2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flapp_Jackson on August 14, 2023, 11:20:47 AM
-
The CDC reported 49,500 adults committed suicide in the US in 2022.
The number of people who died by suicide in the U.S. hit an estimated
record 49,000 in 2022, a 2.6% increase over the prior year, government
data showed on Thursday.
Over half of all U.S. suicides in 2022 involved firearms, according to the
figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
"Nine in 10 Americans believe America is facing a mental health crisis.
The new suicide death data reported by CDC illustrates why," U.S. Health
Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-suicide-deaths-reached-record-high-2022-cdc-data-shows-2023-08-11/
In my mind, even if more people chose firearms to commit suicide in 2022, there's still half the total who did not use firearms. People choose the least painful, most effective means when seriously attempting suicide.
Guns are not the cause of suicide. Guns are simply a very effective method.
Consider the fact that more Liberals and first-time-buyers bought guns during the pandemic in part because of the riots, looting, and other rampant crime being unchecked by government. Are we going to now say new owners buying guns is causing more suicides? If not, then why were those already in possession of guns not killing themselves at this record rate?
Giving the CDC money to study gun stats was a huge mistake. Their agenda will never allow them to do more than argue for fewer guns.
-
Does anybody else feel like the deep state has finally jumped the shark?
I mean seriously who the hell is going to give up their guns NOW?
(https://media.tenor.com/kpClz6FhUwgAAAAM/happy-days-the-fonz.gif)
-
where did they blame guns for anything?
-
They are using the CDC to take guns away by making stuff up. Wait a few years, bumbai u see.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
where did they blame guns for anything?
Sorry. i picked one of several articles and videos on the topic, and it happened to be the least detailed.
Try this one. Also Google can help you out, too.
Experts caution that suicide is complicated, and that recent increases might be driven by a range of factors, including higher rates of depression and limited availability of mental health services.
But a main driver is the growing availability of guns, said Jill Harkavy-Friedman, senior vice president of research at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.
Suicide attempts involving guns end in death far more often than those with other means, and gun sales have boomed — placing firearms in more and more homes.
A recent Johns Hopkins University analysis used preliminary 2022 data to calculate that the nation’s overall gun suicide rate rose last year to an all-time high. For the first time, the gun suicide rate among Black teens surpassed the rate among white teens, the researchers found.
“I don’t know if you can talk about suicide without talking about firearms,” Harkavy-Friedman said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-health/cdc-data-finds-suicides-reached-time-high-2022-rcna99327
-
Here's da problem with suicide by gun. It is often not the real cause of death of a person. It can be a staged act, when a wife rigs up ("arranges") the death of her husband.
There was a "death by suicide" of a cop on a neighbor island. Like a lot of acts, it was covered up by local authorities.
On the mainland, we have the case of a "texting suicide" caused by a nasty woman messing with the mind of her boyfriend. He died by carbon monoxide poisoning. She was convicted of manslaughter. Do we ban cars, using CDC reasoning?
-
Here's da problem with suicide by gun. It is often not the real cause of death of a person. It can be a staged act, when a wife rigs up ("arranges") the death of her husband.
There was a "death by suicide" of a cop on a neighbor island. Like a lot of acts, it was covered up by local authorities.
On the mainland, we have the case of a "texting suicide" caused by a nasty woman messing with the mind of her boyfriend. He died by carbon monoxide poisoning. She was convicted of manslaughter. Do we ban cars, using CDC reasoning?
Try telling that to the anti-gun zealots. They don't want to hear logic and rational solutions. They only want guns to "disappear."
Their line of thinking says without a gun handy, the suicidal person will be forced to choose another, less lethal alternative means. Therefore, the person will possibly just injure themselves and have a higher likelihood of surviving the attempt.
In my line of reasoning, if guns account for 1/2 of suicides that succeed, obviously there are other means that are just as lethal as guns. That other 1/2 that didn't have a gun or chose not to use one found effective ways to end their lives.
The next highest methods from the CDC stats are suffocation and poisoning. The suffocation category includes hanging, strangulation and suffocations. Poisoning includes:
X60 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to nonopioid analgesics, antipyretics and
antirheumatics); X61 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to antiepileptic,
sedative-hypnotic, antiparkinsonism and psychotropic drugs, not elsewhere classified);
X62 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to narcotics and psychodysleptics [hallucinogens],
not elsewhere classified); X63 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other drugs acting
on the autonomic nervous system); X64 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other and
unspecified drugs, medicaments and biological substances); X65 (Intentional self-poisoning by
and exposure to alcohol); X66 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to organic solvents
and halogenated hydrocarbons and their vapours); X67 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure
to other gases and vapours); X68 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to pesticides);
X69 (Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified chemicals and noxious
substances)
Inhalation of carbon monoxide vapors is included as "poisoning."
It doesn't take much imagination to find methods that are just as lethal as using a firearm. The only difference is someone may find you and provide life saving treatment, whereas a firearm is instantaneous.
It used to be common for people to jump from tall buildings, but many building owners have installed windows that don't open or only open a couple of inches, and security systems preventing access to roofs. This method seems to be less common now. That's good news for passersby, but it doesn't mean suicidal people decided against it just because they can't jump from a great height.
Humans have a great many ways to kill. There's no reason to think anyone will be unable to find a way if they are truly committed to leaving this plane of existence.
-
There are around 40-45 gun suicides per year in Hawaii, and the success rate is far higher with a gun in Hawaii so it is a problem.
The gun community should watch after our own. Lookout for warning signs of people under distress and acting weird and just talk to them, be a friend and listen. Offer to hold their guns for a while. It's technically illegal, but could save a life.
-
Firearms are the most successful means of committing suicide, IIRC they are somewhere between 85% and 95% effective.
Suicide by firearm is also much more common among men. Women tend to choose means that are much less violent, much cleaner.
I think that firearms cannot be disregarded in terms of suicide numbers simply because they are more effective. If I decide to kill myself and have a gun I am more likely to succeed whereas many other methods offer me a chance to change my mind and rescue myself or get saved. Statistics support this, places with less access to firearms generally have lower suicide rates, however there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that suggest the gun itself makes someone magically more depressed or suicidal.
-
It's a fallacy that using a gun is "more successful" than other means of suicide.
The stat from the CDC proves that half the SUCCESSFUL suicides in almost every year involve means other than a firearm. So, the more accurate statement would be that guns are just as effective as -- and no more lethal than -- all other means used.
When comparing unsuccessful suicides to successful ones, again, don't get caught up in apples and oranges comparisons. Since guns do not result in as many UNSUCCESSFUL attempts as other means, then most will leap to the conclusion that there would be fewer suicides without guns. That's the fallacy.
The deciding factor is often in the potentially suicidal person's intentions. Quite often an attempt is a cry for attention -- an extreme attention-getting effort to ask for help. That often includes using the attempt to guilt a partner or other person for something they might have done or not done. These people will pick a sleeping pill or narcotic pain pill overdose, overdose of OTC meds like aspirin, alcohol poisoning, rat poison, and so on. They are often not as committed to ending their lives as they are demonstrating they are willing to try if that's what it takes to get attention and help. They know if treatment is received soon enough, they still have a good chance to live.
So, if you want to compare UNSUCCESSFUL suicide attempts and the means used, be careful. Just because someone attempts suicide doesn't mean they fully intended to end their lives.
Using a stat like "Firearms are the most successful means of committing suicide, IIRC they are somewhere between 85% and 95% effective" proves my point. "Effective' equates to "successful", as opposed to the other means that have a lower "success rate." To assign the same level of commitment to those who chose a "less effective" means is a flawed assumption.
-
Firearms are the most successful means of committing suicide, IIRC they are somewhere between 85% and 95% effective.
Suicide by firearm is also much more common among men. Women tend to choose means that are much less violent, much cleaner.
I think that firearms cannot be disregarded in terms of suicide numbers simply because they are more effective. If I decide to kill myself and have a gun I am more likely to succeed whereas many other methods offer me a chance to change my mind and rescue myself or get saved. Statistics support this, places with less access to firearms generally have lower suicide rates, however there is no evidence (that I am aware of) that suggest the gun itself makes someone magically more depressed or suicidal.
Jump off a tall bulding, 100% success.
Submerge in water with a weight tied, 100% success
Hanging alone, 100% success
Choke urself out, 0% sucess
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Men are most successful at committing suicide. How many women have you heard of Kurt Cobaining themselves vs reaching for the sleeping pills?
