Why do people think that gun control will lower the suicide rate?

[armyowalgreens]

I've been noticing that A LOT lately from the pro-gun control crowd on DU.

And I've continually found myself explaining to them that suicidal people are going to find a way to kill themselves even if you confiscate every last firearm on earth. I should know. I almost killed myself a year and a half ago and my method of choice was pills. A friend of mine that just recently committed suicide used pills.

The point is that if someone wants to end their life, they will find a way.


So it really does not matter how many statistics you show me about suicide by firearm. It's a pointless argument to make.

I could see an argument made against allowing chronically suicidal (diagnosed) persons to own fire arms. But that is very different from advocating broad sweeping gun control laws.

[Believing Is Art]

1. Hmm . . .

Simply playing Devil's Advocate, a gun would allow less time for contemplation or intervention. There's also less chance of survival if the person is found shortly after an attempt.

Overall, I doubt it would change the numbers very much.

[armyowalgreens]

2. I understand your point. But...

In countries with heavy gun control, people kill themselves by running in front of trains/fast moving vehicles and jumping off tall buildings. Both of which have an extremely low survival rate.

[Believing Is Art]

3. Continuing as Devil's Advocate

Both of those options are in public while many people prefer a private option. Also, they both involve some risk of hurting innocent bystander which some suicidal people will take into consideration.

I agree it's a crappy argument for gun control, this is kind of a mental exercise for me. As I said, I doubt it would change the numbers very much.

[iverglas]

14. do you

have anything resembling facts on which to be arguing?

I like to think that someone who starts a discussion thread and then scatters pronouncements through it might be able to provide some foundation for those pronouncements.

Any idea what the suicide-by-train rate might be in countries comparable to the US?

[armyowalgreens]

33. Apparently there are over 900 suicides by train in Germany annually...

According to this... http://www.ble.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=12603


I cannot find specific statistics from a government website however.

[iverglas]

34. well that's interesting

It would speak to the importance of the access factor.

A lot easier for a German to find a train than a gun, and vice versa for a USAmerican. ;)


btw, someone I know on-line in England has a son who is a train engineer. A few months ago, someone did commit suicide by jumping in front of his train, and as the article you cited says, it is a horrifically traumatic event for train personnel.

[armyowalgreens]

35. I would imagine it is a horribly traumatic event...

But at some point one has to understand that maybe taking away every sharp or heavy object is not the real solution to the suicide epidemic.

Suicide rate seems to have a tendency to go up in poor and/or oppressive countries. Eastern Europe is a perfect example.

So it seems that gun ownership seems to have little to no baring on suicide rate. At least I see no statistical evidence to support otherwise.

That is because guns don't make people suicidal.

[iverglas]

37. yeah

Thanks for that. I'm always really fascinated by opinions informed by nothing but bias.

[armyowalgreens]

39. ...

http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Go check it out. Many former soviet states have significantly higher suicide rates than other countries.

Also, religion/culture must play a significant role due to the fact that countries like Mexico, which has very high rates of government corruption and poverty, has a fairly low rate of suicide.

But again I say this...guns do not make people suicidal.

[iverglas]

46. and that would be relevant to

this:

So it seems that gun ownership seems to have little to no baring on suicide rate.

... the "statement informed by bias" to which I was obviously referring ... how, then?

You make the statements, you substantiate them.


By the way, the role of "religion", I would be really very certain, is not to reduce the number of suicides, but to reduce the number of recorded suicides.

[armyowalgreens]

52. No no no...see that's not how it works...

I have been running into people that argue gun control will lower rates of suicide. Yet they present no evidence to support that claim. They simply post suicide by firearm statistics. Which in no way help the conversation because they only show what is happening. Not why it is happening.

[iverglas]

54. and I don't give a good god damn

I have been running into people that argue ...

Go play with them, then. Do not put anyone else's words in my mouth, or treat me as if I can be assumed to say or think or believe anything someone else may or may not have said to you.

In this instance, YOU said:

So it seems that gun ownership seems to have little to no baring on suicide rate.

That is YOUR claim.

You do not avoid responsibility for it by wandering off into some allegations about what some unnamed person or persons may have said to the contrary.

You made it, you substantiate it.

[paulsby]

63. it's this simple

japanese. high suicide rate. next to none are committed with guns.

japanese americans. high suicide rate (similar to the rate in japan). guns are used frequently.

when guns are available, guns are more frequently used.

gun control certainly doesn't keep the japanese suicide rate down.

US actually has a relatively low suicide rate compared to many countries fwiw.

[iverglas]

36. googling may not always find what you want

but it sure does find news of the weird sometimes.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9804EFDF1031E03ABC4F52DFB3668389699FDE

SUICIDE ON A RAILWAY TRAIN.; A GERMAN CUTS HIS THROAT AND JUMPS FROM A WINDOW.
May 17, 1882, Wednesday

Brought that cultural tradition with him I guess ...


http://www.intlrailsafety.com/Denver/Conf_Day_2/11%20Fritz%20Schroder%20Suicide%20Prevention/3-Presentation_MrSchroeder_Suicideprevention_DB_en.ppt

That seems to be German suicide by train events (another PPT doc):

Year Number of suicidal events
1998 1017 - 8.7% of all suicides
1999 934
2000 926
2001 926
2002 920
2003 858
2004 845
2005 765
2006 741
2007 790 - 8.4% of all suicides

Fairly sharp decline in railway suicides.

The proportion that railway suicides represents of total suicides barely changed, though. So it seems that total suicides declined at a very similar rate over that decade.

Yes - from 14.2/100,000 to 11.4/100,000. In absolute numbers, from 11,644 to 9,402.

So the decline in Germany's suicide rate has somewhat mirrored Canada's, with a very similar rate at present, slightly higher than in the US.

