Handgun Widespread Availability Increases Suicide Rate

[iNow]

For examples of precedence, search his posts here. Same style, same faulted logic:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28741

[SkepticLance]

doG said

 

"The U.S. has more guns per capita than in other nation in the world and yet, 42 countries have higher suicide rates, many of them with much tighter gun restrictions."

 

The above sentence pretty much summarises the logic. It ignores the fact, as I have been at some pains to point out, that availability of guns is only one of the two vital factors determining suicide rate. The other factor is the number of attempts at suicide. And this is far higher in many nations than in the USA.

 

Yet that does not obviate the fact that gun availability is also an important factor. You can reduce suicide rate if you change the culture to reduce the number of attempts, or you can reduce the rate by making guns less available.

 

42 countries with higher suicide rates. Sure. No problem. They have higher rates because there are more suicidal people. However, their suicide rate would be even higher still if all those would-be suicides got hold of guns.

 

Here is yet another reference proving my points. Not that doG will even read it. Evading the truth is the best way to avoid facing it.

 

http://psychservices.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/52/8/999

 

I quote :

 

"Most of us are aware of the grim statistics. Someone dies by suicide in the United States every 17 minutes, for a total each year of more than 30,000. Few of us, however, are aware that 57 percent of those who kill themselves do so with a gun. This group includes about 60 percent of suicides of persons aged 25 years or under and 70 percent of those aged 26 or older. "

 

The quote below reinforces the fact that suicide attempts are not usually genuine. Attempts should fail, allowing the victim a chance to recover.

 

"Hopelessness more than depression predicts suicide. People who commit suicide do not want to die—they simply want to end the pain."

 

Why do suicides occur? This reference states it to be two reasons and the second is access to firearms.

 

"If we understand as much as we do, why are we not seeing a more dramatic decrease in suicide rates in this country? First, only about a third of persons who have depression receive diagnoses and appropriate treatment. Seeking help for depression still involves stigma, and patients and their primary care physicians often fail to recognize depression. Even when affective illness is diagnosed, the treatment provided is often inadequate. Second, we have done little or nothing to limit access to lethal weapons."

 

And here is a nice story on the benefits of gun control.

 

"The effect of gun control was forcibly brought to me recently when a nonphysician colleague asked me to provide psychopharmacologic consultation for a young man whose engagement to be married had been abruptly terminated. He had thought of killing himself the previous week and had gone to a sporting goods store to buy a gun. I asked whether he had purchased one. He looked at me disappointedly and said, "No—in New York State it takes six months to get a license... a lot of good that does!" That man is alive today, getting treatment, and doing better because some members of the community cared enough to legislate to limit access to firearms. "

 

References like this are widely available since so much research has been done linking suicide rate with gun availability. Yet I cannot make headway with gun lovers. Shows how poorly rational argument copes when faced with sheer emotion.

[Mr Skeptic]

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

 

Nobody is arguing for the liberty to do anything you want -- that would interfere with other's liberties. Your liberties end where someone else's starts; frequently it is called a crime. But perhaps the most important liberty we have is the liberty to shoot the faces off our government, should the government betray its people. This is the final guarantee of our liberty, and it requires guns. As to the viability of a citizen's revolt in the USA in this day of modern warfare, you need only look at a small country, Iraq, where a small group of people is being a major PITA for the US Army.

 

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

 

No, it is a large reduction in liberty (removes the ultimate guarantee of liberty, as well as one particular liberty), and benefits an incredibly tiny number (those that would not have been murdered or successfully committed suicide if guns were to be banned), which is a small number compared to the other 300,000,000 Americans.

 

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

 

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

 

Why do you insist that it is personal opinion? Are people completely incapable of predicting the future, or learning from the past? You measure the number of people that die due to guns in the thousands per year, but the people who die due to repressive governments can be in the millions per year. It would then take a thousand years of peaceful governance to balance even the number of deaths, not to mention the value of the other liberties. A thousand years of peaceful government is quite unlikely, just look at Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany, for modern and very recent examples.