-
Men are most successful at committing suicide. How many women have you heard of Kurt Cobaining themselves vs reaching for the sleeping pills?
True. Women will more often than men be concerned with the mess they leave behind, the horror for family members of finding a gunshot scene vs. a lifeless body from OD, etc.
A friend of a friend's husband wanted to kill himself, but he didn't want his family nor some stranger finding his body. So he went to a park (I seem to remember it was Blaisdell park, but I might not be remembering). He found a ditch, called 911 to report a body in there, and shot himself. Very considerate, all things considered, but still devastating to his family. This amount of planning and consideration is rare, but it is more common with women than men.
The Golden Gate Bridge normally averaged between 30 and 40 suicides per year that authorities know of. Now, with the installation of new barriers to try and prevent jumping, there have been 5 confirmed suicide jumps compared to 22 last year.
Does that mean those 20-30 suicidal people decided to live since the barricade made jumping more difficult? No way to gather those stats I imagine. But, jumping from such a high bridge and being washed down river leaves no mess or body for friends or family to discover.
-
Difference between using a gun and other methods is guns are instantaneous and relatively easy to do, unless you use a 22lr. Like cutting wrists take time to bleed out. The fall from a ledge is terrifying. Drinking Drano is excruciating pain for a long time. Hanging is difficult to do without pain.
-
The Golden Gate Bridge normally averaged between 30 and 40 suicides per year that authorities know of. Now, with the installation of new barriers to try and prevent jumping, there have been 5 confirmed suicide jumps compared to 22 last year.
I heard it described as breaking lots of bones from the impact and then slowly drowning in chilly water because you're unable to swim.
-
Don't forget that about a year or 2 ago, the CDC labeled gun deaths a "pandemic:". This is another step in the long term plan to ban guns via this route.
-
It's a fallacy that using a gun is "more successful" than other means of suicide.
Since guns do not result in as many UNSUCCESSFUL attempts as other means…
If other means result in fewer completed suicides, tell me again how guns are not more likely to result in a completed suicide?
-
Don't forget that about a year or 2 ago, the CDC labeled gun deaths a "pandemic:". This is another step in the long term plan to ban guns via this route.
Have you got a link or source where the CDC actually said that? Couldn’t find it with a quick search…
-
Have you got a link or source where the CDC actually said that? Couldn’t find it with a quick search…
It was on their website
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
It was on their website
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Dug a little deeper, still couldn’t find anything. Just seems unlikely to me, since “pandemic” has an actual definition that they use.
-
Dug a little deeper, still couldn’t find anything. Just seems unlikely to me, since “pandemic” has an actual definition that they use.
I'm pretty sure I heard about the CDC classifying firearm suicides as a pandemic. I'm positive our politicians have classified it as a pandemic.
-
corruption is a pandemic in Hawaii.
Kealohas, Honolulu City and County DPP, the Rail Project, 2 legislators caught taking cash bribes: Cullen and English
-
epidemic is the word you want.
-
https://youtu.be/tO8tSgCyMcI
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
Dug a little deeper, still couldn’t find anything. Just seems unlikely to me, since “pandemic” has an actual definition that they use.
It was published about the time covid was peak ending, so like 2021ish. This is from memory and I know what I saw. So maybe they deleted it or buried it. I won't be searching, too busy right now.
Because I was thinking that if they can use the covid pandemic to take rights away, if you label gun deaths the same, they can try that route as well to take guns away.
-
If other means result in fewer completed suicides, tell me again how guns are not more likely to result in a completed suicide?
Show me where i said that.
I can show you where i explained that the people using that attempt to get attention vs. actually ending their lives will opt out of using guns.
How many people who choose a firearm would you guess are just looking for attention and help? Nope. They already made up their minds to end it all, and they chose the simplest, most immediate and sure way to do it. Of course there are fewer survivors from gunshots by the very nature of the means they chose.
i can also show you where I pointed out that 50% of the successful suicide attempts did not use guns, and the other 50% did.
You have to separate the successful and unsuccessful attempts. Otherwise you fall into the fallacy of "if only they didn't have a gun, they would still be here". how does that make sense when half the successful suicides didn't use a gun?
The unsuccessful ones didn't just survive because they didn't have access to a gun. People have gone to ranges and rented a gun to commit suicide on site.
Anti-gunners will blame the guns for fewer survivors. The reality is there are survivors because many, if not most of them, were not 100% committed to killing themselves. They chose less effective means so they would have that chance of "being saved."
-
Declaring U.S. gun violence an "epidemic" and "an international embarrassment,"
President Biden outlined actions to regulate certain firearms and to try to prevent
gun violence after a spate of mass shootings in recent weeks and pressure from
advocates.
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/985359064/it-has-to-stop-biden-takes-initial-action-on-guns-calls-on-congress-to-do-more
CDC Director: Gun Violence Is A Public Health Crisis
For the first time in decades, the director of the US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention — the nation’s top public health agency — is speaking out
forcefully about gun violence in America, calling it a “serious public health threat.”
“Something has to be done about this,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky
said in an exclusive interview with CNN. “Now is the time — it’s pedal to the
metal time.”
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/08/27/cdc-gun-violence-n49412
You can nitpick over pandemic, epidemic, health crisis, or whatever else. It all amounts to the same thing -- using the CDC and declaring gun in the US some kind of out-of-control, health-related problem gives government another avenue from which to attack gun rights.
-
Show me where i said that.
It's a fallacy that using a gun is "more successful" than other means of suicide.
I just chose to call it a “completed” suicide rather than a “successful” one.
No, you don’t have to separate completed suicides from attempts. That skews the data. The dataset would be all attempts, and then look at the percentage of attempts using a firearm that were completed, and the percentage of those using other means that were completed.
-
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/08/985359064/it-has-to-stop-biden-takes-initial-action-on-guns-calls-on-congress-to-do-more
CDC Director: Gun Violence Is A Public Health Crisishttps://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2021/08/27/cdc-gun-violence-n49412
You can nitpick over pandemic, epidemic, health crisis, or whatever else. It all amounts to the same thing -- using the CDC and declaring gun in the US some kind of out-of-control, health-related problem gives government another avenue from which to attack gun rights.
So, the CDC didn’t call it a pandemic. Got it.
-
So, the CDC didn’t call it a pandemic. Got it.
Show me where i said they did.
-
I just chose to call it a “completed” suicide rather than a “successful” one.
No, you don’t have to separate completed suicides from attempts. That skews the data. The dataset would be all attempts, and then look at the percentage of attempts using a firearm that were completed, and the percentage of those using other means that were completed.
No. Combining the two sets of data skews them both.
Do you even know the meaning of "skew"?
it's when you have data that is incorrect, inaccurate or not part of a dataset which when combines created a bias or distortion of the results.
For example, if I want to look at the data for COVID deaths, and i don't account for age, co-morbidities, and immunity-compromised patients, those data points would likely skew the results in ways that make any conclusions useless.
By not excluding unsuccessful (incomplete?) suicides from the data, you are skewing the numbers toward a bias -- that being the preconception that having access to gun leads to more suicides. While there is a correlation between guns and the effectiveness they offer over SOME alternative means, the correlation does not indicate that reducing gun access will result in fewer suicides.
Again, if 50% of successful suicides do not use guns, why would you believe taking away guns would necessarily stop a suicide from succeeding if they pick one of the other top 2-3 methods -- which we know were just as lethal as guns for about the same percentage of deaths?
"Skew" is a term i'm very familiar with throughout my career. Setting up reports and charts for high level decision makers requires that the input not be skewed for any foreseeable cause -- else the decisions are being made on erroneously aggregated data.
If you look at the current data, it proves that most people do not use firearms to commit suicide -- successful and unsuccessful combined. The only reason the rate of deaths from suicide without firearms isn't much higher than with is because the people who survive are either incompetent or never really wanted to die. That group already proved non-firearm methods are lethal, so why so many failed attempts? Why are we not concerned with stopping the non-firearm attempts, since there are many more of them?
-
Again, if 50% of successful suicides do not use guns, why would you believe taking away guns would necessarily stop a suicide from succeeding if they pick one of the other top 2-3 methods -- which we know were just as lethal as guns for about the same percentage of deaths?
Show me where I said that.
