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.   

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.   

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.

    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.

  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.