at number 10. Countries like Austria, Germany and Cuba with strict gun controls also have higher suicide rates. Even Canada, your choice, comes in at number 40 where the U.S. is at 43. Norway at 41 is like the U.S. with liberal gun rights and has a very low crime rate in addition to a lower suicide rate than the countries listed above. Gun control is simply not having the effect you claim.

 

1. I have no problem with you owning guns as I have made clear earlier. I am saying that is sheer bloody insanity to allow people to own guns that are designed for nothing else except killing people. Would you want to own an AK47? It's sole function is killing people. Ditto for handguns.

 

Another claim you continuously fail to support. Policemen around the world use them primarily for deterrence, not killing people. Hikers and campers like myself carry them for defense in the wilderness when a long arm is cumbersome. They are used in sporting events around the world. Your claim that it sole function is for killing people is flat out WRONG!

 

2. On certain matters, liberty has to be curtailed.

 

Speak for yourself, not us. What arrogance that you should claim that we should curtail our liberty. Who are you in your land to dictate what liberty we should or shouldn't have? Perhaps you should worry about your own country. I see it comes in at 38, higher that both Canada and the U.S..

[SkepticLance]

From doG

 

"Again you can't support that. Lithuania has the highest suicide rate in the world and has tough gun control laws. Belarus is number 2."

 

All of which is irrelevent. There are two things required to cause a suicide.

 

1. Most important. The desire to kill yourself.

2. The means.

 

There are many places with high suicide rates, due to the fact that item 1. above is the big factor. In other words, lots more people want to kill themselves.

 

Item 2. is what determines the success rate of suicide attempts. What I have been talking about is the percentage of successful suicides. If there are 100 attempts in Belarus, and only 20% are successful due to lack of access to guns, while at the same time in the USA there are 10 attempts and 90% are successful due to having guns, then Belarus will still have the higher suicide rate. Yet the widespread ownership of guns in the USA will be contributing to an elevated suicide rate, as I have been saying.

 

And again, you have ignored the important evidence I supplied, from eminent medical journals. Evading the data will not make it go away.

 

OK. Let me change the wording on my earlier statement, where I said the sole purpose of handguns is killing people. New wording : Handguns are designed specifically for killing people. The fact that a policeman can use it as a deterrent comes from the fact that it is designed to kill people.

 

I do not have a problem with a policeman having a hand gun. I have a big problem with hand guns being available to all and sundry. Many people will be responsible gun owners, but lots of others will leave them unsecured, where children, burglars and would-be suicides can get hold of them.

 

Re liberty.

You are ignoring the fact that our liberty is curtailed anyway. It has to be. The classic example, as I described before is drink driving. The ban is a curtailment of liberty, but is the proper way to go. Similarly, there are laws stopping me beating my wife. Do you think those laws should be rescinded so that I can have the freedom to beat her up? Of course not. It is right and proper that some liberties are restricted, for the betterment of society as a whole. Gun control fits that category.

[doG]

Yet the widespread ownership of guns in the USA will be contributing to an elevated suicide rate, as I have been saying.

 

And again, you have ignored the important evidence I supplied, from eminent medical journals. Evading the data will not make it go away.

 

And so does the widespread ownership of rope, cars, tall buildings and many other highly successful means of suicide. You simply want to nitpick statistics to support your claim but science doesn't work that way. You have to consider ALL of the data and that means considering all the countries with high suicide rates and strict gun control. The very fact that the deaths are listed as suicides shows they are successful. i.e. a higher rate of suicide per capita is a higher rate of success.

 

You are ignoring the fact that our liberty is curtailed anyway. It has to be. The classic example, as I described before is drink driving. The ban is a curtailment of liberty, but is the proper way to go. Similarly, there are laws stopping me beating my wife. Do you think those laws should be rescinded so that I can have the freedom to beat her up? Of course not. It is right and proper that some liberties are restricted, for the betterment of society as a whole. Gun control fits that category.

 

Our? Are you a U.S. citizen or not. Aren't you in New Zealand. Again, trying to dictate that citizens of another nation should yield their liberties because of the illegal actions of the few is arrogant and rude.

[cellbioS]

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.

 

Do you have the RAW numbers instead of the percentages? I don't like percentages because 9 of 10 is 90% as well as 900 of 1000 but the RAW numbers will give a better indication in the numbers of people who commit suicide in any form. If the 34% for jumping off high places is 34 in 100, and handguns is 9 of 10 then jumping has more suicides the handguns, in this simplified example.