Setting up reports and charts for high level decision makers requires that the input not be skewed for any foreseeable cause -- else the decisions are being made on erroneously aggregated data.
Oh, you’ve set up reports and charts for high-level decision makers. So have I.
The only reason the rate of deaths from suicide without firearms isn't much higher than with is because the people who survive are either incompetent or never really wanted to die.
Pure speculation.
If you’re looking for what means is more effective, you take the completed suicides where a firearm was used as a percentage of total attempts where a firearm was used, and compare it to the completed attempts by other means as a percentage of total attempts using other means; that gives you the relative completion rate.
Say there were 100 total attempts, 30 of which were completed. Out of the 100 total attempts, 30 involved firearms and 70 were “all other means.” In our notional dataset, of the 30 completed attempts, 15 involved firearms and 15 were other means. If I’m reading you correctly, you’d say that “other means” are just as deadly as firearms because they resulted in the same number of completions. I’m saying that of all attempts that involved firearms, 15 of 30 (83%) of total attempts where a firearm was used were completed, while only 25 of 70 (36%) of total attempts by other means were completed, meaning that using a firearm is significantly more likely (in this notional dataset) to result in a completed suicide. Comparing the number of firearms-related complete suicides to “other means” completed suicides doesn’t yield useful results if you’re trying to figure out which means is more likely to end with a completed suicide.
-
Show me where I said that.
Oh, you’ve set up reports and charts for high-level decision makers. So have I.
Pure speculation.
If you’re looking for what means is more effective, you take the completed suicides where a firearm was used as a percentage of total attempts where a firearm was used, and compare it to the completed attempts by other means as a percentage of total attempts using other means; that gives you the relative completion rate.
Say there were 100 total attempts, 30 of which were completed. Out of the 100 total attempts, 30 involved firearms and 70 were “all other means.” In our notional dataset, of the 30 completed attempts, 15 involved firearms and 15 were other means. If I’m reading you correctly, you’d say that “other means” are just as deadly as firearms because they resulted in the same number of completions. I’m saying that of all attempts that involved firearms, 15 of 30 (83%) of total attempts where a firearm was used were completed, while only 25 of 70 (36%) of total attempts by other means were completed, meaning that using a firearm is significantly more likely (in this notional dataset) to result in a completed suicide. Comparing the number of firearms-related complete suicides to “other means” completed suicides doesn’t yield useful results if you’re trying to figure out which means is more likely to end with a completed suicide.
You're assuming all non-firearm methods are just as effective, lethal and accessible as one another. You're not creating sub-categories for most lethal and least lethal. That means someone who attempts suicide with half a bottle of Bayer aspirin is treated the same as the guy who hangs himself using a 10 foot drop and proper noose.
The CDC lists the top two most effective non-firearm methods as suffocation and poison. Your data doesn't account for comparative lethality and effectiveness within the entire non-firearm group.
if you are arguing guns are more lethal and effective tools for killing than many other methods, I can go along with that.
If you're arguing that fewer suicides would be completed if there were fewer guns accessible to the public, well .... you know where that goes.
-
It's a fallacy that using a gun is "more successful" than other means of suicide.
The stat from the CDC proves that half the SUCCESSFUL suicides in almost every year involve means other than a firearm. So, the more accurate statement would be that guns are just as effective as -- and no more lethal than -- all other means used.
When comparing unsuccessful suicides to successful ones, again, don't get caught up in apples and oranges comparisons. Since guns do not result in as many UNSUCCESSFUL attempts as other means, then most will leap to the conclusion that there would be fewer suicides without guns. That's the fallacy.
The deciding factor is often in the potentially suicidal person's intentions. Quite often an attempt is a cry for attention -- an extreme attention-getting effort to ask for help. That often includes using the attempt to guilt a partner or other person for something they might have done or not done. These people will pick a sleeping pill or narcotic pain pill overdose, overdose of OTC meds like aspirin, alcohol poisoning, rat poison, and so on. They are often not as committed to ending their lives as they are demonstrating they are willing to try if that's what it takes to get attention and help. They know if treatment is received soon enough, they still have a good chance to live.
So, if you want to compare UNSUCCESSFUL suicide attempts and the means used, be careful. Just because someone attempts suicide doesn't mean they fully intended to end their lives.
Using a stat like "Firearms are the most successful means of committing suicide, IIRC they are somewhere between 85% and 95% effective" proves my point. "Effective' equates to "successful", as opposed to the other means that have a lower "success rate." To assign the same level of commitment to those who chose a "less effective" means is a flawed assumption.
Yes and no.
Since you have the human element which would include chickening out, changing one's mind, and experimenting/not seriously trying, it is a little more complicated. Any method is 100% effective if one does it right.
Obviously human determination is a big factor but if you look at it from the perspective of the method already having been done that is where firearms are more effective. If someone shoots themselves in the head, their chances of survival are very very low. Compare that to almost any other common method. Aside from jumping from a very tall building, almost all methods are reversible. With a hanging the person can cut the rope or stand up. With a poisoning or cut wrist they can go to the hospital. With gasses that cause death someone can get to fresh air. Etc.
To clarify, when I said more effective I didn't mean what were statistically the most common methods of suicide, but which means of suicide were most successful when tried. I don't think the gun makes a depressed person braver necessarily (it might but that's another question) but once the use the gun they are going to be more effective at killing themselves. So for example if 20 people are shot in the head and taken to the hospital vs 20 people cutting their wrists and then being taken to the hospital you are going to see more of the wrist cutters survive than the people shot in the head.
There have been a number of studies that show higher levels of suicides correlate with higher prevalence of guns being present. One of the strongest examples of this was in Switzerland which cut the military by about half around 2003. Switzerland saw a large reduction in the number of suicide with army weapons but didn't see an increase in suicide with non-army weapons. On top of that, overall there was an 8% drop in suicide among men. These guys didn't simply go grab a rope or sleeping pills instead, they committed suicide at a lower rate. Of course that doesn't mean we need to ban guns but I think to be intellectually honest we need to admit having a firearm does correlate with higher rates of suicide.
-
I heard it described as breaking lots of bones from the impact and then slowly drowning in chilly water because you're unable to swim.
There was a documentary about suicides on the golden gate bridge. A guy set up a camera recording for a whole year. He caught on video about 30 people jumping (in daylight) and interviewed some of the family members to hear the person's stories. He also talked to a couple people who jumped then changed their mind mid jump and somehow managed to survive the impact.
A very somber movie but interesting
-
Yes and no.
Since you have the human element which would include chickening out, changing one's mind, and experimenting/not seriously trying, it is a little more complicated. Any method is 100% effective if one does it right.
Obviously human determination is a big factor but if you look at it from the perspective of the method already having been done that is where firearms are more effective. If someone shoots themselves in the head, their chances of survival are very very low. Compare that to almost any other common method. Aside from jumping from a very tall building, almost all methods are reversible. With a hanging the person can cut the rope or stand up. With a poisoning or cut wrist they can go to the hospital. With gasses that cause death someone can get to fresh air. Etc.
To clarify, when I said more effective I didn't mean what were statistically the most common methods of suicide, but which means of suicide were most successful when tried. I don't think the gun makes a depressed person braver necessarily (it might but that's another question) but once the use the gun they are going to be more effective at killing themselves. So for example if 20 people are shot in the head and taken to the hospital vs 20 people cutting their wrists and then being taken to the hospital you are going to see more of the wrist cutters survive than the people shot in the head.
There have been a number of studies that show higher levels of suicides correlate with higher prevalence of guns being present. One of the strongest examples of this was in Switzerland which cut the military by about half around 2003. Switzerland saw a large reduction in the number of suicide with army weapons but didn't see an increase in suicide with non-army weapons. On top of that, overall there was an 8% drop in suicide among men. These guys didn't simply go grab a rope or sleeping pills instead, they committed suicide at a lower rate. Of course that doesn't mean we need to ban guns but I think to be intellectually honest we need to admit having a firearm does correlate with higher rates of suicide.
Studies also show that people who commit suicide have a reason, such as mental health problems, drug and alcohol intoxication, traumatic life events, financial situations, relationship problems, etc.
Those are actual causes of suicide. Guns are not a cause.
Once again, guns are used as often as non-firearm means. To be intellectually honest, maybe look at that comparison before admitting "having a firearm does correlate with higher rates of suicide." Since when does 50% equate to a "higher rate?" Higher rate than what?