One recommendation seems to have been that publicizing such events be avoided, since it appears to increase the likelihood of it being copied.

[armyowalgreens]

41. So you agree that gun control is not the deciding factor in suicide rate decline...

[iverglas]

45. so you have not the slightest interest in civil discourse ...

[armyowalgreens]

47. So is that your non-answer answer?

Yo no entiendo

[iverglas]

49. when I see a question

I'll be sure to answer it.

Nasty attempts to put words in my mouth, implying that I had at some point said something different from whatever they are, starting with "So" and hoked up with a question mark at the end are not actually questions.

[armyowalgreens]

51. See the problem is you like to give stastistics. But you hate giving opinion on those statistics.

However, you love to bitch and moan about "gun militants". Yet you refuse to give me your definition of one.


You seem to be very wordy, but most of your posts hold little constructive substance.


I will ask you this question...

Do you think that gun control laws have influence on suicide rates? And if so, how so?

[iverglas]

53. alrighty then

I'll be the big person and ignore the icky other crap in your thread.

Do you think that gun control laws have influence on suicide rates? And if so, how so?

I think that RELATIVE EASE OF ACCESS TO FIREARMS, and possibly particularly to handguns, is a factor in suicide rates.

I'm aware that people here like to pretend that once a law is passed, it must have some big immediate measurable "effect" in order for anybody to consider it wise. And I'm quite sure that they know just as well how disingenuous such claims of expectations are as I do.

The fact is that Canada's firearms program, for instance, has been a work in progress for some time.

Requiring licensing of firearms owners, and tightening the requirements for a licence, did not immediately reduce the number of firearms in circulation. For example. (It also doesn't prevent smuggling, and without registration it can't do much to affect illegal trafficking.) Making regulations requiring safe/secure storage of firearms does not meant that everyone will suddenly be storing their firearms safely/securely.

But OVER TIME, measures like that, combined with enforcement of any coercive/punitive measures and public awareness campaigns to encourage compliance, can and, I believe, do have an effect on a variety of phenomena.

If safe/secure storage regulations had been in effect in the mid-1970s, the man I was seeing at the time would pretty certainly have complied with them; he was employed by a law firm and later became an official in the justice system, so he would have had a disincentive for non-compliance. If he had stored his hunting weapons safely and securely, his 13-yr-old son would not have had unsupervised access to them. If the son had not had access to the hunting weapons, he would not have shot himself in the head. Would he have killed himself some other way? I DON'T KNOW. Neither do you. But with all the ways available to him, he CHOSE to SHOOT himself. Surely there was a reason for that.

The City of Toronto took action a while ago to address the high number of suicides by people jumping off a viaduct in the city -- the "second deadliest structure" in North America after your Golden Gate Bridge. There are now no suicides from that structure, because it is physically impossible to jump off it. Records do NOT show a corresponding increase in suicidal jumps from other structures in the city.

People who actually KNOW about these things know that access to means IS a factor in whether a person commits suicide. There is no reason to think that reducing access to means will NOT have an effect on suicide rates.

And I would remind you that absence of correlation is not evidence of non-causation -- suicide rates could fail to decline because of completely other reasons that operated to INCREASE suicides, the increase being MASKED by the decline that resulted from reducing access (and vice versa), for instance, or from any other factor that is known to operate on suicide rates.


You want me to be a simple-minded "anti-gun" robot. I am not. If you can find somebody who is, you have my blessing to go nip at their heels.

[armyowalgreens]

60. You are barking up the wrong tree...

I in no way "pretend that once a law is passed, it must have some big immediate measurable "effect" in order for anybody to consider it wise".


I understand that cause and effect can be spread out over decades.What troubles me is that you claim the effectiveness of Canadian gun laws without much evidence. Decreased violent crime does not necessarily have any connection with gun control laws.

Meanwhile, we are showing cases where a person effectively fought off an attack with a firearm. Yet you support laws that make it nearly impossible for someone to do that. I find that kind of odd...


"People who actually KNOW about these things know that access to means IS a factor in whether a person commits suicide. There is no reason to think that reducing access to means will NOT have an effect on suicide rates."

Access to A means most definitely is a factor. You can't kill yourself without a method of killing yourself. But access to a gun may not be. They could just as easily walk into the garage and turn the car on when no one is home.

Unless you are going to ban everything that could lead to suicide, you aren't going to have any significant effect. And it is impossible to control something like that.



Your decrease in suicides could just as well be attributed to treatment and prevention. In fact, one could make a much stronger case that greater awareness of suicide and suicidal symptoms is more effective at preventing suicide than simply banning guns. It directly attacks the root problem...

which is suicide, not guns.



"And I would remind you that absence of correlation is not evidence of non-causation -- suicide rates could fail to decline because of completely other reasons that operated to INCREASE suicides, the increase being MASKED by the decline that resulted from reducing access (and vice versa), for instance, or from any other factor that is known to operate on suicide rates."

You don't need to remind me of anything. I am perfectly aware that a positive effect on suicide rates could be pushed back by some unknown negative effect. However, I fail to see how that helps your argument. You are simply giving me definitions.

[Wickerman]

68. I highly reccomend the movie 3 and Out

Black humor at its best. Train engineer has two suicides on his route in a short time period. One more, he's told, and he gets pensioned for life. From there, the plot thickens. Worth a watch.

[depakid]

4. Simple- lethality of the methods

Firearms attempts are "successful" much more often than other methods.

They're also much more likely to be involved with murder suicides, due to both the certainty of death and the ease with which a gun owner can "take others with him."