 

----

 

It seems that your interest here is not the lives of the people, but rather the banning of guns. As is clear to everyone except you, the primary cause of suicide is people who want to kill themselves. The elephant in the room here is depression, not gun ownership. Why are you not suggesting that people be tested for depression, rather than banning guns, as that would have far better results in terms of quality of life as well as lowering of suicide.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

As I pointed out before, widespread ownership of firearms as a protection against a repressive government is simply not needed. Ask any of the IRA in their battles in Northern Ireland. Gun control in that place, and at that time was really tight! And yet those who felt they needed them, got them. In fact, their weapons caches contained machine guns, bazookas, bombs etc. They put up such a fight that the British were unable to control them.

 

Note that I am not making a value judgement about who was right in the IRA battles - just pointing out that, if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

 

However, that same gun control can save thousands of human lives each year from reducing suicide. There is a big difference between an organisation like the IRA (whether you call them freedom fighters or terrorists) getting firearms, and a single depressed and suicidal person getting a gun when he wants to top himself.

 

Your thesis that free availability of firearms by the citizenry is needed to keep governments under control is just not true.

 

Your final paragraph asks why I do not push for depression tests, instead of gun control. For a start, that is not the theme of this thread. And I have serious doubts as to the efficacy of that approach. I have no such doubts over gun control. The data shows that gun control saves lives. Big time.

[Sayonara]

Eat remix, gun debaters! You have to imagine Lance is rapping as you read this.

The bits in italics are sung by a chorus of three backing singers who all look like Lance but are wearing dresses and beehive wigs.

 

gun control can save thousands of human lives each year from reducing suicide.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

 

There is a big difference between an organisation like the IRA getting firearms, and a single depressed suicidal person getting a gun

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

 

Your final paragraph asks why I do not push for depression tests, instead of gun control ... I have serious doubts as to the efficacy of that approach. I have no such doubts over gun control.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

 

The data shows that gun control saves lives. Big time.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

if you are determined enough, gun control cannot stop you.

 

 

Lyrics & Music © SkepticLance and the Gun Control Cru.

Edited July 13, 2008 by Sayonara³

[Pangloss]

This is the sort of thing that really bugs me about statistics-driven moral decision-making. I'm all for saving people from their own stupidity, but when it boils down to simply reducing certain numbers, at a direct cost to my freedom of choice, and it also becomes clear that people aren't stupid, they know the danger and want to take the risk anyway, I lose interest real fast.

 

Maybe handgun widespread availability increases the suicide rate, maybe it doesn't. But I've read every post in this thread and I simply do not see a case here for why that matters to the extent that I need to put a stop to it at the expense of my loss of choice.

 

I'm actually a supporter of gun control and licensing. But not for this reason.

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss

 

If you have read every post on this thread, you will noticed a big difference between my arguments and those of my debate opponents. My arguments are backed up by references.

 

e.g. http://www.springerlink.com/content/m4g710l21756x754/

 

"Suicide rates typically decreased following implementation of a variety of firearm control laws. Suicide-prone individuals seldom substitute other means or go outside legal channels for suicide weapons. Firearm restrictions may decrease the ready accessibility of firearms enough to allow the peak period of suicidality to pass. Conclusion: The findings support gun control measures as a strategy for reducing suicide rates."

 

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10398&page=33

 

"In the United States in 1998, firearms accounted for the majority of suicides both in general (57.0%) and among youth 15–24 (61%) (NCIPC, 2000). Suffocation (18.7%; 25%), poisoning (16.6%, 7%), and falls (2.0% both) follow in usage"

[Pangloss]

Like I said, statistics-driven decision-making. If you want to say you're more accurate than they are when they talk about global warming, that's fine, but that doesn't endear your cause to me as a voter, for the reasons stated above.

[foodchain]

I'm actually a supporter of gun control and licensing. But not for this reason.

 

Yes, but if you support say gun restriction in the form of licenses should medical conditions be included in that? Such as if some person had a mental illness, should they be allowed to own a gun in relation to the severity of the illness? I could see this question rationally coming up over if such a person should even have a license to own a toaster, I think this is because guns are more prone or fit for killing people vs. a toaster. Its sort of a double standard, for instance if a person murders a pregnant women with a gun, he or she can be tried for murder of two people, yet abortion is not fully murder nor purely performed for dire medical reasons. To simply add to this, in some cases gun restriction is witnessed by majority votes with almost a sober like certainty, in other cases its seems the complete opposite, such as schools so scrutinized to be gun free, yet people supporting a gun populated nation without bound.

 

Classes of criminals lose the right to own a gun yet I would imagine a value exists to support amounts of people committing felonies with a gun after they had obtained such, so it would be impossible really then using anything current to screen that, to accept that for a choice to own a gun is something like the concept behind the suv. I mean that vehicle along makes driving anything small mortally dangerous more then anything, plus the threat it poses in say parking lots with heavy daytime activity. You could also look at the enormous resource drain that vehicle alone is, in all reality it’s a stupid idea for a vehicle. Yet in some weird form of democracy it should be impugned to speak against such as if you are rattling off some blasphemy against someone’s god. It just seems the ethical part of the gun debate hardly exists beyond territorial skirmishes.

[Pangloss]

I'm not going to hand a loaded gun (literally) to an individual medically diagnosed to be at risk of suicide, no. And I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over that compromise, either. It ain't a perfect world.

[iNow]

I love how Lance asserted that he's been the only person in the thread to share references. A quick review proves that assertion patently false.

[Sayonara]

To be fair, he says that his posts are different to everyone else's because they are backed up by references. The inference I draw from this comment is that he does not believe the references others have given backed up their posts.

[Deja Vu]

I elect that we ban people from using bridges, since people who jump off bridges to commit suicide have a high rate of success.

[SkepticLance]

To Deja Vu

Jumping off high places has 47% fatal success, versus 90% for firearms.

 

Just another statistic, even though Pangloss hates them. In spite of that, statistics are vital for moral decisions. The reason is that most morality works on the basic principle of 'thou shalt not harm others' and statistics (especially in this case) quantifies the harm, permitting good moral decisions.

 

However, in response to Deja Vu's statement, I have to say that utility has to be taken into account. Hand-guns can be banned with pretty much zero negative impact, since almost their sole use is to kill humans. The other minor uses could be achieved in other ways. We can hardly ban things, like bridges, that have other, very vital uses. The things we use for transport, for example, are essential to modern civilisation. If we banned them, we would all starve to death.

[Deja Vu]

To Deja Vu

Jumping off high places has 47% fatal success, versus 90% for firearms.

 

How were the statistics collected among jumping off high places? Were they stratified between those that were jumping into water as opposed to concrete? Jumping from the 2nd floor vs jumping off the 5th floor? You can't just simply take the statistics at face value.

 

However, in response to Deja Vu's statement, I have to say that utility has to be taken into account. Hand-guns can be banned with pretty much zero negative impact, since almost their sole use is to kill humans.

 

Large pointy sticks can also be made to have the sole purpose of killing humans too, should we also ban them? And I don't know about having a zero negative impact, I remember reading that the less gun control there is, the lower the crime rate.

 

 

The other minor uses could be achieved in other ways. We can hardly ban things, like bridges, that have other, very vital uses. The things we use for transport, for example, are essential to modern civilisation. If we banned them, we would all starve to death.

 

And if we banned guns, it would be harder to enforce the law, lower crime, and for people to defend themselves. And it probably wouldn't lower suicide rates. Only the outlaws would have guns, which I'm sure is the case in countries with strict gun control laws.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Deja Vu

[Pangloss]

Just another statistic, even though Pangloss hates them. In spite of that, statistics are vital for moral decisions.

 

I don't hate statistics, and I agree with your opinion that they are important for some moral decisions. But when you put the needs of the many that far ahead of the needs of the few, the only good that comes of it is a lot of geeks crying and a vulcan mumbling "remember!"

 

I don't like your "greater good" utopia, Lance. Signing up for my allocation of government regulated, safe and approved entertainment, food, employment, transportation and medical care? Save the last handgun for me, please! Then you can pry my HDTV, my hamburgers, my job, my car keys and my insurance card out of my cold, dead fingers.

 

And I ain't got a single statistic to prove it.

[SkepticLance]

Deja Vu asked

 

"How were the statistics collected among jumping off high places? Were they stratified between those that were jumping into water as opposed to concrete? Jumping from the 2nd floor vs jumping off the 5th floor? You can't just simply take the statistics at face value. "

 

The only way that statistic could be obtained is as an average. Obviously, if someone were very serious about topping themselves, the place they chose to jump off would be rather high, and they would have a much higher chance than 47% of killing themselves. However, as I have said before, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not serious - more in the nature of cries for help - and jumping would often be from lower heights.

 

The tragedy with gun suicide is that most of those killing themselves with guns would also not be truly serious about wanting to die - but because guns are so damn lethal, they die anyway.

 

There is a relevent book : 'Evaluating Gun Policy' ;

 

http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Q05iNEB7egQC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=%22gun+suicide%22&source=web&ots=Mi2Z54shHi&sig=5tuKRt6ZCOfzVFgqbrwpLsi9ARQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA41,M1

 

This book makes it clear that there is a strong relationship between gun ownership and suicide rate. Even to the extent that states with higher gun ownership also have higher rates of suicide. The conclusion that tighter gun control would lead to lower suicide rates is inescapable.

[Sayonara]

Obviously, if someone were very serious about topping themselves, the place they chose to jump off would be rather high, and they would have a much higher chance than 47% of killing themselves. However, as I have said before, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not serious - more in the nature of cries for help - and jumping would often be from lower heights.

 

The tragedy with gun suicide is that most of those killing themselves with guns would also not be truly serious about wanting to die - but because guns are so damn lethal, they die anyway.

Well, then the answer is obvious isn't it?

 

Sell much smaller guns to those people who want less death from their weapon.

[Taktiq]

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.

 

Nope...if I fully intend on putting a round through you if you don't comply is NOT a threat. Again, much like with suicidal behavior, it comes down to intent. If I draw my sidearm, it's not to scare you into submission, it's not to wave it around all willy-nilly, it's because I intend to put a .45 caliber, 230 grain bullet through you and put you down that way because all other options have been exhausted and you are now a danger to myself and others.

 

On top of that Kiwi, if my sidearm needs to be drawn, the potential to escalate the situation has already gone as high as it can go. In LE/Security, if you pull your firearm first, then you're doing it wrong. We're trained in a force continuum you know. We don't go shooting people or pulling out OC just because someone says, "F*** off, rent-a-cop!".

 

Mr. Septik,

 

As stated previously, I have a wealth of FIRST HAND experience in the mental health field, LE/Security and have dealt with suicide personally due to my own personal issues in the past.

You claim that gun control works? How so? All you have to go on is a handful of statistics. Do you even understand how this country of mine works? I'll answer that for you...NO.

You claim that just having a gun in the home allows one to be more successful. What about the guns that are responsibly locked away in those homes? Do your statistics account for that?

Other than reading a few bits and pieces of this or that, do you have any real world experience with firearms or suicide in general?

Ever worked in an ER?

We have pretty stringent gun-control laws already, how do guns still get into people's hands?

 

 

No statistics please because they're just tiring 100% of the time. Just answer straight-up.

Edited July 14, 2008 by Taktiq
multiple post merged

[Sayonara]

Taktiq, do not refer to other members in the debate as "Kiwi", even if it is the wrong person you quoted.

[SkepticLance]

Sayonara said, with much sarcasm....

 

"Sell much smaller guns to those people who want less death from their weapon."

 

The attitude of would-be suicides to the chosen method of attempting their own death appears to be a function of their psychology. I am not and never have been suicidal, so I have a real problem trying to understand the attitude. There seems to be a degree of 'double-think' as in ...

"I will try to kill myself. I will try to survive."

I do not understand it, but it appears to be real. The thing about guns is that, even if the would-be suicide is not truly trying to kill himself, it's gonna happen anyway.

 

If he cannot lay his hands on a gun, and tries a less lethal means, he is far more likely to survive. As pointed out, even jumping off a high place results in survival more often than not. The really determined suicide will probably succeed, even without guns, but tragically, the less determined person will die if a gun is used, even if they really want to live.

[Sayonara]

Sayonara said, with much sarcasm....

Actually it was partly getting in there before anyone else did, and partly trying to lighten up the thread a bit. Everyone seems to be gunning for each other, if you'll pardon the pun.

[SkepticLance]

To Sayonara

Sorry to mistake your humour for sarcasm. If Taktiq was referring to me as Kiwi, I do not mind. I am a New Zealander and proud of it, and the unofficial name for NZers is Kiwis - so that is fine.

 

I think he got confused, though, and was addressing Mr. Skeptic when he should have been addressing me.

 

Taktiq said :

 

"You claim that gun control works? How so? All you have to go on is a handful of statistics. Do you even understand how this country of mine works? I'll answer that for you...NO.

You claim that just having a gun in the home allows one to be more successful. What about the guns that are responsibly locked away in those homes? Do your statistics account for that?

Other than reading a few bits and pieces of this or that, do you have any real world experience with firearms or suicide in general?"

 

Assuming Taktiq was addressing me, I will make a couple of comments.

 

Do I understand how the US works? No. But I doubt that any American can make that claim either. The US is an enormous place, with numerous cultures and systems and often the entirely unexpected. I know enough about the US, both from reading and from personal visits, to know that there is too much for anyone to get a real understanding of the complex interactions.

 

Guns locked away? Sure. If everyone acted responsibly, there would be no problem. Does everyone act responsibly? Absolutely not!

 

Personal experience with firearms? Fortunately not much with hand-guns, for the reason that they are tightly restricted in my country. With shotguns and hunting rifles, yes. I was raised on a farm, and we used them to shoot pests. I have shot my share.

 

None of which has any bearing on my arguments anyway.

[iNow]

Do I understand how the US works? No.

 

Repeated for accuracy.

[Deja Vu]

The only way that statistic could be obtained is as an average.

 

An average between what though? That's why I asked you how the data was stratified.

 

Obviously, if someone were very serious about topping themselves, the place they chose to jump off would be rather high, and they would have a much higher chance than 47% of killing themselves. However, as I have said before, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not serious - more in the nature of cries for help - and jumping would often be from lower heights.

 

True, but this doesn't answer my question.

 

The tragedy with gun suicide is that most of those killing themselves with guns would also not be truly serious about wanting to die - but because guns are so damn lethal, they die anyway.

 

I don't think so. If the person really wasn't serious about suicide, they would most likely threaten to jump off a high place. Or jump into the water, rather than concrete. Most of the people who "fail" to commit suicide using a gun survive only because they happen to "miss".

 

Even to the extent that states with higher gun ownership also have higher rates of suicide. The conclusion that tighter gun control would lead to lower suicide rates is inescapable.

 

I thought it has already been demonstrated that states and nations with tighter gun control also happen to have higher suicide rates. That is, there is no correlation between gun control and lower suicide rates.

 

 

I understand that you want to save people, but sometimes some people are just simply beyond our help. And for all intents and purposes, it isn't the government's job to save people from themselves.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Deja Vu