-
There was a documentary about suicides on the golden gate bridge. A guy set up a camera recording for a whole year. He caught on video about 30 people jumping (in daylight) and interviewed some of the family members to hear the person's stories. He also talked to a couple people who jumped then changed their mind mid jump and somehow managed to survive the impact.
A very somber movie but interesting
I'd like to see this documentary just to hear those people who changed their minds "mid jump" explain what they did to survive the impact. ???
Do you recall any information that would help me find this documentary?
-
I'd like to see this documentary just to hear those people who changed their minds "mid jump" explain what they did to survive the impact. ???
Do you recall any information that would help me find this documentary?
Fear is a natural response to immediate danger and possible death. If someone jumps to commit suicide, then says they are no longer wanting to die before reaching the end, they are stating a purely emotional and physical response to danger. it doesn't mean they changed their mind about living. it just means their natural instinct for self preservation kicked in. if they changed their mind on an intellectual level as they plummeted, then it means they never really considered or appreciated what dying means.
The Walking Dead had 2 very good portrayals of characters wanting to end their lives. One was Andrea, who wanted to die after learning the virus that caused reanimation of corpses was already in everyone -- you turn without any bites or scratches from walkers. That's an emotional reaction -- stacked on top of the loss she experienced just a couple days before when her sister was bitten and Andrea put a bullet in her head after she turned.
The other was Beth. After seeing the walkers come out of the barn, including her mother and others she'd known, she tried to get her sister, Maggie, to join her in suicide. This request was after Beth came out of a catatonic state. The shock from the emotional trauma made her want to just run away from reality.
In both cases, they found they didn't really want to die -- they just didn't see a point in living. Once faced with their imminent deaths, self preservation kicked in. They "changed their minds."
But did they? People often regret decisions they made under stress, out of emotion and with rationalized justifications. It's only when faced with the reality of their decisions, they experience fear over that reality.
It doesn't mean they have any less desire to die. It means they are too afraid to go through with it. Once someone attempts suicide, they are forever treated as someone at risk for suicide, because a failed attempt does not necessarily indicate a complete 180 in the choice they already found convincing.
-
Studies also show that people who commit suicide have a reason, such as mental health problems, drug and alcohol intoxication, traumatic life events, financial situations, relationship problems, etc.
That is why I am saying that having the firearm doesn't cause someone to attempt suicide.
Once again, guns are used as often as non-firearm means. To be intellectually honest, maybe look at that comparison before admitting "having a firearm does correlate with higher rates of suicide." Since when does 50% equate to a "higher rate?" Higher rate than what?
Higher than places without access to firearms.
The rate at which firearms are used vs the rate at which other methods are used is a separate issue. I was talking about the rate of suicides when firearms are accessible vs the rate of suicides when firearms are not accessible.
-
I'd like to see this documentary just to hear those people who changed their minds "mid jump" explain what they did to survive the impact. ???
Do you recall any information that would help me find this documentary?
It was called "The Bridge" The name isn't very original.
https://watchdocumentaries.com/the-bridge/
I cannot recall the answers to those specific questions but I think they covered it. It does make you wonder how many people jumped and instantly regretted it but didn't survive to tell.... :(
-
That is why I am saying that having the firearm doesn't cause someone to attempt suicide.
Higher than places without access to firearms.
The rate at which firearms are used vs the rate at which other methods are used is a separate issue. I was talking about the rate of suicides when firearms are accessible vs the rate of suicides when firearms are not accessible.
The US is #31 among all countries for suicide rate.
Now you need to define what you mean by "access to guns." Number of guns in public hands, number in the country total, how difficult the laws are to purchase and own firearms and ammo, ... What stat are you referring to?
I assume you know this stat already, since you just made a conclusion that a higher accessibility to firearms correlates to the country's suicide rate, and by deductive reasoning, suicides should be lower where guns are less accessible.
Let's start with #30 in that list: Samoa.
In Samoa, private ownership of shotguns and rifles is restricted, handguns are
prohibited, and all applicants for a firearm license must show a genuine reason
for ownership.
In Samoa, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit)
per 100 people in Samoa is
2017: 103
2002: 9.95
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/samoa
So, does that sound like there is greater access to firearms? Their suicide rate is 14.6 compared to ours at 14.5.
Given your conclusion, we should be able to identify countries with better access to guns by simply looking at that suicide rate. let's try another.
#22 -- Belarus
In Belarus, only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire,
possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
In Belarus, the right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law.
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit)
per 100 people in Belarus is
2017: 6.093
2005: 7.29
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/belarus
Let's see how that number of guns in private hands compared to the US:
In the United States, the right to private gun ownership is conditionally guaranteed
by the US Constitution, as limited by federal law. For similar local rights, see each state.
The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit)
per 100 people in the United States is
2017: 120.503
2005: 101.054
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
What?? That can't be right!! In 2017, the US had a private gun ownership rate of 120.503 per 100 people, compared to Samoa and Belarus at 103 and 6.093 respectively. Plus, only the US guarantees an individual the right to own firearms.
Isn't 120 greater than 103 and 6? Yet, the US has a lower suicide rate than both of those places.
I'm not going to bother looking up all 30 countries' gun ownership numbers. It only takes a couple of contrary examples to disprove a hypothesis.
i'm sure you're going to tell us now how what you said isn't what you meant to say .... again. :popcorn:
-
It was called "The Bridge" The name isn't very original.
https://watchdocumentaries.com/the-bridge/
I cannot recall the answers to those specific questions but I think they covered it. It does make you wonder how many people jumped and instantly regretted it but didn't survive to tell.... :(
Yeah, I read that 5% survives the jump. And 4 seconds to drop into the water. Those that jumped and then regretted it, I bet those 4 seconds were the longest seconds they experienced before they died.
And I wonder if all of them regretted it after they jumped. Too late now. Makes me sad to think that.
Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.
-
Two questions I've yet to see answered honestly and satisfactorily are:
1. Can we stop anyone from committing suicide by taking away every possible implement or substance that could be lethal? People identified as suicidal are usually put in a room or cell for observation -- on "suicide watch." Someone is monitoring them 24 hours a day and looking into their room at regular intervals -- unless your last name is Epstein. But, I digress...
2. Do we have a duty -- or a right -- to stop anyone who chooses suicide? Unless we can diagnose an observable mental illness that can impair judgement, is it ethical to stop someone who is of sound mind from taking their own life? If you're Catholic, then you're saving someone from an eternity of damnation, but beyond religious consequences, why do most people feel that it's our job to stop everybody from committing suicide?
We have lengthy debates about assisted suicide. In certain circumstances, such as terminal illnesses, most people would say the individual has the right to end their own life. Some even believe it's compassionate to end another's life, as in cases of paraplegia or coma (not all comas indicate brain death).
So, CAN we, and SHOULD we are important questions. Some cultures hold/held the belief that if you save another person from death, you are then responsible for the person for as long as you & they live. If someone was going to solve their poverty, health or other problems through checking out, and you intervene, you must now take care of that person rather than leave them to deal with those problems on their own.
-
The US is #31 among all countries for suicide rate.
Now you need to define what you mean by "access to guns." Number of guns in public hands, number in the country total, how difficult the laws are to purchase and own firearms and ammo, ... What stat are you referring to?
I assume you know this stat already, since you just made a conclusion that a higher accessibility to firearms correlates to the country's suicide rate, and by deductive reasoning, suicides should be lower where guns are less accessible.
Let's start with #30 in that list: Samoa.https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/samoa
So, does that sound like there is greater access to firearms? Their suicide rate is 14.6 compared to ours at 14.5.
Given your conclusion, we should be able to identify countries with better access to guns by simply looking at that suicide rate. let's try another.
#22 -- Belarushttps://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/belarus
Let's see how that number of guns in private hands compared to the US:https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
What?? That can't be right!! In 2017, the US had a private gun ownership rate of 120.503 per 100 people, compared to Samoa and Belarus at 103 and 6.093 respectively. Plus, only the US guarantees an individual the right to own firearms.
Isn't 120 greater than 103 and 6? Yet, the US has a lower suicide rate than both of those places.
