WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?
A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND SOME DOMESTIC EVIDENCE
DON B. KATES* AND GARY MAUSER**
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 30

Excerpt from the conclusions:

Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra,
especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing
that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved
substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are
compared across the world.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

This is probably the best write up ever done on the subject, certainly it is the best I have ever come across. I am definitely going to bookmark this for future use. It is a little long and dry but appears thorough.

I know the data suggests that suicide rates are not effected by gun ownership but I must admit I remain skeptical. Since firearms are the most successful means of actually completing a suicide attempt I would still expect to at least find lower suicide rates among places with low gun ownership if for no other reason than other methods are not as reliable as firearms.

And maui, the excerpt you post is especially important when discussing suggested gun control. As firearms are guaranteed in our constitution those wishing to ban firearms have the burden of proving decisively that there is a great need to bad firearms. Anytime the government wants to deny a constitutional right they must a significant interest in doing so, whether it be the 2nd amendment or any other amendment.

Thanks for finding and posting this. Do you know when this was written? I see a volume listed but not a date.

I think there is a misconception that a gun is the easiest way to commit suicide.

I don't want to sound so grim but there are so many easier ways to commit suicide: Medicine overdose, slit the wrist , jumping off a bridge, single person car crash.... I don't think I need to go on listing examples.

I think there is a misconception that a gun is the easiest way to commit suicide.

I don't want to sound so grim but there are so many easier ways to commit suicide: Medicine overdose, slit the wrist , jumping off a bridge, single person car crash.... I don't think I need to go on listing examples.

Suicide by gun has increased as more vets returning from the Gulf Wars have used that method to end their lives. 

More than a decade ago, there was a "gender-specific" method of choice.  Males chose firearms and hanging, to make sure they finished the job.  Females chose slitting their wrists in the bath and drugs, to avoid leaving a bloody mess for their family to walk in on and have to clean later.

I think we've already beat the suicide stats to death in other threads.  What's important with the study is they used available data and correlated it with more data.  I think that's much more valid than going on one's "feelings" or "beliefs" with no data to back it up.

Do you know when this was written? I see a volume listed but not a date.

Spring 2007

I think there is a misconception that a gun is the easiest way to commit suicide.

I don't want to sound so grim but there are so many easier ways to commit suicide: Medicine overdose, slit the wrist , jumping off a bridge, single person car crash.... I don't think I need to go on listing examples.

I don't know what you mean by easiest way to commit suicide but I remember it being the most successful method. I had the link somewhere listing methods and their success rates, I can try to find it again if you want to look at it.

With many other methods you can change your mind and save yourself but once that bullet goes in your brain, you are almost always done for. This is why I would think a country with no guns would have lower suicide rates since the other methods they resort to are not as successful and/or many of the other methods have time for someone to change their mind. There could be some other aspect not being considered at work here as well.

I don't know what you mean by easiest way to commit suicide but I remember it being the most successful method. I had the link somewhere listing methods and their success rates, I can try to find it again if you want to look at it.

With many other methods you can change your mind and save yourself but once that bullet goes in your brain, you are almost always done for. This is why I would think a country with no guns would have lower suicide rates since the other methods they resort to are not as successful and/or many of the other methods have time for someone to change their mind. There could be some other aspect not being considered at work here as well.

Page 690 of the Harvard Study …

The mantra more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death is also used to argue that “limiting access to firearms could prevent many suicides."
Once again, this assertion is directly contradicted by the studies of 36 and 21 nations (respectively) which find no statistical relationship. Overall suicide rates
were no worse in nations with many firearms than in those where firearms were far less widespread.

Page 690 of the Harvard Study …

If you will note in my original reply I already acknowledged the data.

The other methods are probably good enough to make any correlation between guns and suicide so weak that it is unnoticeable. Also consider that drugs could be considered by some to be less painful than a gun. When we kill criminals we use lethal injection, not a firing squad. Meanwhile, something like jumping off a bridge is the easiest method: no training, materials, research, or preparation required. So your "success rates" are not everything.