[benEzra]

5. Except that the U.S. suicide rate is *LOWER* than that of the UK, Canada, most of Europe, and Japan

despite the fact that Americans work longer hours with less time off than people of any other First World nation (including Japan), have less access to mental health care than other nations, have a much greater rich-poor gap, and overall are under more stress than people of most nations.

For the U.S. suicide rate to match that of gun-banning nations, our suicide rate would have to go UP.

[Believing Is Art]

6. I'm kind of curious why that is

Any studies cite a reason? If I had to guess, I'd say religion played a part.

Not doubting you, just curious.

[benEzra]

7. Religion is a possibility

though probably not all of it, as some of the nations with rates higher than ours are more Catholic than the USA is, and Catholic teachings against suicide are stronger than those of most Protestant churches IIRC. It's also possible that more Americans drink or drug themselves to avoid emotional pain than residents of the other countries in question.

Here's some data, BTW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Note that the U.S. suicide rate is lower than that of Canada, Norway, Japan, Denmark, Austria, Australia, Iceland, New Zealand, Portugal, Ireland, Germany, France, Belgium, and many others.

I, like you, would like to see studies exploring the reasons. But it does certainly undermine the ZOMG GUNZ CAUSE HIGH SUICIDE RATES!!!! case when our suicide rate is lower than theirs.

[gorfle]

10. Even the Catholic church has relented

It used to be for Catholics that if you committed suicide you went to hell.

Now they say that they are mentally unstable and thus not responsible so they get to go to heaven.

It must be nice to be able to change the rules for getting into heaven as they suit some man with a funny hat.

[Believing Is Art]

62. Just a thought (totally not supported by fact)

I wonder what the stats on the suicides in other western countries is like. How many were terminally ill or well beyond their prime? The idea of euthanasia is taboo here, but I wonder if it's more prevalent in other countries and that would account for some of the higher rates of suicide.

[Tim01]

11. U.S. has LOWER suicide rate?? No way!

After all the shit we hear on the news about how nice, and caring, and compassionate, and civilized and bla bla bla these other countries are it turns out their people are killing themselves? Oh that's awesome.

[benEzra]

21. Well, awesome's not the word I'd use...

it's sad all around. But the idea that the USA has a higher suicide rate than most industrialized nations is indeed a fabrication, and precisely backward. That's why the Brady Campaign et al will usually cite only gun suicides and purge all other suicide stats from their press releases, because the full stats would show that gun laws are irrelevant to suicide rates.

[iverglas]

24. whose idea was that?

it's sad all around. But the idea that the USA has a higher suicide rate than most industrialized nations is indeed a fabrication, and precisely backward.

You know what award that gets you.

[Tim01]

27. You're right. Bad choice of words on my part. nt

[BigBluenoser]

8. Mental illness has to be pretty severe...

before they take your RKBA away and that is the way it should be. Institutionalization against your will iirc.

Drug use is a much more likely cause to lose RKBA. As is domestic abuse.

However, I am a firm believer that suicide is the most fundamental human right there is and the ultimate choice we can make. I also think it is not always the wrong choice either. So take what I say with that in mind....

[armyowalgreens]

32. Suicide justification is a very tricky subject...

I also believe that someone has the right to take their own life. But they need proper justification first and foremost.

Often, one acts completely irrationally when deciding to take their life. It's a heat of the moment action. If they were to stop and have a rational discussion on their situation, they would probably not want to die. But sometimes a person in a state of suicidal depression is incapable of having rational thought. That is why we should be able to "institutionalize" certain suicidal individuals.

Now, terminal illness is one proper justification for suicide. And it's already legal in a couple states.

[iverglas]

48. what nonsense

suicide is the most fundamental human right there is

Yeah. Beats the right to life right out of the ballpark.

A society that takes the right to life seriously accepts its responsibility to assist people who contemplate suicide for reasons that can be addressed with proper attention and resources: treatable illness or depression, etc.

Obviously it also permits rational people for whom it cannot offer assistance to terminate their lives as and when they choose.

But to call that "the most fundamental human right there is" ... yeesh. Not to mention that if you take a vote here, I'm pretty sure you'll be told that the right to defend one's self with the best tools for the job is the most fundamental human right there is. How confusing.

[Euromutt]

64. Clumsily phrased, perhaps, but not nonsense

At the risk of speaking for BigBlueNoser there, what he's getting at is the right to self-determination, and that truly is the most fundamental human right.

The right to life is a corollary of the right to self-determination, because being deprived of life takes away all future options for self-determination.

The right to self-defense is a corollary of both, as being deprived of life or integrity of one's person also deprives one of some degree of self-determination (possibly all).

If someone wants to off himself, that is his right; you can legitimately try to persuade him not to, and provide him with the means to stop wanting to, but you cannot legitimately force him to not kill himself.

[iverglas]

70. nice blank verse

Philosophically, the right to self-determination is of course the most comprehensive expression of how many of us think. It is expressly acknowledged by the international communities as a collective right, where more modern terminology tends to be used because the concepts are newer.

I've already said that in the case of a rational adult to whom society can offer no assistance that would dissuade him/her from suicide, the right must be absolute.

Your categorical statement that you cannot legitimately force him to not kill himself is not consistent with genuine concern for fundamental rights, however you frame them, when the subject is a vulnerable person with needs that can be met. A society is justified in forcing such a person to continue living, where it does so in good faith and in the individual's interests, although it would be a crappy one if it did so without making every effort to meet those needs and did not admit defeat when it was appropriate.

Rights really are not just a way of saying "you're not the boss of me" + "I owe no duty to you".

[Deadric Damodred]

9. They don't...

...it's just an excuse. When they lose their "it will reduce crime arguement", they pull out the "it will reduce suicide" arguement. They are getting called on that, so now they are pulling out the "it will help Mexico" arguement. They are losing that battle, so as soon as they are done with their next "think up shit" session, they'll come out with another "reason" for why we "need" more gun control. Also, gun control is code word for: ban all semi-automatic rifles, and make handguns has hard as humanly possible to obtain.