I'm not going to bother looking up all 30 countries' gun ownership numbers. It only takes a couple of contrary examples to disprove a hypothesis.
i'm sure you're going to tell us now how what you said isn't what you meant to say .... again. :popcorn:
It is not as simple as plugging in firearms and suicide rates. For example Japan has a higher suicide rate but much much less access to firearms. There are obviously other variables such as culture, economics, alcohol useage, etc that can play a role.
That is why better studies find ways of comparing the same groups. The study about the suicide rate in Switzerland would be considered a good sociological study because it took a population and compared it to itself before and after a key change to one variable. This helps eliminate variables such as you would see by comparing one country to another. Another example would be when a state implements a new gun law. You can then measure the change using just the residents of that state before and after the law. There are a few studies which suggest that waiting periods may reduce overall suicide rates.
I could go into more explanation but since you seem to have a knee jerk defensive reaction to admitting even the slightest strength to any anti-gun arguments I don't really see the point. Ideology drives your arguments, not a search for the murky truth somewhere inbetween.
-
Two questions I've yet to see answered honestly and satisfactorily are:
1. Can we stop anyone from committing suicide by taking away every possible implement or substance that could be lethal? People identified as suicidal are usually put in a room or cell for observation -- on "suicide watch." Someone is monitoring them 24 hours a day and looking into their room at regular intervals -- unless your last name is Epstein. But, I digress...
2. Do we have a duty -- or a right -- to stop anyone who chooses suicide? Unless we can diagnose an observable mental illness that can impair judgement, is it ethical to stop someone who is of sound mind from taking their own life? If you're Catholic, then you're saving someone from an eternity of damnation, but beyond religious consequences, why do most people feel that it's our job to stop everybody from committing suicide?
We have lengthy debates about assisted suicide. In certain circumstances, such as terminal illnesses, most people would say the individual has the right to end their own life. Some even believe it's compassionate to end another's life, as in cases of paraplegia or coma (not all comas indicate brain death).
So, CAN we, and SHOULD we are important questions. Some cultures hold/held the belief that if you save another person from death, you are then responsible for the person for as long as you & they live. If someone was going to solve their poverty, health or other problems through checking out, and you intervene, you must now take care of that person rather than leave them to deal with those problems on their own.
1. Can anyone stop you from committing without putting you in a cell and guarding you 24/7? No of course not, suicide is not an all or nothing, that we either lock people up or we have no effect. No method would ever be 100% effective at eliminating suicide.
2. Do we have a duty and/or right? I would say that for most instances, society has answered that question in the affirmative. The exception to that rule would be assisted suicide for people in intense pain which does not share such universal sentiment but is also very different. Outside of physician assisted suicide, why do we feel that its our job to stop people from committing suicide? Because we recognize that this person is in a temporary traumatic situation, that they are often not thinking clearly, and can usually overcome that temporary situation with help.
-
1. Can anyone stop you from committing without putting you in a cell and guarding you 24/7? No of course not, suicide is not an all or nothing, that we either lock people up or we have no effect. No method would ever be 100% effective at eliminating suicide.
2. Do we have a duty and/or right? I would say that for most instances, society has answered that question in the affirmative. The exception to that rule would be assisted suicide for people in intense pain which does not share such universal sentiment but is also very different. Outside of physician assisted suicide, why do we feel that its our job to stop people from committing suicide? Because we recognize that this person is in a temporary traumatic situation, that they are often not thinking clearly, and can usually overcome that temporary situation with help.
So in your mind, Q #2 is a matter of situational ethics. Depending on the person's circumstances, we should (as a society) not only permit it, but assist it.
Nobody can predict what tomorrow holds for us -- especially when making that prediction for someone else.
Who is responsible for stopping attempts to end one's own life? Are you responsible? Are you trained in talking someone into seeing their situation is temporary? Is it reasonable to make suicide hotlines available for people to talk? That's probably a good thing for people who only need someone to listen and maybe refer them to agencies that can address whatever they are suffering from.
Have you ever seen the movie Ordinary People? A little dated now, but you should watch it if you haven't.
-
The US is #31 among all countries for suicide rate.
Better number would be rank among developed countries where the US is a bit higher than average. Japan and South Korea lead the pack.
The primary factors affecting numbers is the why. Community and family pressure, individualism, religion, support, etc. Secondary is the method through guns, falls, etc. Gun ownership increases the numbers a bit like I mentioned before, the immediacy of it, but not a major factor relatively due to alternatives like jumping off the H3. In my testimonies my focus was on tackling the root of the problem instead of the methods.
I would think Samoas suicide rate would be lower due to religion and family/community ties. But I guess they're in a transition limbo. They are becoming more.modern in good and bad ways like technology while drug abuse and breaking of family bonds and religion take place. At the same time they don't have the resources or opportunities for the youth.
-
As far as should we stop suicides.
We should try to stop them as the vast majority of them just need time, help and support but knowing the final decision rests with that person. Abortion and suicide are very similar issues.
Better yet, prevent the situation from occuring in the first place by treating others better, teaching children how to deal with stress, and improving social bonds.
-
So in your mind, Q #2 is a matter of situational ethics. Depending on the person's circumstances, we should (as a society) not only permit it, but assist it.
Nobody can predict what tomorrow holds for us -- especially when making that prediction for someone else.
Who is responsible for stopping attempts to end one's own life? Are you responsible? Are you trained in talking someone into seeing their situation is temporary? Is it reasonable to make suicide hotlines available for people to talk? That's probably a good thing for people who only need someone to listen and maybe refer them to agencies that can address whatever they are suffering from.
Have you ever seen the movie Ordinary People? A little dated now, but you should watch it if you haven't.
Situational ethics... that might be a fair way to put it. I would hesitate to use that phrase because it almost sounds like saying someone only has ethics sometimes even though what I think you mean is that the ethical decision would depend on the situation.
A person terminally ill in constant pain, a depressed teenager, a soldier crashing a plan into an enemy craft, all different situations. I think some are more clearly acceptable or unacceptable and some are in a more gray area.
So who is responsible for stopping attempts to end one's own life? Anyone potentially but it depends on that situation.
I have not seen that movie, I will have to check it out.
-
It is not as simple as plugging in firearms and suicide rates. For example Japan has a higher suicide rate but much much less access to firearms. There are obviously other variables such as culture, economics, alcohol useage, etc that can play a role.
That is why better studies find ways of comparing the same groups. The study about the suicide rate in Switzerland would be considered a good sociological study because it took a population and compared it to itself before and after a key change to one variable. This helps eliminate variables such as you would see by comparing one country to another. Another example would be when a state implements a new gun law. You can then measure the change using just the residents of that state before and after the law. There are a few studies which suggest that waiting periods may reduce overall suicide rates.
I could go into more explanation but since you seem to have a knee jerk defensive reaction to admitting even the slightest strength to any anti-gun arguments I don't really see the point. Ideology drives your arguments, not a search for the murky truth somewhere inbetween.
U should ask coworkers who work in waikiki, precovid, what was the jap tourist daily suicide average.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
It is not as simple as plugging in firearms and suicide rates. For example Japan has a higher suicide rate but much much less access to firearms. There are obviously other variables such as culture, economics, alcohol useage, etc that can play a role.
That is why better studies find ways of comparing the same groups. The study about the suicide rate in Switzerland would be considered a good sociological study because it took a population and compared it to itself before and after a key change to one variable. This helps eliminate variables such as you would see by comparing one country to another. Another example would be when a state implements a new gun law. You can then measure the change using just the residents of that state before and after the law. There are a few studies which suggest that waiting periods may reduce overall suicide rates.
I could go into more explanation but since you seem to have a knee jerk defensive reaction to admitting even the slightest strength to any anti-gun arguments I don't really see the point. Ideology drives your arguments, not a search for the murky truth somewhere inbetween.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: If only you had as much perception into your own arguments.
You think there is always a solution even when the problem has been defined by people who incorporate their ideology into the definition.
When you study "gun crimes" or "gun suicides," you are already putting the focus on guns -- nothing else. At that point, if the soltuion set doesn't contain "fewer guns" at it's center, you aren't addressing the stated problem.
How can anyone solve an actual problem when the cause is always "too many guns?"
Define the ACTUAL problem, and then maybe my responses won't be as dismissive.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: If only you had as much perception into your own arguments.
You think there is always a solution even when the problem has been defined by people who incorporate their ideology into the definition.
When you study "gun crimes" or "gun suicides," you are already putting the focus on guns -- nothing else. At that point, if the soltuion set doesn't contain "fewer guns" at it's center, you aren't addressing the stated problem.