And maybe this sounds crazy to some, but in my opinion if firearms increased suicide, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. Because if someone wants to commit suicide, who are we to say they are "wrong" in that choice? Why not grant such people the resources to do it in the way they prefer? Investigating any link between firearms and homicide is more important.

If you will note in my original reply I already acknowledged the data.

I know the data suggests that suicide rates are not effected by gun ownership but I must admit I remain skeptical.

What's important with the study is they used available data and correlated it with more data.  I think that's much more valid than going on one's "feelings" or "beliefs" with no data to back it up.

When you make statements like these, it highlights the point about you others have made.  You are more eager to argue than accept what others are saying.  Even in the face of a Harvard Study with substantiated data and scientific analysis, you prefer to argue based on your feelings of being "skeptical".

You have no logical basis for your comment.  No opposing data, no studies, and no actual facts.  Let's face it.  You are demonstrating the anti-gun's entire method of debate:  emotionalism.  When you hold onto a belief even in the face of contradictory data, you have become one of them.

At least the majority of legal gun owners agree that, given a workable solution with valid cause and effect, we are willing to compromise on gun issues.  To date, there have only been calls for non-solutions and agenda-driven do-nothing laws that only make gun ownership more difficult for  the law-abiding.  If anyone ever calls for actual solutions, the NRA and gun owners will support it whole-heartedly.

I'm 99% sure you are trolling us, but 1% still says you are naive and arrogant.  You voice skepticism in a study you have barely read, with no substantiating sources, and with narcissistic self-confidence in your own ability to deduce your beliefs over the substantiated conclusions of a Harvard group who actually studied the data.

 

Wow I think you went too far. Nothing wrong with him being skeptical. Studies aren't facts. They have limitations, and their methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions are based on opinion at some level, and subject to criticism. When the gun-control lobby breaks out their own studies, don't you point out the logical holes? You don't need to combat studies with other studies, that's a misconception.

When you make statements like these, it highlights the point about you others have made.  You are more eager to argue than accept what others are saying.  Even in the face of a Harvard Study with substantiated data and scientific analysis, you prefer to argue based on your feelings of being "skeptical".

You have no logical basis for your comment.  No opposing data, no studies, and no actual facts.  Let's face it.  You are demonstrating the anti-gun's entire method of debate:  emotionalism.  When you hold onto a belief even in the face of contradictory data, you have become one of them.

At least the majority of legal gun owners agree that, given a workable solution with valid cause and effect, we are willing to compromise on gun issues.  To date, there have only been calls for non-solutions and agenda-driven do-nothing laws that only make gun ownership more difficult for  the law-abiding.  If anyone ever calls for actual solutions, the NRA and gun owners will support it whole-heartedly.

I'm 99% sure you are trolling us, but 1% still says you are naive and arrogant.  You voice skepticism in a study you have barely read, with no substantiating sources, and with narcissistic self-confidence in your own ability to deduce your beliefs over the substantiated conclusions of a Harvard group who actually studied the data.

 

Not so, one can acknowledge facts but at the same time acknowledge feelings of being skeptical at the same time. A scientist might do an experiment and get a result but be confused because the result seems counterintuitive. Acknowledging something that seems counterintuitive and trying to understand why it is so is just good science, an endeavor to understand something better. Why can't I mention or discuss something that seems counterintuitive without being called a troll by you? Why is any quest for knowledge that doesn't fit in your agenda being a troll? You shun any discussion that would bring about a better understanding.

And you say that I have no opposing data but that is not true. I have posted on 2A before data concerning the effectiveness of various methods of attempting suicide, and I am quite sure they were in a debate I was having with you. I explained in my second reply to this thread that this is why I am surprised at the results of the story. Again, I did not say the Harvard study was wrong, I just said that I would have expected a different result and gave my reason why.

I didn't argue with the Harvard study, I didn't argue with you, I openly acknowledged the findings of the study. I didn't say the study was wrong, I didn't say you were wrong, I just voiced something that seemed counterintuitive. If you notice a quote on the very last page of the study, an author mentions that they were surprised at the results of their own study.