[JonQ]

12. It's just another attempt to play on emotions

to get people behind shredding the constitution.

There's a chance you know someone who killed himself. There is a chance he used a gun. So by saying that wouldn't have happened with out guns being available they're banking on peoples emotions overriding their logic so they can scoop up a few more followers.

Kind of like the "drugs fund terrorism" campaign that went around a few years ago. The numbers don't necessarily support that claim but it may get some people to back it that otherwise wouldn't have. And hey, if anyone argues against it you have laid the groundwork to now label them as pro-suicide or terrorism as a way of shouting dissenters down.

[iverglas]

13. well there's one pleasant side effect

Quite a number of suicides are actually suicide-homicides.

One person kills another person, and then kills him/herself.

Those are quite a bit more difficult to accomplish, i.e. quite a bit less likely to occur, without firearms.

Ever tried stabbing yourself to death? Suffocating yourself? Burning yourself to death in a house fire?

Without the firearm, you'd have to go find a bridge to jump off, or take some pills ... and sober second thought might just come into it.

So maybe there'd be just as many homicides but fewer suicides ... but I kinda doubt that, don't you?

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Actually, many successful suicides in the US are performed with a knife.

Down the road, not across the street, as they say.

Most Americans have enough crap in their medicine cabinets to accomplish the job too. However, an acquaintance of mine failed once with Xanax, succeeded the second time with his service pistol.

[iverglas]

19. suicide in the US

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/suicide-in-the-us-statistics-and-prevention/index.shtml

Suicide is a major, preventable public health problem. In 2004, it was the eleventh leading cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 32,439 deaths. The overall rate was 10.9 suicide deaths per 100,000 people. An estimated eight to 25 attempted suicides occur per every suicide death

10.9/100,000 in the US in 2005 is slightly lower than 11.6/100,000 in Canada in 2005. I'd want some demographic breakdowns and comparisons, for starters, to see what the comparability is.

According to that link, firearms are used in over half of suicides in the US. The figure given here for 1995 was 60%:

http://www.nami.org/Content/ContentGroups/E-News/20023/March_20022/Suicide_in_the_United____States.htm


Urgh, I hate scrounging for facts you'd think would be readily accessible ...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/files/SuicideTrends.ppt

The suicide rate (deaths per 100,000 population) declined until the early 2000s. About 4,300 fewer deaths occurred in 2004 than if 1985 rates had applied.

The suicide rate dropped about 13% comparing 1985 with 2004. Over the 20-year period, there was an average annual decline of 0.7% per year. In recent years, however, the decline has stalled and the rate is edging up.

The decline in the suicide rate has largely been due to a decline in firearm suicides, particularly in the 1990s.

The chart in the PPT document shows decline in firearms suicide from about 7.5/100,000 in 1986ish to about 5.7/100,000 in 2004, by my reading of it. So 5.7/10.9 would be about 52%.

The other leading methods shown on that chart are poison and suffocation. All others are "other", accounting for less than 1/100,000, or about 1/6 as many as firearms.

The document also notes that the declines overall were observed among "elders, younger adults and youths", similar to the situation observed in Canada (in my previous post).

Anyhow. It isn't looking like knives are a really leading method of suicide. But if there are figures, of course I'd be curious to see.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Firearms are certainly MVP in the suicide implement category.

At least in the US. 61% to Japan's .02%. On the other hand, they have double the suicide rate anyway. For a hypothetical, I would look to Japan, where private firearms ownership is almost completely illegal, and what implements are used there instead. There are other social pressures that will influence what implement Americans MIGHT use if firearms are not readily available, of course, but it might serve as a somewhat educated guess.

I'm having trouble finding actual numbers breaking out how people commit suicide in Japan.. Finding a lot of 'fluff' about toxic mixes of household chemicals, a 'suicide forest' and internet death cults and.. on and on..

Still looking, I'll update later.

[iverglas]

23. give me a break

Yeah, Japan is the most comparable of countries comparable to the US for this purpose.

Not.

Don't spend a lot of time on that one for me, 'k?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Whut...

So if Japan has almost no private firearms ownership, it would not be useful in figuring out if knives might be used more, if firearms are not readily available?

How about Australia? Our suicide rate is a bit higher, but they have pretty stringent gun control...

[iverglas]

26. Australia, go to it

There will still be cultural/demographic differences needing attention (likely much more attention than we're capable of giving them). But Japan? C'mon, really. Suicide is not a cultural tradition in the US, I don't think.

The issue has to be method substitution within a society when changes in access to a method or methods occur. At the very least, between closely comparable societies, controlling for differences where possible.

I trust you've read my Canadian / US info on that point.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Well, yes and no.

Often, in the US, an 'accident' will be classified as such, even if its some old guy, suffering from depression, or some painful medical condition, that goes to the range, lays out a rag and a can of break-free, and then shoots himself in the head. It's really more insurance fraud than a gun cleaning accident, but yeah, even our own numbers can be skewed a bit.

Suicide by city, per capita might be good. New York has near total gun prohibition, Seattle does not. Then again, Seattle has a pretty high suicide rate, generally attributed to our gloomy winter weather.

I'll see if I can slice down data to per capita, Seattle and New York, for summer months. Then we can chuck 'cultural differences' out the window, pretty much.

[iverglas]

29. I hadn't wanted to mention that one

Often, in the US, an 'accident' will be classified as such, even if ...

Largely because I have no idea whether there would be country-to-country differences in that regard. I might suspect it is more common in the US. ;)


Suicide by city, per capita might be good. New York has near total gun prohibition, Seattle does not.