How can anyone solve an actual problem when the cause is always "too many guns?"
Define the ACTUAL problem, and then maybe my responses won't be as dismissive.
There has to be some focus on guns because like it or not guns are part of the overall equation. It isn't simply a co-existing factor with no bearing on anything. It is like the rebuttal "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is technically true but completely ignores that guns make people better at killing people.
Eating too many calories makes someone gain weight but it would be wrong to say the source of the calorie makes no difference.
Note that I never talked about solutions or having too many guns. I only pointed to the statistical data that there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and suicide. I understand that this can be used as an argument against firearm ownership but ignoring the data doesn't make it change. I can acknowledge there are some legitimate problems with private gun ownership.
-
There has to be some focus on guns because like it or not guns are part of the overall equation. It isn't simply a co-existing factor with no bearing on anything. It is like the rebuttal "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is technically true but completely ignores that guns make people better at killing people.
Eating too many calories makes someone gain weight but it would be wrong to say the source of the calorie makes no difference.
Note that I never talked about solutions or having too many guns. I only pointed to the statistical data that there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and suicide. I understand that this can be used as an argument against firearm ownership but ignoring the data doesn't make it change. I can acknowledge there are some legitimate problems with private gun ownership.
If we look at two variables, shark attacks and ice cream sales, we know intuitively that there's no way one variable has a cause-and-effect impact on the other. However, both shark attacks and ice cream sales will have greater numbers in summer months, so they will be strongly correlated with each other.
If there are trends and patterns in the data based on some relationships between certain variables, then that can potentially warrant additional study and research.
But to say, "there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and suicide," flies in the face of scientific methodology and statistical analysis. So far, you haven't offered a bit of evidence that shows that relationship. Was it a positive vs negative relationship? Was it a linear vs non-linear relationship? Has there been changes in the variables over time that further demonstrate the persistence of those relationships?
Yes, a gun makes people better at killing people -- other than themselves. Suicides without a gun are just as affective as using a gun. That's what the data shows. Take away guns, and the number of suicides will remain the same -- only more will choose suffocation or poison.
-
For decades the CDC has been just another mouth piece for the anti gun crowd. I would take any stats
from them with a large dose of skepticism.
For the sake of the argument, let us take their stats as correct. It is no surprise that more people
have recently experienced an increasing amount of stress due to high inflation, increasing crimes of theft
and violence, and a non existant border with drugs pouring thru in record amounts. Our major cities
have become cess pools of crime and filth. Illegal aliens are given free room and board while we have
few means of dealing with our homelessness.Government over reach and open hostility toward a large
segment of the population hardly inspires confidence in ourselves and our leadership.
When people have a hard time paying for food, rent/ mortgages, transportation, etc.and have to reduce their
standard of living you can bet they will have a major depression problem to deal with. Thanks to Joe Biden
we have higher energy costs. We buy more of our energy from people who hate us. The energy produced
in these countries creates more pollution than the energy produced in the US. Joe also increased gov. spending
by trillions of dollars. Higher energy costs and increased government spending drives up inflation in the US and
around the world. The best way to fix these problems and our suicide rate is to vote for Trump. I will gladly take
a few mean tweets and a thriving economy with good paying jobs and an affordable life over a senile old codger
who sniffs young females, and shits in his pants, while creating a mad max world for the rest of us.
-
Question authority. Always. They are no longer credible. And getting worse by the minute.
-
There has to be some focus on guns because like it or not guns are part of the overall equation. It isn't simply a co-existing factor with no bearing on anything. It is like the rebuttal "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is technically true but completely ignores that guns make people better at killing people.
Eating too many calories makes someone gain weight but it would be wrong to say the source of the calorie makes no difference.
Note that I never talked about solutions or having too many guns. I only pointed to the statistical data that there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and suicide. I understand that this can be used as an argument against firearm ownership but ignoring the data doesn't make it change. I can acknowledge there are some legitimate problems with private gun ownership.
The prosecutors and politicians should focus on keeping repeat offenders behind bars. The nation has a catch and release program that they've been using so they can take guns away. This is their long term plan to take guns away from even law abiding citizens. How often does the AFT raid the hood? I'll bet that they spend a minimal amount of time there. Cause they know a drug dealer/gang banger will not hesitate to shoot back compared to a law abiding citizen who has a Youtube channel and charge him for a machine gun offense.
Your fat comment has a huge flaw. Fat people will find a way to eat the stuff they aren't suppossed to. Like how a determined suicidal person will find a way. So lets treat it the same as guns and make big mac's, ice cream, stuff with high calories and less nutiritonal value illegal (no joy joy for fat people). They will find away. I mean you got their doctors telling them they will die if they don't change their diet and many still ignore the doctors. But say we treat them like how Demolition Man would, and lock them up cause said food is illegal, then it will be much harder to get their hands on it. So my point is restricting the person, not the items. Keep repeat criminals behind bars.
-
For decades the CDC has been just another mouth piece for the anti gun crowd. I would take any stats
from them with a large dose of skepticism.
For the sake of the argument, let us take their stats as correct. It is no surprise that more people
have recently experienced an increasing amount of stress due to high inflation, increasing crimes of theft
and violence, and a non existant border with drugs pouring thru in record amounts. Our major cities
have become cess pools of crime and filth. Illegal aliens are given free room and board while we have
few means of dealing with our homelessness.Government over reach and open hostility toward a large
segment of the population hardly inspires confidence in ourselves and our leadership.
When people have a hard time paying for food, rent/ mortgages, transportation, etc.and have to reduce their
standard of living you can bet they will have a major depression problem to deal with. Thanks to Joe Biden
we have higher energy costs. We buy more of our energy from people who hate us. The energy produced
in these countries creates more pollution than the energy produced in the US. Joe also increased gov. spending
by trillions of dollars. Higher energy costs and increased government spending drives up inflation in the US and
around the world. The best way to fix these problems and our suicide rate is to vote for Trump. I will gladly take
a few mean tweets and a thriving economy with good paying jobs and an affordable life over a senile old codger
who sniffs young females, and shits in his pants, while creating a mad max world for the rest of us.
Trannies have a higher suicide rate than non-trannies. Maybe make being a trannie illegal? (sarcasm)
-
Trannies have a higher suicide rate than non-trannies. Maybe make being a trannie illegal? (sarcasm)
Transgenderism / body dysmorphia is a recognized mental illness.
The fact that so many are now normalizing it and "affirming" a delusion (right gender, wrong body) means we have a bunch of sick people encouraging sick people to be proud of their sickness so they can all use it to gain social and political power.
Embracing a delusion won't make them happy. No matter what they do, it's all stage dressing. Their DNA and chromosomes will remain the gender they were born with. That's why the suicide rate is so high. it's not primarily because they are bullied. it's because they hate who they are, and desperately trying to become what you are not only makes you more miserable.
Did Silence of the Lambs teach us nothing?
-
If we look at two variables, shark attacks and ice cream sales, we know intuitively that there's no way one variable has a cause-and-effect impact on the other. However, both shark attacks and ice cream sales will have greater numbers in summer months, so they will be strongly correlated with each other.
If there are trends and patterns in the data based on some relationships between certain variables, then that can potentially warrant additional study and research.
But to say, "there is a strong correlation between access to firearms and suicide," flies in the face of scientific methodology and statistical analysis. So far, you haven't offered a bit of evidence that shows that relationship. Was it a positive vs negative relationship? Was it a linear vs non-linear relationship? Has there been changes in the variables over time that further demonstrate the persistence of those relationships?
Yes, a gun makes people better at killing people -- other than themselves. Suicides without a gun are just as affective as using a gun. That's what the data shows. Take away guns, and the number of suicides will remain the same -- only more will choose suffocation or poison.
You aren't wrong but there would be no way to connect shark attacks and ice cream sales, neither could have an affect on the other. Firearms on the other hand can have an effect, for the reasons I previously mentioned.
I have offered a number of pieces of evidence that shows the relationship as well as an explanation.
Saying suicides are just as effective without a gun is misleading because by definition it isn't a suicide unless one succeeds and it is different than what I said. That would be like saying1st place winners with a bicycle are just as effective as 1st place winners with a motorcycle. That doesn't mean racing with a bicycle is going to give someone the same chance of winning with a bicycle.