You are attacking a fictional argument I never made, you made a strawman.  Seems like you are itching for an argument where there was none.

Not so, one can acknowledge facts but at the same time acknowledge feelings of being skeptical at the same time. A scientist might do an experiment and get a result but be confused because the result seems counterintuitive. Acknowledging something that seems counterintuitive and trying to understand why it is so is just good science, an endeavor to understand something better. Why can't I mention or discuss something that seems counterintuitive without being called a troll by you? Why is any quest for knowledge that doesn't fit in your agenda being a troll? You shun any discussion that would bring about a better understanding.

And you say that I have no opposing data but that is not true. I have posted on 2A before data concerning the effectiveness of various methods of attempting suicide, and I am quite sure they were in a debate I was having with you. I explained in my second reply to this thread that this is why I am surprised at the results of the story. Again, I did not say the Harvard study was wrong, I just said that I would have expected a different result and gave my reason why.

I didn't argue with the Harvard study, I didn't argue with you, I openly acknowledged the findings of the study. I didn't say the study was wrong, I didn't say you were wrong, I just voiced something that seemed counterintuitive. If you notice a quote on the very last page of the study, an author mentions that they were surprised at the results of their own study.

You are attacking a fictional argument I never made, you made a strawman.  Seems like you are itching for an argument where there was none.

Maybe you should work on expanding your 6th grade vocabulary then. 

Skeptical means you have doubts.  That means you DO feel the study is wrong.




Surprised would be more what you are trying in 1,000 words or more to describe. "I just voiced something that seemed counterintuitive."  So, you are surprised, or the study's conclusions were unexpected.

Maybe you should work on expanding your 6th grade vocabulary then. 

Skeptical means you have doubts.  That means you DO feel the study is wrong.

Surprised would be more what you are trying in 1,000 words or more to describe. "I just voiced something that seemed counterintuitive."  So, you are surprised, or the study's conclusions were unexpected.

Funny, peashooter could understand what I was getting at, why can't you?

I didn't know that I needed your permission to be skeptical of something. I didn't know it was sacrilege to question a statistic on a study that supports gun rights. I apologize for my blasphemy.

Someone who is really interested in the truth wouldn't be so offended by such a simple question. If the study is accurate then it can stand up to question and skepticism. If it cannot then it isn't one we should base our arguments on. The minute you claim a conclusion cannot be questioned is the minute you cease to be scientific and objective.

Do you want to base for arguments defending gun rights on evidence that sounds good or evidence that is solid?

I'm not a moderator, but the two of you need to get a room.

Mauidog, eyeeatingfish, you both have every right to post here, and occasionally we all get into heated debate with another member. However, I don't think it's right that the two of you continually hijack threads for your pissing matches.

He's wrong! I'm just defending myself! He said/she said......... Learn to agree to disagree, or start a "Dog and Fish Show" thread. I promise that we'll all look in from time to time for the amusement factor. This has the added benefit of the two of you being able to freely post pages and pages of recriminations and insults without interruption.

Nothing against either of you, just saying........

I'm not a moderator, but the two of you need to get a room.

Mauidog, eyeeatingfish, you both have every right to post here, and occasionally we all get into heated debate with another member. However, I don't think it's right that the two of you continually hijack threads for your pissing matches.

He's wrong! I'm just defending myself! He said/she said......... Learn to agree to disagree, or start a "Dog and Fish Show" thread. I promise that we'll all look in from time to time for the amusement factor. This has the added benefit of the two of you being able to freely post pages and pages of recriminations and insults without interruption.

Nothing against either of you, just saying........

Yup 

I'm not a moderator, but the two of you need to get a room.

Ok, but I draw the line at spooning.

Ok, but I draw the line at spooning.

     So now your saying a good forking would be OK ?   

 

Sorry Edster, couldn't help myself.   

I'd say no because marriage is still legal......just ask the wife 

According to the World Health Organization the United States ranks number 50 in suicide rates, gun free Japan is ranked 17.