[SkepticLance]

To doG

 

I repeat. You comments about ropes, hanging etc are red herrings. The debate is about firearms.

 

On the business of telling the USA how to run its laws. Again, irrelevent. This is a debate between people on a forum. It has no power beyond that. Debate subjects are pretty much unlimited, as long as we refrain from obvious pathologies such as ad hom attacks and obscenities. Within the topic, there is nothing to stop me saying that a certain set of actions is desirable. I have been saying that gun control is desirable, including the restriction of access to hand-guns. This is true for all countries. Mine, yours, and others.

 

To cellbioS

 

The total number of firearms suicides in the USA in 2001 was more than 16,000.

 

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

 

I thinks 90% of 16,000 is statistically significant!

[Taktiq]

That's a fine example of handpicking statistics in an attempt to support your point. The truth is that the U.S. has one of the highest gun ownership populations of the world and yet it is not even in the top 10 in the world in rates of suicide per capita. Again, are you also advocating tighter restrictions on rope?

 

Don't forget toilet paper! That's pretty dangerous too. Example:

 

One night while working a shift on a pod (jail housing unit), we had a fellow on suicide watch. We were to check him every 15 minutes. The whole time I went past his cell, he appeared to be sleeping with his back to the cell door. Apparently, sometime during the overnight hours this inmate had taken TP, wet it down and crammed it down his throat and in his nostrils eventually causing suffocation. Not even his cell mate heard or saw anything (or so he claimed).

 

Oh and it's a good thing pay phones aren't around anymore either because during our orientation tour of the detention center as sheriff's office cadets, we were taken up to the SP level (special protection/psych). It seems one inmate tried to commit suicide by slamming himself, face-first, onto the phone where the handset it placed. The man received a large gash to his throat and died of massive bloodloss not long after reaching the infirmery.

 

I guess we should just ban everything because as my instructors taught us, anything and anyone can kill you. No matter whether it's a 4 year old little girl or an elderly person in a wheelchair (true...I've worked geriatric psych wards as well).

 

To put it bluntly...after 5 years in the juvenile system, 7 years in Law Enforcement/Security and 1 year on psych wards, guns are not the problem! I'm not some Pro-NRA gun nut, but I'm so sick of the blanket blame placed on inanimate objects with alleged "statistics" these people use to back their points. IMHO, most people who are anti-gun in regards to suicide are either A) aping what they've heard in the media and have no idea of the realities of suicidal/parasuicidal persons, B) do not understand the mechanics and thought process of suicidal individuals (I've been suicidal), C) have lost a loved one or have considered suicide by handgun (or other means) themselves and do not want to accept the fact that the choice was theirs or the deceased and try to place blame on something else instead to avoid the feelings of self-inflicted guilt (I've lost three friends including a fellow officer to suicide), or D) all of the above.

 

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.

 

The funny thing here from experience is...not ALL people find the same guns threatening. I've pulled my sidearm (never fired) several times on various properties as a security officer and have had people completely disregard the fact there was a loaded Glock handgun pointed at them...BUT rack the slide on a shotgun and...well, people pay attention to that.

 

I would like to add that when i was trained to use my sidearm, it was considered a no-no to "threaten". If you pull your weapon, you're INTENDING on using it. There's no threat. You either go prone or you get shot.

Note that there's lots of little things in those situations that complicate matters and I am not saying that if you immediately refuse a lawful order verbally you'll get shot, but I figure you're a grown-up and can understand what I'm saying.

 

Actually, for suicide, a shotgun is a sure thing (rotten.com):

 

Not true....AJ Reed.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Taktiq
multiple post merged

[doG]

I would like to add that when i was trained to use my sidearm, it was considered a no-no to "threaten". If you pull your weapon, you're INTENDING on using it. There's no threat.

 

I'll second that. I was taught that you never point a gun at someone unless you've already decided that you ARE going to pull the trigger...

[SkepticLance]

I continue to be assailed by non logic! Other suicide methods are not relevent to the discussion. There are, of course, lots of ways of topping yourself, including bizarre ones like toilet paper. I was told that in WWII, certain spies were taught that they could kill themselves by biting their tongues half off and inhaling the torrent of blood. That was reasonably reliable, even when they were bound hand and foot.