I explained how if someone attempts suicide, firearms are going to give a higher rate of success than attempts by other means.
-
The prosecutors and politicians should focus on keeping repeat offenders behind bars.
Well yes, but not related to suicide.
The nation has a catch and release program that they've been using so they can take guns away. This is their long term plan to take guns away from even law abiding citizens.
Sorry but I don't buy that reasoning.
Your fat comment has a huge flaw. Fat people will find a way to eat the stuff they aren't suppossed to. Like how a determined suicidal person will find a way. So lets treat it the same as guns and make big mac's, ice cream, stuff with high calories and less nutiritonal value illegal (no joy joy for fat people). They will find away. I mean you got their doctors telling them they will die if they don't change their diet and many still ignore the doctors. But say we treat them like how Demolition Man would, and lock them up cause said food is illegal, then it will be much harder to get their hands on it. So my point is restricting the person, not the items. Keep repeat criminals behind bars.
It makes it hard to eat mcdonalds if there aren't as many mcdonalds. I could make my own hamburger of course but it wont have all the same preservatives, artificial dyes, etc. The point of my obesity example was not about how determined people were to do something bad, it was about we can't ignore that guns are part of the equation. Another way to put it is that if something is easier to do then you can't discount that this factors into someone's choice in doing that thing. If stores stopped selling beef I could raise and slaughter my own cow but do you think I will be eating beef as readily? No, it would require more determination and I would be less likely to eat beef.
-
i've not seen a single post stating HOW the government is supposed to know who should have their access to all guns everywhere revoked to prevent suicide. How does one even enforce that?
Sounds like the HPD method -- go to counseling, get your guns taken.
What about the other methods? No taking away of cars, knives, anything that can be used as a rope/noose, medications, household cleaners and pesticides, plastic bags, anything sharp like scissors or box cutters, etc, etc?
How many people have killed themselves in prisons without the benefit of a firearm? In hospitals?
-
i've not seen a single post stating HOW the government is supposed to know who should have their access to all guns everywhere revoked to prevent suicide.
Because that wasn't the topic.
What about the other methods? No taking away of cars, knives, anything that can be used as a rope/noose, medications, household cleaners and pesticides, plastic bags, anything sharp like scissors or box cutters, etc, etc?
How many people have killed themselves in prisons without the benefit of a firearm? In hospitals?
Again, not the topic that was being discussed. The difficulty of addressing the problem doesn't make the statistics about suicide and access to firearms change.
We can have that discussion as well if you want.
Many of the items you mentioned would be very impractical to impossible to take away from people and they don't have near the success rate that firearms have.
-
Because that wasn't the topic.
Again, not the topic that was being discussed. The difficulty of addressing the problem doesn't make the statistics about suicide and access to firearms change.
We can have that discussion as well if you want.
Many of the items you mentioned would be very impractical to impossible to take away from people and they don't have near the success rate that firearms have.
LOL!! :rofl: That's Hillary-ous! You're Mr. Stick to the Topic only when it suits you?
I started this thread, and I decide what the topic is. Don't tell me how to discuss my own topic.
Success rate? In your world, we need to focus on the big bad gun suicides because they are more successful, even though JUST AS MANY suicides happen without guns. I still don't understand how you can't see the flaw in that "logic."
I've known several people who've taken their own lives. The few who used firearms are no more dead as the ones who chose hanging, carbon monoxide, overdose of meds, and wrist cutting. Drowning seemed to be popular for awhile, although it's sometimes uncertain if those are suicides or accidents. I'm sure there are many suicides ruled accidents, which is why they may have chosen that method #1 to save the family from the stigma/trauma, and #2 possibly to get life insurance to pay beneficiaries if there was a suicide clause in the policy. Those suicides disguised as accidents never make the stats which might push the non-firearm suicides well above the firearm suicides.
I still don't get how 50% of suicides that succeed without a firearm is insignificant when discussing the other 50% of suicides using firearms. if 10% of the total survive the attempt, I don't see how focusing on the method is advantageous to anyone other than gun control zealots pushing apolitical agenda.
-
If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty
https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/
-
If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty
https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/
You'll never get some people to agree with that. They only want to 'discuss' the academic stats and correlations.
-
LOL!! :rofl: That's Hillary-ous! You're Mr. Stick to the Topic only when it suits you?
I started this thread, and I decide what the topic is. Don't tell me how to discuss my own topic.
Because you asked why that wasn't covered. Like I said, if you want to cover that aspect we can, I am not opposed to it, it just isn't relevant to the question of the success rates that I was talking about.
Success rate? In your world, we need to focus on the big bad gun suicides because they are more successful, even though JUST AS MANY suicides happen without guns. I still don't understand how you can't see the flaw in that "logic."
In my world? You mean the statistics? I already explained it is not about numbers of suicides with one tool compared to other tools, it is the number of times someone tries to commit suicide and succeeds compared to the number of times they try but do not succeed. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well the first time, so let me try it a little differently.
If you look at:
1000 people who shoot themselves
1000 people who overdose
1000 people who hang themselves
1000 people who cut their wrists
1000 people who use carbon monoxide poisoning
1000 people who use the exit bag method
etc
You are going to have different rates or survival for each category. Due to various factors, some of these methods have lower success rates than others. Shooting oneself is the most successful because 95 of those 100 (IIRC) will end up dying whereas much fewer of the people who try the other means will end up dying.
So if hanging has a 50% success rate (made up number) and firearms have a 95% success rate that would mean a person committing suicide who has access to a rope but not a firearm is less likely to und up dead.
My working theory is that because most other methods give people a chance to change their mind.
-
If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty
https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/
It will be a health issue to the WHO if they try to come and take our guns.
-
Because you asked why that wasn't covered. Like I said, if you want to cover that aspect we can, I am not opposed to it, it just isn't relevant to the question of the success rates that I was talking about.
In my world? You mean the statistics? I already explained it is not about numbers of suicides with one tool compared to other tools, it is the number of times someone tries to commit suicide and succeeds compared to the number of times they try but do not succeed. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well the first time, so let me try it a little differently.
If you look at:
1000 people who shoot themselves
1000 people who overdose
1000 people who hang themselves
1000 people who cut their wrists
1000 people who use carbon monoxide poisoning
1000 people who use the exit bag method
etc
You are going to have different rates or survival for each category. Due to various factors, some of these methods have lower success rates than others. Shooting oneself is the most successful because 95 of those 100 (IIRC) will end up dying whereas much fewer of the people who try the other means will end up dying.
So if hanging has a 50% success rate (made up number) and firearms have a 95% success rate that would mean a person committing suicide who has access to a rope but not a firearm is less likely to und up dead.
My working theory is that because most other methods give people a chance to change their mind.
Your theory has a gapping hole. Most people who choose methods other than firearms do not have, nor have access to, firearms. That's the main point to your argument. Access to firearms equals fewer people who survive.
However, if I concede that more people survive from non-firearm attempts, AND you concede that the statistics from the CDC state that only half the suicides were from firearms, the logical deduction has to be that more people are attempting suicide without firearms than they are with guns. Not just the ones who survive, but the ones who die, too
If 1000 people use firearms and 1% survive, that's 990 people who succeeded.
if 1000 people used other then firearms and 10% survive, that's 900 people who succeeded.
So, you agree that 990 and 900 are not 50/50, right? Therefore, to get a 50/50 ratio, 1000 people used firearms, but 1100 attempted suicide with non-firearms. That would provide the 990 successes to equal the other group.
So, for your facts to make sense, 1000 people have to use a gun, and 1100 have to not use a gun.
The survival rate in the gun group is lower, but the number of people choosing to not use guns -- for whatever reason -- is necessarily larger than the gun group, and it has the same number of successful suicide attempts as the gun group -- 50/50.
The bigger question is how many of the non-gun group didn't really want to die -- those with potential access to guns but without 100% commitment? We can also assume that some of the successes in that group were not 100% committed but wound up not getting saved as they'd planned/hoped/assumed.
No matter how you slice and dice the statistics, limiting the variables to a binary option regarding firearms is useless.
-
Your theory has a gapping hole. Most people who choose methods other than firearms do not have, nor have access to, firearms. That's the main point to your argument. Access to firearms equals fewer people who survive.
