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.

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....