Yeah. Except that the issue is access, not laws.

Granted, people are likely less likely to go buy a trafficked firearm for suicide purposes, but still. The fact that a jurisdiction has "prohibition" simply doesn't mean that it is significantly lower access.

[iverglas]

22. on demographic comparisons

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/061026/dq061026b-eng.htm

As of July 1, 2006, the median age of the population reached a record high of 38.8 years, compared to 38.5 a year before and 37.2 in 2001.

The median age in the US was 35.3 in 2000:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t9/tables/tab07.pdf

This is the sort of thing that can influence things like suicide rates.

Canada has a longer average life expectancy than the US. Suicide rates are traditionally highish among the elderly.

On the other hand, there are problems with access to health care in the US. Poor health is a factor in suicide, particularly among the elderly.

Canada's Aboriginal population has a median age very much lower than the general population. Suicide rates among Aboriginal youth are unfortunately high.

http://www.nandecade.ca/article/aboriginal-suicide-statistics-71.asp

Suicide among First Nations youth has been occuring at an alarming rate in recent years. Statistics show an Aboriginal suicide rate two to three times higher than the non-Aboriginal rate for Canada, and within the youth age group the Aboriginal suicide rate is estimated to be five to six times higher than that of non-Aboriginal youth.

... Across the lifespan, Aboriginal youth from 15-25 are at the highest risk of suicide. Those living on a reserve are 6 times more likely to die by suicide than their non-native peers; those living within cities have a suicide rate equal to non-native youth.

Aboriginal youth living on a reserve can be assumed to have much easier access to firearms than those living in a city.

http://www.suicideinfo.ca/csp/assets/promstrat_manual.pdf

(lengthy excerpts from a 288-page doc are fair use / fair dealing)

The discussion of firearms can be found starting at p. 134 under the heading "Means Restriction". The authors reject firearms control measures as being violations of Aboriginal and treaty rights ... and go on to observe:

Although data regarding firearm ownership among Aboriginal people in Canada are scarce, it is probably safe to suggest that it is high. ... With respect to safe storage, the study found that 12% of gun owning households contained both a gun locker and one or more safety locks, 31% of households used one safety device, and over half of the households did not make use of either of these safety devices.

... The availability of lethal methods is linked to suicide

We know that the availability of firearms (and other lethal means) increases the likelihood of self-destructive behaviours. A research study on suicide among Aboriginal people in Manitoba suggested that access to firearms was a pivotal factor. ...

The evidence suggests that restricting access to means has the capacity to reduce death and disability associated with suicide and suicidal behaviours. Young males facing stressful life events are particularly vulnerable to attempt suicide based on an impulse. So, if a gun or a lethal dose of medication is not readily available to them, the likelihood of an impulsive suicide attempt is reduced.

Suicide by firearm is a common reality in Aboriginal communities

Between 1989 and1993, data from the Medical Services Branch, First Nations and Inuit Health Program Directorate, showed that fi rearms were used by 31% of suicides among First Nations people in Canada, the second most common method after hanging. Among Alaska Natives, one study found that 78% of suicides during a two-year period were the result of gunshot wounds. A study of suicide among Aboriginal people from Manitoba found that between 1988 and 1994, 26% of the suicides were using a fi rearm, while hanging was used in 52% of suicides. In a study of deaths by suicide among the Inuit of northern Quebec, the most common methods of suicide were hanging (54.9%) and gunshot (29.6%) in victims 15 to 24 years of age.

Research shows that reducing access to guns can make a difference

On a broader scale, stricter handgun control laws have been associated with lower suicide rates. In Canada, researchers found that the number of suicides by firearms dropped significantly immediately following the introduction of the Canadian gun control legislation in 1978, especially in Canadians under the age of 40. In these younger Canadians, the rate of deaths by suicide with firearms declined, and suicides with other methods did not increase to compensate, so the total suicide rate declined as well. In Britain, a sharp decrease in suicides was recorded when more lethal domestic gas made from coal was replaced by natural gas which has a much lower carbon monoxide content. These and other results strongly suggest that decreasing the availability of lethal means within the home environment can have a defi nite impact on the number of suicides.

Some people actually are capable of acknowledging facts, even while squealing about their rights in the same breath.

[Euromutt]

66. According to WISQARS...

...in 2006 (most recent data), there were 568 deaths from intentional self-harm using a cutting or piercing implement. The average from 1999 to 2006 is slightly over 500 a year.

Not a "leading method," no, but then, that wasn't what AtheistCrusader said, was it? He said "many," and I guess that rather depends on what you consider to be "many." It should be noted that the same year, there were 77,058 recorded nonfatal injuries from intentional self-harm with a cutting or piercing implement, but it's hard to tell how many of those were actual attempted suicides.

Also in 2006, there were 6,190 poisoning suicides, with an average from 1999 to 2006 of 5,400 a year.

[armyowalgreens]

31. I have a feeling that if one is to have a sober second thought, a 9 mm in the mouth will trigure it.

Also, the US has fewer guns per capita than Canada and our murder rate is wildly higher. Fewer guns does not mean fewer murders.

[iverglas]

40. can you advise ...

I have a feeling that if one is to have a sober second thought, a 9 mm in the mouth will trigure it.

... what degree-granting institution granted your advanced degree in behavioural psychology?

Or maybe it was an advanced degree in "feeling".


Also, the US has fewer guns per capita than Canada

Yeah?

Listen, it ain't my job to do your research.

You've made that assertion. Now you substantiate it. Or just go educate yourself, and acknowledge that you've learned something new today and be pleased.

[armyowalgreens]

42. You are right...

I was incorrect in my understanding. The US has 3 times more guns per capita than Canada.