However, if I concede that more people survive from non-firearm attempts, AND you concede that the statistics from the CDC state that only half the suicides were from firearms, the logical deduction has to be that more people are attempting suicide without firearms than they are with guns. Not just the ones who survive, but the ones who die, too
If 1000 people use firearms and 1% survive, that's 990 people who succeeded.
if 1000 people used other then firearms and 10% survive, that's 900 people who succeeded.
So, you agree that 990 and 900 are not 50/50, right? Therefore, to get a 50/50 ratio, 1000 people used firearms, but 1100 attempted suicide with non-firearms. That would provide the 990 successes to equal the other group.
So, for your facts to make sense, 1000 people have to use a gun, and 1100 have to not use a gun.
The survival rate in the gun group is lower, but the number of people choosing to not use guns -- for whatever reason -- is necessarily larger than the gun group, and it has the same number of successful suicide attempts as the gun group -- 50/50.
The bigger question is how many of the non-gun group didn't really want to die -- those with potential access to guns but without 100% commitment? We can also assume that some of the successes in that group were not 100% committed but wound up not getting saved as they'd planned/hoped/assumed.
No matter how you slice and dice the statistics, limiting the variables to a binary option regarding firearms is useless.
I am not sure why you are focused on the 50/50 issue, we don't have to make them equal. The success rate is not contingent on the method of suicide. If 100 out of 1000 use a firearm or 600 out of 100 use a firearm that doesn't mean the success rate of the firearm compared to other means is going to change.
On a side note, I think failure rate might be more technically accurate since the person is trying to commit suicide. So maybe it should be that a person fails to commit suicide with a firearm 5% of the time while they fail to commit suicide at higher rates with other means. More morbid I guess.
I think you may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in the second to the last paragraph. How many people didn't really want to die, how many people weren't that committed? If I waffle about shooting myself but try anyway I have a much lower chance of survival than if I waffle about other means but try anyway. There are always going to be the super determined that will commit suicide. Whether in a jail cell, whether guns are taken away, whether they receive help, whether they have to try multiple times, they will find a way. If it were merely that the very determined happen to choose firearms then you wouldn't expect to see any difference in suicide rates when no firearms are available but that isn't what a lot of the data shows. Like the study about Switzerland with the shrinking of the military, their access to firearms decreased and the overall numbers of suicides decreased, they didn't commit suicide at the same rate but merely changed methods.
One other thing I didn't mention is that firearms don't require much thought. It is there, it is ready, it is extremely easy to act on impulse. With most other means I would have to think for a while. I would have to figure how many sleeping pills I would need, I would need to find some rope and a suitable place that would support my weight, I would have to go find a place high enough to ensure the impact kills me. From what I have learned, a delay makes a huge difference, just having some time to slow down and think can reduce suicide rates significantly.
Found something else interesting while looking for numbers, not exactly an explanation but interesting.
Men who were married were more likely to use firearms, whereas men who were unmarried were more likely to die by hanging.
https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508
-
I am not sure why you are focused on the 50/50 issue, we don't have to make them equal. The success rate is not contingent on the method of suicide. If 100 out of 1000 use a firearm or 600 out of 100 use a firearm that doesn't mean the success rate of the firearm compared to other means is going to change.
On a side note, I think failure rate might be more technically accurate since the person is trying to commit suicide. So maybe it should be that a person fails to commit suicide with a firearm 5% of the time while they fail to commit suicide at higher rates with other means. More morbid I guess.
I think you may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in the second to the last paragraph. How many people didn't really want to die, how many people weren't that committed? If I waffle about shooting myself but try anyway I have a much lower chance of survival than if I waffle about other means but try anyway. There are always going to be the super determined that will commit suicide. Whether in a jail cell, whether guns are taken away, whether they receive help, whether they have to try multiple times, they will find a way. If it were merely that the very determined happen to choose firearms then you wouldn't expect to see any difference in suicide rates when no firearms are available but that isn't what a lot of the data shows. Like the study about Switzerland with the shrinking of the military, their access to firearms decreased and the overall numbers of suicides decreased, they didn't commit suicide at the same rate but merely changed methods.
One other thing I didn't mention is that firearms don't require much thought. It is there, it is ready, it is extremely easy to act on impulse. With most other means I would have to think for a while. I would have to figure how many sleeping pills I would need, I would need to find some rope and a suitable place that would support my weight, I would have to go find a place high enough to ensure the impact kills me. From what I have learned, a delay makes a huge difference, just having some time to slow down and think can reduce suicide rates significantly.
Found something else interesting while looking for numbers, not exactly an explanation but interesting.
Men who were married were more likely to use firearms, whereas men who were unmarried were more likely to die by hanging.
https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508
That's been my point this whole time. The CDC says the numbers are 50/50 -- NOT ME! The same number of people who succeed in killing themselves chose both non-firearm and firearm methods.
I can give you the data and the links, but I can't assimilate it for you.
i also hit on the "committed versus not really sure" issue at least once in this thread before, probably a few times.
Apparently i need to repeat myself a certain number of times before you read my entire post. :wacko:
-
That's been my point this whole time. The CDC says the numbers are 50/50 -- NOT ME! The same number of people who succeed in killing themselves chose both non-firearm and firearm methods.
I can give you the data and the links, but I can't assimilate it for you.
i also hit on the "committed versus not really sure" issue at least once in this thread before, probably a few times.
Apparently i need to repeat myself a certain number of times before you read my entire post. :wacko:
I don't dispute that suicide methods are 50 % firearms and 50% all other means but that has nothing to do with the statistics I am talking about. The data I was talking about is not about the percentage of people who kill themselves with firearms compared to other means. It is about the success (failure) rate of other means
I addressed the issue of how committed someone is already. Note I just said that a determined person will get it done sooner or later.
-
Whats the stats on someone choking themselves to death? If one can accomplish this, then they're a badass. As all the time 1 tries and just passes out and lets go. Then wakes up later.
-
Whats the stats on someone choking themselves to death? If one can accomplish this, then they're a badass. As all the time 1 tries and just passes out and lets go. Then wakes up later.
If you mean manual strangulation, I think the results are the same as when you held your breath until your parents bought you something you really wanted. :geekdanc:
Choking is often done with a plastic bag over the head, duct tape or strap around the neck to make it a little more air tight, and handcuffs or zip ties -- something to restrain the hands behind them or around a pole, pipe, etc. so they can't give in to their survival instinct and take the bag off/tear it open.
Being unable to breathe is scary. I imagine most people don't want to make themselves suffer for as long as it takes to suffocate, yet there are cases.
-
If you mean manual strangulation, I think the results are the same as when you held your breath until your parents bought you something you really wanted. :geekdanc:
Choking is often done with a plastic bag over the head, duct tape or strap around the neck to make it a little more air tight, and handcuffs or zip ties -- something to restrain the hands behind them or around a pole, pipe, etc. so they can't give in to their survival instinct and take the bag off/tear it open.
Being unable to breathe is scary. I imagine most people don't want to make themselves suffer for as long as it takes to suffocate, yet there are cases.
The exit bag seems about the most peaceful way one can go without assistance from special drugs. Just heard about a state trying to do the death penalty in a similar manner by replacing air with an inert gas and you just pass out into forever sleep,
-
This is a class I'm hosting for firearms owners and instructors. Open to anyone.
(https://i.imgur.com/FQiclsZ.jpg)
Suicide Prevention Training - September 5th 6:30pm
September is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and I'm hosting a free online suicide prevention course for firearms instructors and owners. This class will be taught by the Hawaii Chapter of American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) who is partnered with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Teaching suicide prevention will be required in Hawaii firearms courses for permit to acquire starting on January 1st, 2024 per ACT 52. This class will give you the knowledge on how to teach this in your classes and provide resources in Hawaii.
Free - Online via Zoom
Tuesday, September 5th at 6:30pm
Please register at the link below to receive the zoom link. Registration is required due to a 50 person limit on the class.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/suicide-prevention-for-gun-owners-tickets-712547086517
-
We had a good turnout tonight so might repeat the session later this year. Some quick takeaways:
1. Most people thinking of suicide will focus on one method and not think of an alternative method.
2. One indicator of an upcoming suicide attempt at the range is a person is distracted and not paying attention, focusing on the suicide.
3. If you need to ask, say are you thinking of ending your life?
4. The suicide prevention hotline is 988 through phone or messaging, which connects to a suicide prevention org. It can be contacted anonymously.