 

However, all that has nothing to do with the discussion. The question is : Is the ready availability of firearms a substantial contributor to the incidence of successful suicide?

 

Fact : in 2001, 16,000 Americans killed themselves with firearms.

Fact : Attempts at suicide with firearms are 90% successful.

Fact : According to Canadian Medical Assn. Journal and New England Journal of Medicine, the presense of firearms in the home add to likelihood of successful suicide by 2 to 5 fold.

Fact : Of all modern western nations, the USA has the highest per capita rate of suicide. Quoting non-western rates of suicide is comparing apples and bananas.

 

How can anyone try to deny that availability of firearms adds very substantially to probability of successful suicide?

[doG]

The question is : Is the ready availability of firearms a substantial contributor to the incidence of successful suicide?

 

What are you really asking about? Successful suicides or just firearms related successful suicides?

 

There is no doubt that firearms are a successful method of killing yourself when a firearm is available for the task. So are many other methods like hanging. When it comes to arguing your point you only want to talk about those people that killed themself with a firearm to advance your theory that gun control would somehow reduce that figure when the reality is that there are plenty of other successful methods and you have presented no data whatsoever that those that would commit suicide with a firearm would not do so via some other method if no firearm was available.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Is your goal to reduce successful suicides, including all methods, or is it just to attack the one method, firearms, while pretending suicidal people wouldn't use an alternative if their method of choice wasn't available? You can't argue that controlling firearms would have any effect unless you can, in fact, show that these people wouldn't just do something different.

[Taktiq]

"I continue to be assailed by non logic!"

That's the price to pay for asking for other people's opinions.

"Other suicide methods are not relevant to the discussion."

Not true. When discussing suicide, whether by handgun or other method, all methods, reasons, pathologies, societal influences and whatnot ARE relevant. Suicide is not, nor will it ever be, simply reduced to "what contributing factor" or "is it Mommy's fault?", etc.

 

"Is the ready availability of firearms a substantial contributor to the incidence of successful suicide?"

No! I don't know how many times this has to be beaten into your head. The single most contributing factor to the success of a suicide attempt is not what type of weapon...it's the person's intent and desire to follow through that contributes more than any other thing. Case closed.

 

"How can anyone try to deny that availability of firearms adds very substantially to probability of successful suicide?"

First hand experience, my friend. I'm not proud to admit this but I have a history of clinical depression and have had several suicide attempts. I ALSO OWN A HANDGUN! Strangely enough, despite what your statistics say...I never once tried to use it in the course of my attempts. Why? This is going to sound hokey but, despite severe depression, I always believed my weapon was meant to defend the lives of myself and others not to take it away (if I ever had to discharge my weapon at a criminal it would be in defense of myself or others) and unless you've been in my line of work, you will never understand that. The only reason I was never successful is because deep down I wanted to live. That meant my intent and desire to die was not strong enough...I could've had 50 handguns, 3 shotguns, a SMAW, some claymores, a box of razor blades, 100yds of rope, gallons of cyanide, and been standing on a cliff but, if I didn't want it bad enough, I would never have been successful no matter what device I used (except by sheer dumb (bad) luck).

 

You can back up anything you say with all the statistics you wish but, until you've been in that hole and have stared down your own mortality, your argument is moot.

Edited July 10, 2008 by Taktiq

[iNow]

Maybe the person trying to kill themselves could just buy a pitbull.

 

 

[Taktiq]

Maybe the person trying to kill themselves could just buy a pitbull.

 

 

THAT's why I was never successful!!! I own a cat...

[Mr Skeptic]

I would like to add that when i was trained to use my sidearm, it was considered a no-no to "threaten". If you pull your weapon, you're INTENDING on using it. There's no threat. You either go prone or you get shot.

Note that there's lots of little things in those situations that complicate matters and I am not saying that if you immediately refuse a lawful order verbally you'll get shot, but I figure you're a grown-up and can understand what I'm saying.

 

But that there is a threat. If you were going to shoot him whether or not he went prone, then it wouldn't be a threat. Using the gun with empty threats, or in lieu of less aggressive methods, would have potential to escalate the situation. But even carrying a gun is an implicit threat.

 

Maybe the person trying to kill themselves could just buy a pitbull.

 

 

 

Heh, heh. Good one.