But I can tell you from personal experience that a handgun carries a very distinct feeling of death. Much more than say a bottle of unlabeled pills. I'm sure that even you would agree that guns are a symbol of death.

[Euromutt]

67. And yet, the Japanese seem to manage it

They even have a special term for it: muri shinju, which translates roughly to "forced suicide," i.e. one or both parents kill the kids, and then do themselves in. Much like what Joseph and Magda Goebbels did, only they used cyanide ampoules.

There's also ikka shinju--"family suicide"--in which the one or both parents may kill the kids, but with the kids' prior consent.

[iverglas]

69. I just love this

On suicide, the experience of Japan is applicable to the US.

On homicide, the US has lower rates that ... Russia! South Africa! Colombia!

Funny how what goes on just a little closer to home, geographically and culturally, just gets kinda missed ...

[Euromutt]

71. The laws of physics are different in Japan?

You said, concerning homicide-suicides:

Those are quite a bit more difficult to accomplish, i.e. quite a bit less likely to occur, without firearms.

And yet, the Japanese seem to manage, without firearms. I'm not talking about cultural differences, I'm talking about physical ability, which is what you were doing.

[iverglas]

72. gosh; I wonder

Will you ask your crystal ball what the suicide rate would be in Japan if there were widespread ready access to firearms?


I'm not talking about cultural differences, I'm talking about physical ability, which is what you were doing.

Actually, I wasn't inviting an apples to oranges comparison, which is what you are making.

[rrneck]

15. The problem

with any restriction on firearms ownership is that it's based on a prognostication of what somebody will do in the future, rather than anything they have actually done. We can make some educated guesses about the trajectory of somebody's life based on past behavior like a history of violence, substance abuse or chronic depression, but actually we are denying a civil right without due process and we are eroding the presumption of innocence to do it.

When something happens with a gun, it happens very quickly as a result of a set of variables that are beyond the control of any far flung regulatory authority. A crude analogy would be that airplanes have pilots for a reason. Shit happens, and it takes a human at the controls to make very rapid decisions and actions in a very complex and fluid situation.

Of course, airline pilots are exceedingly well trained and their training is updated constantly to insure that they are able to deal with the complex task at hand. The average man on the street, not so much.

When it comes to suicidal depression, what does society offer as a remedy beyond just restricting one (efficient) means of suicide? Not a lot. Our churches have become little more than franchise outlets for media conglomerates. Health care is all over the news and the problems are obvious. Familial relationships are fractured and eroded because the complexities of modern society and dramatically expanded mobility have had a corrosive effect on the ability of people to simply talk to each other. Don't get me started on Twitter.

Further firearms regulation at the federal, state, or even local level seems too clumsy a tool for the control of a situation that may last only a few seconds as a result of an uncounted number of variables at this point in our cultural development. It seems to me that we need to be training better life pilots than trying to design more complex and restrictive fly by wire flight controls.

It's always easier to write a law telling people what they can't do than to actually help them do the right thing.

[Euromutt]

65. The most perceptive post in this thread yet

I might quibble with the opening sentence, in that I think being convicted for a violent felony (or domestic violence misdemeanor) is pretty strong indicator that society cannot trust such a person to possess firearms. Though that having been said, I'm inclined to think that a conviction for a non-violent felony really isn't sufficient reason to deny the subject the freedom to possess firearms once he's "paid his debt to society," but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Other than that, spot on. I was diagnosed with major depressive disorder last year, and yes, I've considered offing myself on various occasions (though obviously I haven't, or I wouldn't be posting this). Sure, during recent spells, the obvious way to kill myself would have been with one of my firearms (I've gone so far as to identify a spot in the house where I had a backstop and cleanup would have been comparatively easy, to minimize the burden on others resulting from my actions). But frankly, I've come just as close to killing myself before I became eligible to possess firearms (i.e. before I was naturalized as a U.S. citizen), researching how to tie a hangman's knot and looking for suitable trees, and discovering (to my chagrin at the time) that catalytic converters have made it a lot more difficult to kill yourself by running a hose from your exhaust into the passenger compartment of your car. Putting my neck on the rails of the Union Pacific railroad that ran comparatively close to my house was never an option, though, because my grandfather used to be a railroad man, and I knew from personnel magazines how having someone jump in front of his train would fuck up a driver emotionally.

And as you say, American society--along with most others, I suspect--doesn't offer much to persuade the suicidally depressed an incentive to not kill themselves. Health insurance companies are willing to pony up the dough for antidepressants, but only to a very limited extent for therapy. But antidepressants are, from my perspective, a Band-Aid; they keep you from doing yourself in while you try to fix your problem, but it takes therapy to actually fix it to the point that you stop wanting to do yourself in.

I'll break a lance for social networking sites, though, in that they've allowed me to stay in touch with my friends and family from the old country even though I now live nine time zones away. In my case, it helps. Twitter, however, does not a damn thing for me.

[proteus_lives]

17. Because pro-gun controllers think guns have "magic" powers.

That force people to commit crimes, kill themselves and others. It's another part of their habit of blaming objects instead of people.

[iverglas]

18. suicide rates in Canada

2001-2005:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/perhlth66a-eng.htm

very slight decline 2001 to 2005, all ages; in 2005, 11.6/100,000

Apparently the rate has declined steadily over the last couple of decades:



from about 14/100,000 in 1981.



http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/gun-deaths050628.html

It says that 816 people — 767 males and 49 females — died of firearms-related injuries in Canada in 2002, the most recent year examined in the study. This represented 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population, down from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1979, it said.

... Consistently through the period, about four-fifths of Canadian firearms deaths were suicides, it says.

Of course, 4/5 of 2.6 is considerably less than 4/5 of 5.9.

So the suicide rate has declined observably since c1980, and firearms deaths have decline markedly - like, by half.

Huh. Firearms measures introduced in Canada are obviously completely irrelevant to both facts.


http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/82-003-XIE/0040482-003-XIE.pdf

In 2002, 816 Canadians died from firearms-related injuries (see Gun control laws*). This amounted to 2.6 deaths per 100,000 population. The number of such deaths among males far outnumbered that for females: 767 versus 49, representing rates of 4.9 and 0.3 deaths per 100,000 population, respectively.

These figures are based on the most recent data available from the Canadian Mortality Data Base, which comprises information from death certificates.

The rates of deaths related to firearms have declined over the past couple of decades. Between 1979 and 2002, the male rate fell from 10.6 to 4.9 deaths per 100,000 population and the female rate, from 1.2 to 0.3 (Table A). In other words, over this 23-year period, the rate for males fell by just over one-half; the rate for females, by three-quarters.

... In 1979, the rate of deaths related to firearms was highest among 15- to 24-year-olds (see also Table B). By 1990, the age gradient had decreased somewhat, and by 2002, differences between age groups had largely disappeared for people aged 15 or older. Sizable decreases in death rates—particularly notable for suicides involving firearms—in the 15-to-24 and 25-to-44 age groups accounted for most of the levelling over age groups that had occurred by 2002.
________________________
* More recent firearm restrictions were enacted in 1977 (Bill C-51), 1991 (Bill C-17) and 1995 (Bill C-68). The 1977 law mandated that people acquiring a firearm have a Firearms Acquisitions Certificate attesting that they are at least 16 years of age and have no criminal record or history of mental illness. The later legislation reduced the availability of and accessibility to firearms, requiring more extensive background screening of prospective purchasers, registration of all guns owned, and safe storage of these weapons. Compulsory registration, which allowed each gun acquired to be linked to its owner, also required that spouses and former spouses be notified about the gun's acquisition.

In 1995, when gun registration became compulsory <the authors are mistaken: the legislation passed in 1995, but registration was required as of 2003 only>, the death rate for firearms-related injuries was 3.8 per 100,000 population. Over the following years, the rate, which had been falling quite steadily since the early 1990s, continued to drop. Of course, it is difficult to measure the contribution that gun control regulations may have made to this decrease.

I'm sure some will purport to disagree, but it seems rather obvious that suicides in the youngest age group in particular are more likely to be impulsive than in older groups. And firearms really are particularly suitable for impulsive suicides.


In a recent thread about firearms control in Canada, we were told that the relevant comparison was: "How many firearm homicides occurred in Canada before the registry was introduced, compared to after?"

So I guess the same comparison is the relevant one here, except of course that anyone interested in discussing the issues sincerely will investigate and learn that the firearms registry was but the most recent "gun control" measure adopted in Canada, and that any effects of legislation in the late 1970s and mid 1990s are more likely to be measurable at this point, than any effects of a measure introduced in this century and never fully implemented to date.

[armyowalgreens]

30. Correlation does not mean causation.

It could purely be coincidence that suicide by firearm has gone down since the registry began.

It personally do not see any reason why the registry would lower the rate of suicide by firearm. It makes no sense to make such an assumption.

[iverglas]

38. did somebody say it did

You angling for the strawperson-fighting award for the week?

"Correlation does not equal causation" is about the only thing the agenda-driven have to say when faced with facts, in my experience.

Perhaps you'd like to provide us with your analysis of the facts I presented.

Me, I just presented the facts. So go find one of these



to smack around if you like. I ain't it.

[armyowalgreens]

43. ...

What I am saying is that you cannot say that implementation of gun control "A" is the reason why there is a lower rate of suicide without being able to properly draw a causal link.


That statistics 101.

[iverglas]

44. AND I DIDN'T

What I am saying is that you cannot say that implementation of gun control "A" is the reason why there is a lower rate of suicide without being able to properly draw a causal link.

For the love of ...

[armyowalgreens]

50. So I want to make this clear. Because your stance is about as murky as could be

You are not trying to say that any gun control law, in Canada, has lowered the rate of suicide.

Am I getting your stance correct?

[iverglas]

55. here's my stance

[iverglas]

56. let's hear yours on this one

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/comp-eng.htm

* Between 1987 and 1996, firearm homicide rates increased in the United States but decreased in Canada.
During this period, the overall homicide rates decreased in both the U.S. and Canada-11% and 13% respectively. The U.S. firearm homicide rates increased 2%, compared to a 7% decrease in Canada.
* A greater proportion of robberies in the United States involve firearms.
For 1987-96, 38% of robberies in the U.S. involved firearms, compared to 25% in Canada. Furthermore, the proportion of robberies involving firearms shows an increasing trend in the U.S. (from 33% in 1987 to 41% in 1996), compared to a decreasing trend in Canada (from 26% in 1987 to 21% in 1996).
* Firearm robbery rates are 3.5 times higher in the United States than in Canada.
For 1987-96, the average firearm robbery rate was 91 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 26 per 100,000 in Canada.
* Rates for all robberies are 2.4 times higher in the United States than in Canada. For 1987-96, the average robbery rate was 238 per 100,000 in the U.S., compared to 101 per 100,000 in Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

Compared to American cities, Canadian cities had lower rates of homicides, aggravated assaults and robberies. However, property crime was more prevalent in Canadian urban centres.

Some might think that much lower access to firearms is a reason why fewer robberies / more thefts occur. A substitution effect indeed: a crime that does not need a weapon is substituted for a crime for which a weapon is a useful tool.

The American rate of reported robbery was 65% higher than in Canada in 2000, and the difference was much more pronounced with respect to robberies committed with a firearm. In 2000, firearms were involved in 41% of robberies south of the border, compared with only 16% in Canada. Since 1991, police-reported robbery rates have been declining in both countries. During this period, rates fell 47% in the United States-almost twice the 26% decline in Canada.

Just to illustrate that last bit (i.e. to show how the steeper decline in the US has operated and the comparison with Canada):




http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050721/dq050721a-eng.htm

The rate of robbery incidents fell 4% in 2004. Police reported more than 27,000 robberies, half of which were committed without a weapon of any kind. The rate of robberies committed with a firearm continued to decline, down 3% in 2004, accounting for one in seven robberies. The remaining 35% of robberies were committed with other weapons such as knives.

(Note, because it could be confusing, that the rate of robbery committed with firearms declined 3% -- a separate phenomenon from the decline in the rate of robbery.)


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/070718/dq070718b-eng.htm

Police reported about 30,000 robberies in 2006, pushing the rate up 6%. This is the second consecutive annual increase in the rate of robberies.

About 1 in every 8 robberies involved a firearm. Robberies involving a firearm increased 4% in 2006, although they are still well below their peak in 1991.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080717/dq080717b-eng.htm

In 2007, there were almost 30,000 robberies. While the robbery rate declined 5% from 2006, it has remained relatively stable since 2000. Robbery committed with a firearm declined 12% from the previous year to its lowest point in more than 30 years.

Note also that where a robbery results in homicide, it will not show in robbery figures. Would you rather be robbed by someone with a handgun or a baseball bat? Would it be unreasonable to suspect that the rate of homicide during robbery would be higher in the US?


Do you see any pattern here?

The rate at which firearms are used in robberies has been on a gradual decline in Canada.
The rate at which firearms are used in robberies in Canada is, and has long been, hugely lower than the rate in the US.

Do you have any thoughts about what the causes of these differences might be?

Do you think that the relative difficulty of access to handguns in Canada might have anything to do with these differences?

[armyowalgreens]

57. Canada gun laws seem to restrict a persons right to protect themselves

Firearm bans are fairly similar to the US.

The only difference is you guys have banned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. Which oddly enough is rarely ever used in violent crimes. That isn't because of any particular ban in your country. I could go down to Bass Pro Shop and pick up a slightly used AR-15 right now. The reason why it is used so infrequently in violent crimes is because of the cost of the rifle and ammunition. Not to mention it is much harder to conceal an AR-15 than a glock 36.

Also it seems as though it's illegal to store a loaded firearm. Which ultimately defeats the purpose of home defense, but does nothing to protect homeowners from criminals who do not give a shit about gun laws. If I have to fiddle around in the dark to find a magazine, odds are someone is going to find me and shoot me.


It seems the differences in law cannot be attributed to any decrease in gun related violence. There is no doubt that certain types of violent crime have decreased in Canada. But that in no way proves the effectiveness of the gun control laws.

[iverglas]

58. perhaps I'm over-tired

but I'm having a very hard time figuring out what this:

Canada gun laws seem to restrict a persons right to protect themselves

has to do with anything in my post.

And then there's this:

Firearm bans are fairly similar to the US.
The only difference is you guys have banned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

Which actually is not correct.

Semi-automatic rifles are not "banned", they (most) are restricted -- AND SO ARE HANDGUNS.

Acquisition and possession of both are restricted to licence-holders who demonstrate that they qualify as collectors or sports shooters. There are specific storage and transportation requirements. Collectors may not tote their firearms around, and sports shooters may transport them to and from, and use them at, approved clubs/ranges only.

Kinda just a little dissimilar to the situation in the US, no?


Also it seems as though it's illegal to store a loaded firearm. Which ultimately defeats the purpose of home defense, but does nothing to protect homeowners from criminals who do not give a shit about gun laws. If I have to fiddle around in the dark to find a magazine, odds are someone is going to find me and shoot me.

Yes, yes, I know. Really. I am very familiar with the fear-mongering element of the gun militant agenda.

We just don't fall for it up here, if that's okay with you.


It seems the differences in law cannot be attributed to any decrease in gun related violence.

It seems you actually meant to say the opposite of what you said.

And it seems, since you plainly are talking out of what I posted a picture of above, that nobody with a grain of sense would pay an iota of attention to what you say anything seems.

[armyowalgreens]

59. It has everything to do with what you are talking about...

Canadian gun laws directly target a persons ability to defend themselves. Yet they seem to have no bearing, and you have admitted this, on gun smuggling. You seem to have this idea that all these laws are actually going to have any influence on criminals.

The only way I could see that happening is if they banned the outright manufacturing of certain firearms and confiscated the rest. And that's assuming they aren't smuggled in. And that's also assuming the criminals don't just using another weapon.


Okay, so the AR-15 is not literally banned outright. But it is only legal to posses one if you are a collector or sports-shooter. Which ultimately defeats the purpose of owning a firearm like the AR-15.

It's main purpose is tactical defense.


But I'd be interested in knowing exactly what qualifies someone as a collector or sports shooter in Canada. I've heard that obtaining specialty licenses for firearms is extremely tricky.


"Yes, yes, I know. Really. I am very familiar with the fear-mongering element of the gun militant agenda.

We just don't fall for it up here, if that's okay with you."


I don't believe that's fear mongering. That's just common sense. If you have a gun for self-defense, the gun should be cocked and locked at all times. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of needing immediate firepower.

And yes, self-defense is often needed. Especially in places with high rates of burglary. I will be moving to a city with a high rate of burglarly in about 2 weeks. I don't live in a constant state of fear. I just know that the risk is there.

Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive a car? Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle?

Common sense tells a person to make arrangements so that they are as safe and secure as possible. In many US cities, that means having a loaded firearm in ones home for protection.

[slackmaster]

61. Because most people have little understanding of either statistics or suicide

:nuke: