HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Study: More Guns Lead To ...

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 10:44 PM

Study: More Guns Lead To More Suicides

Source: Think Progress

A new study, coauthored by a libertarian-aligned economist, has found strong evidence that the spread of gun ownership around the United States is a threat to public health. Guns, this research suggests, really do cause people to kill themselves when they wouldn’t otherwise.

Gun research is often unfairly tarred as “biased” liberal hackwork, but Alex Tabarrok, one of the study’s two authors, isn’t anyone’s idea of a progressive. Tabarrok teaches at George Mason University, a famously libertarian-inclined economics department. He’s a fellow at the libertarian Mercatus Institute and one of the lead authors of Marginal Revolution, one of the web’s most famous libertarian-inclined blogs.

Tabarrok and his coauthor, Justin Briggs, put together a bunch of data on gun ownership and suicide. After controlling for a series of potentially confounding factors, Tabarrok and Briggs ran a series of regressions to establish any links between guns and suicides.

Their results were staggering. “We find strong, positive effects of gun prevalence on suicide,” they write — and how. “A 1% increase in the household gun ownership rate,” Tabarrok explains in a Marginal Revolution post, “leads to a .5 to .9% increase in suicides.”


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/14/2945661/study-guns-suicides/

180 replies, 19878 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 180 replies Author Time Post
Reply Study: More Guns Lead To More Suicides (Original post)
Redfairen Nov 2013 OP
PSPS Nov 2013 #1
daleo Nov 2013 #8
calimary Nov 2013 #110
erinlough Nov 2013 #167
billh58 Nov 2013 #2
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #4
Hoyt Nov 2013 #3
Nihil Nov 2013 #176
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #5
Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #7
MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #9
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #12
MyNameGoesHere Nov 2013 #23
petronius Nov 2013 #25
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #30
petronius Nov 2013 #31
Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #114
intaglio Nov 2013 #41
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #45
LanternWaste Nov 2013 #108
Mojorabbit Nov 2013 #111
intaglio Nov 2013 #125
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #135
intaglio Nov 2013 #139
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #144
intaglio Nov 2013 #145
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #146
intaglio Nov 2013 #162
askeptic Nov 2013 #44
DanTex Nov 2013 #67
Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #115
petronius Nov 2013 #6
CBHagman Nov 2013 #10
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #13
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #19
Eleanors38 Nov 2013 #28
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #137
Eleanors38 Nov 2013 #165
Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #42
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #138
Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #140
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #155
Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #48
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #136
Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #143
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #156
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #159
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #171
Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #160
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #172
Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #174
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #151
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #157
cleanhippie Nov 2013 #158
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #169
Name removed Nov 2013 #166
gopiscrap Nov 2013 #168
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #170
Hoyt Nov 2013 #35
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #119
HERVEPA Nov 2013 #152
Duckhunter935 Nov 2013 #154
Ranchemp. Nov 2013 #161
CreekDog Nov 2013 #49
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #60
DanTex Nov 2013 #64
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #74
DanTex Nov 2013 #87
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #124
DanTex Nov 2013 #126
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #127
DanTex Nov 2013 #128
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #129
DanTex Nov 2013 #130
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #132
DanTex Nov 2013 #141
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #133
Name removed Jan 2014 #179
Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #116
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #117
Gormy Cuss Nov 2013 #120
DanTex Nov 2013 #142
LanternWaste Nov 2013 #109
treestar Nov 2013 #153
freshwest Nov 2013 #11
BlueStreak Nov 2013 #18
Tumbulu Nov 2013 #21
freshwest Nov 2013 #27
DallasNE Nov 2013 #14
hack89 Nov 2013 #15
ErikJ Nov 2013 #17
hack89 Nov 2013 #36
petronius Nov 2013 #22
hack89 Nov 2013 #39
CreekDog Nov 2013 #50
hack89 Nov 2013 #51
CreekDog Nov 2013 #52
hack89 Nov 2013 #53
CreekDog Nov 2013 #54
hack89 Nov 2013 #55
CreekDog Nov 2013 #56
hack89 Nov 2013 #58
hack89 Nov 2013 #59
CreekDog Nov 2013 #61
hack89 Nov 2013 #66
CreekDog Nov 2013 #73
hack89 Nov 2013 #78
CreekDog Nov 2013 #81
hack89 Nov 2013 #84
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #62
Hoyt Nov 2013 #77
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #85
CreekDog Nov 2013 #106
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #122
DanTex Nov 2013 #68
hack89 Nov 2013 #69
DanTex Nov 2013 #70
hack89 Nov 2013 #71
DanTex Nov 2013 #86
hack89 Nov 2013 #88
DanTex Nov 2013 #90
hack89 Nov 2013 #91
DanTex Nov 2013 #94
hack89 Nov 2013 #118
GreenStormCloud Nov 2013 #123
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #26
hack89 Nov 2013 #37
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #75
hack89 Nov 2013 #76
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #98
hack89 Nov 2013 #101
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #104
hack89 Nov 2013 #40
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #72
hack89 Nov 2013 #79
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #93
hack89 Nov 2013 #95
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #102
hack89 Nov 2013 #103
hack89 Nov 2013 #96
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #99
hack89 Nov 2013 #100
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #164
Lizzie Poppet Nov 2013 #163
SunSeeker Nov 2013 #173
DallasNE Nov 2013 #33
hack89 Nov 2013 #38
ErikJ Nov 2013 #16
sakabatou Nov 2013 #20
go west young man Nov 2013 #24
ErikJ Nov 2013 #32
Deep13 Nov 2013 #29
whistler162 Nov 2013 #34
Niceguy1 Nov 2013 #43
Blackjackdavey Nov 2013 #46
hack89 Nov 2013 #47
Blackjackdavey Nov 2013 #107
DanTex Nov 2013 #63
Recursion Nov 2013 #57
EX500rider Nov 2013 #147
DanTex Nov 2013 #65
Hoyt Nov 2013 #80
The Straight Story Nov 2013 #82
DanTex Nov 2013 #89
askeptic Nov 2013 #92
DanTex Nov 2013 #97
Name removed Jan 2014 #180
Blackjackdavey Nov 2013 #105
askeptic Nov 2013 #112
crim son Nov 2013 #83
olddad56 Nov 2013 #113
Hoyt Nov 2013 #121
Name removed Nov 2013 #131
SimplyMarie Nov 2013 #134
hughee99 Nov 2013 #148
EX500rider Nov 2013 #149
hughee99 Nov 2013 #150
Blackjackdavey Nov 2013 #175
hughee99 Nov 2013 #177
Blackjackdavey Nov 2013 #178

Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:04 PM

1. I's still have an oldest brother were it not for his easy access to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:08 AM

8. And I would have a nephew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to daleo (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:15 PM

110. And I would still have a good friend - and her nephew.

Murder-suicide a few years ago. Stunned and shocked and horrified and confused us all, including my son who really looked up to her - they had a friendship of their own that meant a lot to him and she mentored him. Her family lived in the mountains and had a ranch and everybody there knew how to handle guns, and had grown up with them and understood clearly how you deal with them and use them intelligently.

Until one very bad day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #110)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 09:08 PM

167. And I would have my brother in law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:06 PM

2. Gun ownership

is indeed a national health care issue, but more importantly those who promote the proliferation of guns, like the NRA and its apologists and supporters, are carriers of this disease.

The current situation allows the mentally ill and criminals access to guns with astonishing ease due to a lack of responsibility on the part of some gun owners. Hopefully the new generation of gun control advocates will be able to reverse decades of the NRA's corrupt influence on politicians at all levels of government, and the USA will no longer be the most armed and dangerous nation in the "civilized" world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:12 PM

4. I agree with you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:11 PM

3. The price we pay for keeping yahoos steeped in gunz happy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 18, 2013, 12:25 PM

176. If that were the only price then it would be worth it.

 

The sad thing isn't the number of gun-owners/users who kill themselves,
it is the number of gun-owners/users who kill other people.

If the only people to die from an irresponsible gun user was the user then
it is a self-solving problem. Unfortunately, it isn't.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:35 PM

5. Those numbers don't make sense.

A 1% increase in guns leads to a .5 to .9% increase in suicide? That means that for almost every gun or two sold, someone uses it to kill themselves. In the past 15 years over 175 million guns have been sold, but we haven't seen 175 million gun suicides, or even 87 million.

I have lived around guns for 67 years. I have never felt the gun radiating a "Suicide is painless..." mind control field. I choose to accept the risk that I may someday become suicidal. If I ever do, (If I develop a painful, terminal illness.) not having a gun won't stop me. In fact, I won't use a gun at all. I will buy a bottle of pure nitrogen, rig up a mask, and breathe pure nitrogen. Quick and painless. Are you going to start strict regulations on that too?

I reject your desire for a nanny state and instead accept the risks of freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:45 PM

7. I would ask why so many are killing themselves

Is is that resources to treat depression are hard to find? Perceived stigma preventing one to seek help? Lack of resources to pay for antidepressants? A society that does not foster community? Lack of extended families? The economy?
Or?
It is well known that most gun deaths are suicides. If I was going to do it I would use pills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:10 AM

9. Wrong analysis aside.

Your nitro death mask is a single use device. It seems that when a responsible gun owner wishes to end it, he takes a few family members with. Or just random people. Anyway. When they develop a re-loadable nitro death mask, that attaches at near the speed of sound to a persons face, well I would think about banning it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MyNameGoesHere (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:30 AM

12. Most gun suicides kill only themselves.

The news media don't bother with such suicides. It is news only when multiple people are involved. So it looks to you like gun suicides are mass killings. Since most gun suicides are singe victim suicides then that puts them in the same category as my method. If you are wanting to save lives then you should start regulating all the many other ways that people can kill themselves.

What error did I make with the numbers? The article clearly claims that for every 1% rise in gun ownership there is a .5 to .9% riswe in gun suicide. .9% is almost 1% .5% is only of 1%. That clearly means that the author is claiming that for every 1 or 2 guns sold, there is a gun suicide. Please point out what error I made with the numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:24 AM

23. Well

One thing you low balled the number of guns. There are between 270-310 million guns in the USA. By the way there are 250 million REGISTERED cars. Funny we can register all those cars and the government hasn't come to take them away yet.
Anyway. The real meat and potatoes of this is located here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481881300077X

Also here is an updated version of the original post with clarification on the %

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/firearms-and-suicides-in-us-states.html#sthash.h6dwOz4y.dpuf

Look at their data and I think you will see it better. Although some of the data you have to pay for. Sorry.

Seriously nitro death mask. I think it is an excellent brand name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:40 AM

25. You're overlooking the difference in scale between the ownership number and

the suicide number.

The study in the OP refers to household gun ownership rates - I take that to be the number of households containing at least one firearm.

If there are ~50,000,000 gun owning households, a 1% increase would be +500,000. If there are ~20,000 suicides using firearms, a 0.5-0.9% increase would be +100-180. So it doesn't follow that each new 1-2 guns would lead to a suicide. It would be more like ~0.00035 additional suicides per additional gun-owning household...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #25)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:39 AM

30. OK. I see what you are saying about the percentages.

However, I still think it is my decision to accept the risk for myself if I choose to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #30)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:57 AM

31. I agree with you on that point. These findings are not IMO arguments

for gun control or restrictions (except maybe waiting periods for first gun purchases). They are things that ought to make gun owners think carefully about storage and access, and ought to suggest to family* and caregivers* of those who may be at risk some possible interventions relating to the whole range of impulsive means for suicide.

* With the caveat that family and caregivers are victims of suicide as much as anyone else - I have no intention of ever suggesting that a person should feel guilt or blame for not being aware or not thinking of a risk, or not observing the (perhaps quite faint) warning signs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:12 PM

114. You're using gun sales, the research uses household ownership rate.

Gun sales aren't a household level observation. If a hundred guns are sold, the purchasers may be member of as many as 100 households or as few as one household.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:08 AM

41. Your argument is complete garbage

A 1% increase in the rate of household gun ownership is not the same as an increase in the number of guns owned; it is far, far smaller.

Now go and take your gun worship back to the gungeon and let the adults talk sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #41)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:32 AM

45. I will post as I please. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #45)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:11 PM

108. 'It is the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped

'It is the same thing with you,' said the Hatter, and here the conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which wasn't much..."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #41)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:24 PM

111. What a rude post. A third grade post not an adult one IMO. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #111)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:39 PM

125. I have no time for gun apologists

especially those who choose to deliberately misrepresent the figures.

A correlation between households with guns and suicide has long been reported and dismissed by the gun industry because of "bias". This report cannot so easily be dismissed on those grounds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #125)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 11:03 PM

135. You had enough time to make a douchy post to someone you consider a "gun apologist."

 

So which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #135)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:49 AM

139. Taking a turn of phrase,

which you are well aware does not mean what you wish it to mean, into a weapon against me - that's not even a nice try.

In full, I have no time to waste being nice to gun apologists who make fraudulent arguments against well designed research. Similarly I have no time to waste being polite to racists, misogynists, libertarians, fans of corporal punishment, rape apologists, bullying apologists, those proselytising for religion, tea party freaks and trolls; this list is not exclusive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #139)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:27 AM

144. I'm impressed with your strength!

 

Moving goalposts all by your lonesome is pretty impressive.

So...you have no time to waste being nice to various people with whom you disagree. You do, however, have time to waste appending infantile insults to a reasonably valid point about how statistical percentages work.

Okay, cool...got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #144)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:35 AM

145. Care to tell me what goalposts have been moved?

Clearing up your misinterpretation of a common phrase is not moving goalposts nor is listing others (apart from gun rights apologists) for whom I have no time to be polite

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #145)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:43 AM

146. Sure:

 

You went from "no time for gun apologists" to "no time to be nice..." (emphasis added)

Happy to clear that utterly obvious difference up for you...

(gratuitous insult snipped...don't want to be the pot calling the kettle black)

We're done here. Respond as you see fit, but speaking of not wanting to waste time... I'm sure you can fill in the rest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #146)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 04:17 PM

162. And as I pointed out, that is what that phrase means

but that does not fit your preconceptions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:20 AM

44. Correlation is not cause

There are all kinds of correlations out there, statistically speaking. This thread's general line of thinking tries to make correlation and cause the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #44)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:36 PM

67. When you properly control for confounding factors, then you it is possible

to derive persuasive evidence of a causal link from observational evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #67)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:14 PM

115. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Thu Nov 14, 2013, 11:39 PM

6. I find it surprising (and sad, and a bit scary) how impulsive suicide can be,

and how short the interval between first ideation and attempt often is. That impulsive aspect is of particular concern when highly effective means like firearms are available to an individual.

It's also interesting how inaccurate the assumption of "they'll just try again / they'll just find another way" seems to be. Some - even many - people are acting so impulsively and are so fixated on a specific method that if you throw up some barriers, or interrupt the process, they may never try again.

This NYT Magazine article from a few years back was particularly interesting, I thought:

--- Snip ---

Beyond sheer lethality, however, what makes gun suicide attempts so resistant to traditional psychological suicide-prevention protocols is the high degree of impulsivity that often accompanies them. In a 1985 study of 30 people who had survived self-inflicted gunshot wounds, more than half reported having had suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours, and none of the 30 had written suicide notes. This tendency toward impulsivity is especially common among young people — and not only with gun suicides. In a 2001 University of Houston study of 153 survivors of nearly lethal attempts between the ages of 13 and 34, only 13 percent reported having contemplated their act for eight hours or longer. To the contrary, 70 percent set the interval between deciding to kill themselves and acting at less than an hour, including an astonishing 24 percent who pegged the interval at less than five minutes.

The element of impulsivity in firearm suicide means that it is a method in which mechanical intervention — or “means restriction” — might work to great effect. As to how, Dr. Matthew Miller, the associate director of the Injury Control Research Center, outlined for me a number of very basic steps. Storing a gun in a lockbox, for example, slows down the decision-making process and puts that gun off-limits to everyone but the possessor of the key. Similarly, studies have shown that merely keeping a gun unloaded and storing its ammunition in a different room significantly reduces the odds of that gun being used in a suicide.

“The goal is to put more time between the person and his ability to act,” Miller said. “If he has to go down to the basement to get his ammunition or rummage around in his dresser for the key to the gun safe, you’re injecting time and effort into the equation — maybe just a couple of minutes, but in a lot of cases that may be enough.”

It reminded me of what Richard Seiden said about people thwarted from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. When I mentioned this to Miller, he smiled. “It’s very much the same,” he said. “The more obstacles you can throw up, the more you move it away from being an impulsive act. And once you’ve done that, you take a lot of people out of the game. If you look at how people get into trouble, it’s usually because they’re acting impulsively, they haven’t thought things through. And that’s just as true with suicides as it is with traffic accidents.”

--- Snip ---

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suicide-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:19 AM

10. When Australia changed its gun laws, suicides decreased.

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/[/url]

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.

The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks' speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CBHagman (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:33 AM

13. It is still my right to accept that risk for myself.

I reject the nanny state mentality and instead choose freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:00 AM

19. Wow .... I guess you've never lost a family member to suicide by gun.

There should not be guns freely available. They are way more than a public health risk, they are a source of domestic and familiar terrorism.

It is over, face it, they will be gone within the decade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:09 AM

28. What will be "gone," suicide or guns?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:50 AM

137. guns nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #137)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 08:12 PM

165. interesting selection.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:08 AM

42. I have

One to guns, one to pills.

Still I think it should be a persons choice to own a firearm or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #42)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:51 AM

138. I am sorry for your losses

I think that these choices will be gone soon. I will not lament this loss in choice and sorry that you will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #138)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 03:13 AM

140. I think better mental health care

Would be more effective than goi g agyer firearms.

Plus as a society we have to work at getting rid of the stigma that goes along with mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #140)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:04 PM

155. You are so right about help with mental illness

and the stigma attached.

I look forward to this change, I actually do think it is changing now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:26 PM

48. What will be gone?

 

Suicides? Guns? What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ranchemp. (Reply #48)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:49 AM

136. Guns nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #136)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:50 AM

143. Really?

 

You think all 300 million+ guns in this country will be gone in 10 years? Do you really believe that? Or are you just pulling our legs?

If you're serious, tell us how that's going to happen, because it's fascinating to me to see how that can be accomplished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ranchemp. (Reply #143)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:07 PM

156. guns unlicensed without serious liability coverage in the hands of irresponsible

people will no longer be tolerated.

Guns all over the place will be over. Free and easy access to ammo, over. It is a cultural change that I see happening.

This is my prediction, you are welcome to yours.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #156)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:32 PM

159. Now you've moved the goalposts onto a whole other field.

When your baseless prediction fails, I'm sure you will move them again to show that's not what you really meant to say, bu something else.



Now THAT'S predictable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #159)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:44 PM

171. Oh brother, you are serious here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #156)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:48 PM

160. Uh huh.

 

Get back to us in 10 years and tell us how well your prediction worked out, I have a strong feeling you'll be sorely disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ranchemp. (Reply #160)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:45 PM

172. Hope not, we will see.

Will we all still be on DU?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #172)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 10:21 AM

174. Hell, will humans still populate the world?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:48 PM

151. Guns will be gone in a decade?



I hear Jesus is coming back too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #151)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:09 PM

157. Well, you can say that you read it here

If Tumbulu says it, you know it's got to be true!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #157)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:29 PM

158. First, you make predictions that have no basis in reality, then refer to yourself in the 3rd person.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #158)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:42 PM

169. I'm trying to make a joke= lighten up! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #19)


Response to Name removed (Reply #166)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:53 PM

168. too bad you feel that way

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Name removed (Reply #166)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:42 PM

170. time will tell nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:56 AM

35. Jeeez, so your right to arm up trumps everyone elses' rights. Where have I heard that before?

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:23 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #35)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:56 PM

119. You have heard it in the U.S. Constitution. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #119)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:48 PM

152. And what well-regulated militia do you belong to?

 

Note: The gungeon doesn't count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #152)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 01:41 PM

154. not required per

 

numerous supreme court rulings both liberal and conservative over 200 plus years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #152)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 02:55 PM

161. SCOTUS has already put that horse out to pasture.

 

SCOTUS has ruled that private ownership of firearms is not connected to militia service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:37 PM

49. "Nanny State"? Keep the right wing phrases out of here please

and stop acting like we all want to take your guns.

your posts denying climate change and other right wing positions you take are bad enough, but "Nanny State" and saying we all want to take your guns --that's over the top.

if you don't like liberal politics...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:23 PM

60. I have never denied climate change. In fact I acknowledge it.

What RW positions?

"Nanny state" has also been used by the left when objecting to RW intrusions into freedoms that were supposed to be for our own good. Examples wold be the drugs laws and Blomberg's war on the Big Gulp.

Many posters do want to confiscate all civilian guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #60)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

64. What RW positions? Really?

Umm, how about support for the NRA, for starters. And then there's the reflexive denial of any scientific study that doesn't support the NRA's agenda. The more accurate question would be, do you hold any non-right-wing positions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #64)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

74. I strongly support single payer, and have posted so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3975807 I supported Medicare for everybody.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3978076 Supported Vermont's single-payer system.

Supported a person's right to end their own life on their own terms, but questioned why a doctor was needed.

I frequently support the First Amendment when other posters want to use the gov't to control speech. If you want to call me RW for that, then I will point out to you that Skinner takes the same stance. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4026218

i routinely oppose the ocasional calls for a leftist armed revolution. I don't think that is RW, just common sense.

I am opposed to the new method of calculating SS payments, called the Chained CPI.


The so-called scientific studies on guns all have the same flaw. The refuse to separate gun owners into the legal and illegal categories.

The NRA is a single issue organization. It is only concerned with guns. Democrats can, and have, gotten NRA's A+ rating by supporting gun rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:17 PM

87. Pretending the NRA is not a right-wing organization tells us everything we need to know.

Regarding the science, your objection has been refuted probably hundreds of times, by now. Every case-control study I've seen has controlled for criminal history (as well as a lot of other things). The fact that you don't understand the statistical methodology doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And this particular study did not examine individual risk, but collective risk, so in this case that objection is meaningless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:39 PM

124. Please post a link to such a study that controls for criminality.

The link must be to the complete study, online, and it must be free to view. A link to an abstract, or to a pay site, will not be accepted as a rebuttal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #124)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:50 PM

126. For starters...

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=articleDiscussion
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Now your turn. Can you find an example of a case-control study linking guns to homicide that does *not* control for criminal history? I'm guessing no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #126)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:01 PM

127. First I will read those.

The famous Philidelphia study a few years ago didn't control for whether the gun was being carried legally or illegally. I wi have to search for a link.

Lucky me. Your second link is also one that I would refer to as a very poor study. Here is a rebuttal to that one I wrote some time ago.

Gun controllers love to trot out so-called scientific studies that show that carrying a gun makes one more likely to get shot.

Common sense says that is pure bullshit. Guns are not bullet magnets. Bullets don't curve in mid-air to go to a person carrying concealed. Thugs don't hunt for concealed carriers to shoot them on sight. You don't get shot because you have a hidden gun on you.

The ONLY reason why a person might get shot is that they are engaging in a behavior that will cause someone to want to shoot them, or they have the bad luck to be a victim of a random shooter or other criminal. (Examples of the latter would be mass shootings, serial shootings, gang initiation shootings, etc.) Merely carrying a concealed handgun will not make someone a target as nobody knows that you have the gun, therefore you can't be targeted for having a gun.

So the real question that should be asked is not if the person had a gun, but what were they doing when they were shot? It is well known from FBI statistics that over half of all murder victims were themselves engaged in a criminal enterprise. But criminals do not make up over half of our population, so one draws the reasonable conclusion that being a criminal is dangerous. Certain crimes would be more dangerous than others. Drug dealing and gang banging would be more dangerous than being a business embezzler. The dangerous criminals are well aware that they are targets for other criminals and are extremely likely to be armed. Naturally, those who style of crime is armed robbery are going to be armed. All of them will be engaging in behaviors that have a high risk of drawing gun fire, either from other criminals or from armed citizens.

The law-abiding person who is legally carrying will not be engaging in any of those activities. His behavior won't change (with very rare exception) from what it was before. So he won't be a target unless his luck runs out and a violent criminal targets him. Then his gun gives him the ability to fight back.

None of the so-called studies have ever made any attempt to separate the legal from the illegal carriers but instead have lumped them all together as if they were all legal carriers. Until a study makes such a differentiation they will all be useless and will discover nothing except that being a violent criminal is dangerous.


How many were carrying legally? How many were carrying illegally?

Further they list many as being armed duels. I assume those were gang members. Legal gun carriers don't go looking for each other to have a duel. Naturally, if two armed guys are looking for each other, one or both are going to get shot. Such a statistic has no bearing on the honest gun carrier.

From the report:
For case participants, gun possession at the time of the shooting was determined by police observations at crime scenes and police interviews with victims and witnesses, as well as confiscation and recovery of guns by police investigators. We coded case participants as in possession if 1 or more guns were determined to have been with them and readily available at the time of the shooting. We coded control participants as in possession if they reported any guns in a holster they were wearing, in a pocket or waistband, in a nearby vehicle, or in another place, quickly available and ready to fire at the time of their matched case's shooting. We determined gun possession status for 96.8% of case participants and 99.6% of control participants. We imputed missing data by using multiple imputation by chained equations.35,36

We collected participants' locations as street intersection or blockface points. We collected environmental factors as centroid and population-weighted centroid points of blocks, block groups, and tracts.37 We assigned study participants cumulative, inverse distance-weighted measures of each environmental factor on the basis of the points where they were located and the point locations and magnitudes of the factors surrounding them. The higher the measure, the greater the clustering and magnitude of factors around a participant's location.15,38


Notice that they don't check to see if the gun was being carried legally or illegally. How many of those who were shot had CCWs? The study doesn't say. They only looked to see if the victim was armed or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #127)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:04 PM

128. I linked to that study. It controlled for criminal history (i.e. arrest record).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #128)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:19 PM

129. It did NOT control for if the gun was being carried legally or not.

I have edited my other post to include a rebuttal of that study.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #129)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:24 PM

130. But it did control for criminal record, which is the correct thing to control for.

A gun permit is a variable which is not applicable or meaningful to people who do not own guns, so it doesn't make sense as a control variable when trying to assess risk changes associated with gun possession or ownership. The whole point is to compare gun carriers versus non-gun-carriers, and control for variables that make those populations different. The correct way to control for the fact that criminals are more likely to carry guns and also to be crime victims is to directly control for criminality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #130)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:30 PM

132. No, the best way to investigate it is to ask about the legality of the gun being carried.

BTW - Did you notice the phrase in the report, about gunshot of "undetermined intent"? That is anti-gun speak for "defensive gun use". People who produce biased reports like that one never admit that sometimes honest armed citizens shoot bad guys in self-defense.

It is common sense, and well known, that being an armed criminal is an extremely dangerous occupation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #132)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:05 AM

141. No, the best way is to control for criminality is to control for criminality.

It is common sense, and well known, that being an armed criminal is an extremely dangerous occupation.

Correct, that is precisely why single case-control study involving guns and homicide controls for criminality, to distinguish between armed criminals and armed non-criminals, as well as non-armed criminals and non-armed non-criminals. I'm still waiting for you to find a single example to the contrary.

Did you even read my response? Criminality is a much better control variable than a conceal carry permit for a lot of reasons, a primary one being that a concealed carry permit is essentially a meaningless variable for non-gun-owners. Another being that CCW standards vary drastically from state to state, whereas a criminal history is much more consistent. Evidently, according to you, if the study was done in Phoenix rather than Philly, it would be fine. Or maybe you're just trying to find any excuse you can to reject inconvenient science.

The funny thing is, when it comes to attempting to inflate DGU numbers, pro-gun advocates never seem to insist that only DGUs by licensed carry holders count. Quite the opposite. The reason the gun lobby gives for the fact that by official and scientific measures of defensive gun uses are extremely rare is that a lot of DGUs are made by people who might be carrying or owning a gun illegally, and thus don't report it. I've never heard any pro-gunner insist that only DGUs by CCWers actually count as legitimate. Hmm. Wonder why that might be?

BTW - Did you notice the phrase in the report, about gunshot of "undetermined intent"? That is anti-gun speak for "defensive gun use". People who produce biased reports like that one never admit that sometimes honest armed citizens shoot bad guys in self-defense

A shooting of undetermined intent is just that. If you start assuming that whenever a shooting's intent is undetermined, then it must be self-defense, you'll get published on a gun blog but not in any peer-reviewed journal. In the end, the legitimate objections by pro-gunners to the science always boil down to to some kind of "anti-gun" conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #126)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:31 PM

133. I will get back to you later on your first link. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #87)


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #74)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:25 PM

116. The problem with gun research in this country is the NRA.

There's mountains of evidence that its successful lobbying has suppressed efforts to conduct wide scale, nonpartisan research.
Here's one article on the subject:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

If only the NRA would just step back and let the research happen. Oh right, it would be risky because it might produce results that would reduce the marketplace for their clients' products.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gormy Cuss (Reply #116)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:53 PM

117. The article is false. Studies were never blocked.

The CDC was blocked from using the studies to lobby for gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:02 PM

120. The CDC can not lobby. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #117)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 10:19 AM

142. No, your post is false. Funding for studies was blocked.

The CDC never engaged in lobbying, even before the ban. The ban was put in place specifically by Republicans in congress in response to a CDC-funded study that did not come out the way the NRA wanted (Kellermann). Both the intent of the ban, and the effect of the ban, was to freeze up funding for gun-related research. It is just another branch of the GOP's war on science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:13 PM

109. Stop lights and compulsory education never helped anyone

"I reject the nanny state mentality..."

Stop lights and compulsory education never helped anyone. Damned nanny statism at work again, preventing us from being as stupid or as reckless as God intended us to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:53 PM

153. I choose freedom from worrying about what other people are going to do with guns

Nanny state is a right wing term. Do you accept the nanny state in terms of social security and environmental regulation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:29 AM

11. DOH! They appear to be related to shootings, too. Who knew?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:57 AM

18. It does seem kind of obvious.

 

But it is good to see some formal results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:01 AM

21. I'm with you

sort of obvious, and why studies are needed is beyond me, don't we all know this already?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:57 AM

27. Yup. Seems like we have to re-invent the wheel every decade. I'm sure people will say it ain't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:33 AM

14. About 10 Days Ago I Posted

That mathematical probability dictated that more guns will lead to more gun deaths. It can't be disputed yet people tried. One person even had a study to support his claim that guns save lives. I Googled the study and found that the conclusion is disputed because of the methodology used. Duh.

Probably the only reason a one-to-one relationship does not exist is because some of the people with guns still overdose on pills to take their life, etc. Indeed, did an increase in guns lead to a decrease in suicide by other than guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:38 AM

15. Yet the FBI crime stats say otherwise

We have cut our murder rate in half. There are fewer gun murders any way you look at it - there is no increase in gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:56 AM

17. Statistics manipulated. Deaths increasing again since freak peak year just like global warming.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:19 AM

36. That peak was 20 years ago. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:14 AM

22. I think it's not inconsistent, for two reasons:

First, most claims of 'more this leads to more that' have an implicit "all else being equal" attached. But nothing operates in a vacuum, and it's reasonable that if there are factors that push the rate of Outcome X upward, and factors that push the rate downward, the rate can still decline even in the presence of factors that would tend to increase it. In the case of guns, more guns really may tend to push death rates up, but that has been outweighed by factors working in the opposite direction.

More importantly, though, it's not really how many but how they're distributed. For example, ten guns owned by ten people is really no different than fifty guns owned by ten people. The OP article mentions household gun ownership rates, not total numbers of guns. Although the report is framed as 'increasing ownership increases suicide', IIRC the number of gun-containing households actually has gone down. So, a decrease in suicide (and overall death) rate would be expected according to this research...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:52 AM

39. The solution is single payer health care with mental health coverage

Suicide is a mental health problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:39 PM

50. no that's not the entire solution

nice try though.

your NRA is working to elect people that oppose single payer or any health care reform whatsoever, by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #50)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:42 PM

51. So what law do you propose that will reduce suicides?

are we going to preemptively disarm all people that are potentially suicidal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #51)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:49 PM

52. I'm not proposing a law

are you having difficulty reading?

i understand how the NRA manual for inserting anti-gun control talking points works.

you're not pulling that nonsense on me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #52)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:55 PM

53. So do you think any gun control law will reduce suicides or is it purely a mental health issue

just wondering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #53)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:00 PM

54. i think there are lots of things that would reduce suicide

health care, anti-poverty measures, reduced gun ownership, etc.

things don't come with a 1 to 1 correlation or causation, so reducing suicide can be done through a variety of means, some not with laws at all, like discouraging gun ownership, but not making it illegal either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #54)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:04 PM

55. So how does one "discourage" gun ownership

what does that actually mean in terms of laws or public policy?

I do agree with you that the root causes of gun violence are many and cannot be boiled down to a single factor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #55)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:17 PM

56. you agree with me that there's no single factor, yet you said in this thread there's only one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=648834



that there are ways to discourage gun ownership, in concert with a lot of other helpful things on the health care and other fronts, in the form of laws, policies and other methods, doesn't mean i have to name them or think of all of them for the overall idea to be a viable one.

this is where you aren't going to play this game with me. i'm sick you guys following some stinking manual on how to debate these items in political forums.

cut it out and grow up. stop doing the bidding of the NRA.

I AIN'T PLAYING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #56)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:21 PM

58. Do you know the difference between "causes" and "solutions"?

there are many causes. To my mind, there is only one really good solution and that is single payer health care. Not only will it help solve this particular public health problem but a multitude of other issues that kill hundreds of thousands more people every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #56)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:22 PM

59. So you don't actually have to articulate a rational solution?

the proper "feelings" are all you need to feel morally superior?

No surprise there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #59)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:27 PM

61. I'm not here to play the opponent role from the NRA playbook

you can try all you want to follow the formula with me, but I don't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #61)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:35 PM

66. I have no problem with you marginalizing yourself

the only threat to my rights are actual laws and policies - neither of which you can articulate.

I have no problem continuing as we have - if nothing else the conversations are spirited. Thanks and see you around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #66)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:06 PM

73. I "can" articulate lots of ideas, policies and potential laws

because of your formulaic, disingenuous and dishonest approach to this topic, I absolutely will not simply play into your tried and tested way of debating anything that could be construed to relate to gun ownership.

drop the playbook and someday we could have a conversation.

until then, you can play the Gun Madlib game with yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #73)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:24 PM

78. That might work in Castle Bansalot

but in the real world, you actually have to defend your ideas from those that disagree with you.

In your mind, disagreement = NRA talking point. It is a timeless page from the gun control play book to avoid actual real discussion. Which is fine.

You can have the last word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #78)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:34 PM

81. I articulate ideas and defend policies on DU all the time

that i'm not willing to engage you on your terms and your playbook --that just means that i'm not as dumb as you think.

no, we are not following that script. you so badly want to do it, it's really the only reason you are here on DU.

but i'm not here to play the game, i'm here to talk with other liberals about politics and you're here to divert discussions relating to guns in a way that has a predetermined outcome, which is to implant certain ideas and talking points into every discussion of gun control at DU.

do i want to play that? no. why? because it's a game. it's not sincere and you're doing someone else's bidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:06 PM

84. ok. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #50)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:29 PM

62. The NRA is a single issue organization.

If you are for gun rights, they will pay absolutely no attention to your stance on other issues, and will work for you election. There are Democrats that they have given their A+ rating to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #62)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:22 PM

77. BS. With leaders like Grover Norquist, John Bolton, etc., NRA is pushing many right wing issues.

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:10 PM - Edit history (1)


Surely, you are not that myopic to believe when Norquist, etc., do some lobbying they are just pushing guns.

What concerns me about many gun owners here, is that they are not very perceptive, yet they carry a gun or two in public and will make a life or death decision in a split second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #77)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:08 PM

85. Please show where the NA has taken a position on anything but guns.

Remember that the leadeship are also private citizens and as individuals can speak on anything. Distinguish when they a speaking as individuals or as NRA spokesman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #85)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:52 PM

106. the California recall elections the NRA is pushing

they aren't targeting those legislators because of their votes.

but instead to reduce the Democratic majority in the State Legislature.

the mask is off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #106)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:19 PM

122. What was the stance of the targeted legislators on guns?

Please show me any pro-gun Democrat that the NRA has opposed. Everyone that the NRA has opposed has been anti-gun.

BTW - There are many other pro-gun organizations besides the NRA. Here is a partial list:

Second Amendment Foundation
Gun Owners of America (“The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington” That’s what they call themselves.)
Gun Owner’s Action League
Second Amendment Police Department (Cops who are pro-RKBA)
National Association of Gun Rights
Students for Concealed Carry
Students for Second Amendment
Constitutional Rights Enforcement & Support Team
Second Amendment Sisters
Pink Pistols (Armed gays don’t get bashed.)
Armed Females of America (They want to repeal ALL gun laws including NFA 1934)
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (They are a “never again” group)
Liberty Belles
Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws (Note: Not same organization as above but both have the same purpose. Strongly pro-gun)
Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Mothers Arms
The Paul Revere Network
NRAWOL (They think the NRA is AWOL in the fight for gun rights.)
Independent Firearms Owners Association
The Liberal Gun Club

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:39 PM

68. Mental health care and gun control are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they are complementary. Suicide is a multi-faceted problem, and there's no single solution. In fact, mental health and suicide experts consistently agree that gun ownership significantly increases suicide risk. The only people who deny this are gun lobbyists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #68)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:44 PM

69. But what gun control laws will specifically target suicides

while not infringing on the rights of non-suicidal gun owners? It is a serious question that has to be addressed if you desire a law that will meet constitutional strict scrutiny.

Perhaps methods to identity potential suicides and temporarily remove their guns (with due process of course)? There are privacy concerns of course but there may be a way around them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #69)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:58 PM

70. And what single payer health-care law will make it through congress?

If we're talking political feasibility, it goes both ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #70)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:04 PM

71. I was talking about legal feasibility

post-Heller the legal hurdles for regulating handguns got a lot tougher - a fact many gun control advocates refuse to accept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #71)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:13 PM

86. Feasibility is feasibility. The Supreme Court is politicized, we all know that.

Without the most conservative court in generations, there would be no constitutional issues at all. Do you really not think they'd knock down single payer healthcare?

Also, Heller says nothing about things like registration requirements. How about NYC's laws, or post-Heller DC laws? In the end, both strict gun laws and single payer are infeasible at the moment for political reasons. That doesn't mean they aren't worth talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #86)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:20 PM

88. I am talking specifically about gun control to reduce suicides

Heller says you have a right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. Since gun suicides are nearly always done by handguns, that is the problem Heller poses - how do you regulate handguns in the home that does not conflict with Heller.



Heller says that guns can be regulated - no one is arguing that it doesn't. This conversation is specific to gun suicides and how to prevent them. Registration, NYC's laws or DC's are irrelevant to gun suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #88)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:26 PM

90. You don't think NYC's laws nationwide would reduce handgun ownership? Really?

And I see that you conveniently ignored the fact that without the most right-wing Supreme Court in generations, Heller would be gone. I'm not sure why you insist on playing in some hypothetical world where somehow single payer is feasible but restrictive handgun laws are not.

The point is, as a matter of policy there are many things that could be done to reduce suicides, including tight handgun laws and single-payer healthcare. As a matter of politics, neither of those is likely to happen soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #90)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:37 PM

91. And Roe v Wade is gone due to the most right-wing Supreme Court in generations .. oh wait

Heller is part of America like Roe is. It is embedded in federal and state laws. Even if Heller was overturned, which is very unlikely, nothing will change significantly - some anti-gun states will pass some stronger laws while pro-gun states will continue as is.

There is a good reason NYC's laws are isolated to a tiny portion of America - they do not have widespread support. The rest of NY state has rejected such laws.

Given the choice, I would go with healthcare reform - it will save many more lives while addressing suicides.

Good talking to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #91)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:47 PM

94. LOL. And what part of the country has embraced single-payer? Any part at all?

That doesn't mean it's a bad law, just that the US (or even NYC) is not liberal enough for single-payer to have a chance of passing anytime soon. Same as with restrictive handgun laws, except for the fact that these actually exist in some liberal enclaves like NYC.

There's still value to discussing policies that are unlikely to happen, of course. But you have this peculiar tendency to write off handgun restrictions as infeasible and not worth of discussion, while at the same time proposing an equally infeasible alternative. Why the double standard?

In reality, we're getting neither. In an ideal world, we'd have both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #94)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:55 PM

118. I think gun control laws are very useful for reducing gun crime

I just don't see how they will impact suicides that much. I will consider every gun contol proposal with the exception of registration and an AWB.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #94)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:26 PM

123. I think Vermont has embraced single player. AN/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:46 AM

26. Wrong. Gun suicides have gone up.

In 2012, there were 19,392 gun suicides, amounting to 6.3 such deaths per 100,000 population.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

Suicides by gun have not decreased, let alone been cut in half.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

And although the overall murder rate has gone down as our population ages, the mass murder rate by has doubled in the U.S. since the assault weapons ban expired.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/17/everything-you-need-to-know-about-banning-assault-weapons-in-one-post/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:33 AM

37. Which is why we need single payer health care

because suicide is a mental health issue.

So tell me - what gun gun law short of a ban reduces suicides?


As for mass shootings and the effectiveness of the AWB, just remember that the gun used by the Sandy Hook shooter was legal during the AWB - sales of AR-15s actually peaked during the AWB. And lets also not forget the weapon of choice for mass shooters is a handgun, not a rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #37)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

75. We need to educate people about how DEADLY it is to own a gun. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #75)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:21 PM

76. Informed choice is always good. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #76)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:58 PM

98. Yes, but the gun industry is preventing that from happening.

They got Congress to ban the feds from studying gun deaths, and are even getting laws passed prohibiting pediatricians from asking if there is a gun in the house.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/florida-law-bans-doctors-guns/stor?id=13756579

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #98)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:08 PM

101. Except Obama has directed the CDC to study gun deaths

and the Florida law was blocked by a Federal judge two years ago and was never implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #101)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:39 PM

104. Congress has not given the CDC money to study gun deaths, plus the damage is lasting.

Once the ban took effect in 1996 and stayed in effect for 17 years, researchers moved on to other specialties. And the President cannot allocate money, only Congress can. The ban still exists for all intents and purposees.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

I am sure the NRA sees that Florida judge's injunction as a minor and temporary setback. They continue their push to prevent the truth about guns from getting out. Meanwhile, the gun industry's well-funded misinformation campaign goes unabated, spreading such lies as guns protect you and people will commit suicide in the same numbers whether or not they own a gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:55 AM

40. Shitty healthcare and a long recession has more to do with it

There are a lot of desperate people with no lifeline and hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #40)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:05 PM

72. No. A gun in the home makes suicide 5 times more likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #72)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:25 PM

79. So what specific law will reduce gun suicides

without impacting the rights of non-suicidal gun owners? It is a serious question that has to be addressed if you desire a law that will meet constitutional strict scrutiny.

Perhaps methods to identity potential suicides and temporarily remove their guns (with due process of course)? There are privacy concerns of course but there may be a way around them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #79)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:46 PM

93. A background check and waiting period. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #93)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:52 PM

95. I thought we were talking about guns that were already in the home

isn't that the idea - someone feels suicidal and because they have a gun, they impulsively pick it up and shoot themselves?

I have no problem with background check and waiting period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #95)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:10 PM

102. All gun owners should be required to register their guns.

If they develop mental illness, a criminal conviction or any other criteria that prevents people from owning a gun, that should go into the registration database and that person should be required to sell/dispose of their gun. If they don't show proof they did, the gun would be confiscated, like what law enforcement is doing in CA via the Armed Prohibited Persons System.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #102)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:38 PM

103. Easier to register owners

require them to have a firearm ID card to purchase and own guns and ammo. That way you can also ensure they have training.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #93)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:53 PM

96. Ten states have waiting periods for handgun purchases

can you show that they have lower gun suicide rates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:00 PM

99. We need a NATIONAL background check with no loopholes. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #99)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:05 PM

100. I agree.

but will it reduce suicides?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #99)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 04:43 PM

164. Strongly agree.

 

Universal background checks are simply a good idea. So is mandating proper firearms security measures. So is increasing access of the NICS background check database to mental health records. So is instituting competency testing and annual qualification for CCW permit holders.

There are lots of gun control measures that gun owners like me support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #72)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 04:40 PM

163. That's not how statistical correlation works.

 

Neither you nor the cartoonist seem to realize this. Statistical correlation isn't causal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #163)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 12:48 AM

173. If you're saying a gun in the house does not increase your risk of suicide, you're dead wrong.

If you take the gun away, people don't just choose another method, they actually tend not to commit suicide. That is because the gun is not there making suicidal thoughts easy to act on.

Having a gun around makes otherwise treatable depression far more fatal.

I am a firm believer in people being able to end their life if there is no hope (terminally ill cancer patients in horrible pain, etc.), but it seems the vast majority of suicides are the tragic result of untreated mental illness or depression. Committing suicide due to mental illness or depression is not a choice--it is the mental illness consuming you. Having a gun in the house makes suicide over 5 times more likely.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/more-guns-more-suicides/

And as noted in another DU post, at one point the Israeli Defense Forces changed policy, so that soldiers leave their guns on base rather than bringing them home with them over the weekend. After the change, suicide rates dropped by 40%, mostly attributed to a drop in gun suicides on weekends. In particular, there was no significant change in suicide rates during the week, so it's not the case that the timing of the policy coincided with some other change which made soldiers less suicidal overall. It was a clear case of means reduction.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295436 (citing http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf )

You're 43 times more likely to be killed by your own gun (as Adam Lanza's mother was) than by an intruder's. You are unlikely to have an intruder. But you are very likely to get drunk, get depressed, get in a fight with someone in your house, or have your little kid find your gun. That's how people get killed. Having a gun in the house makes it far more likely that you or your loved one will get their head blown off.

Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." (The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:09 AM

33. Only If You Cherry-Pick The Starting Point

Nobody in there right mind would start at a peak period when attempting to make their point. Here the discussion is suicide rate, not murder rate, but when you look at the FBI report on murder rate over the last 60 years it paints a far different picture than choosing as the starting point the peak period for gang warfare over drug territory.

Then there is the other issue. Most gun sales are to people that already own guns so owning 1 gun or 10 guns would not impact murder rate though going from zero guns to one gun could and does increase the suicide rate by gun, as this study shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #33)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:35 AM

38. We have to go back 60 years to find lower rates of gun violence.

and you are telling me that is a bad thing? Really

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:52 AM

16. Nephew and grade-school buddy

 

My nephew was given a handgun by his gf's father and when they broke up he used it on himself.
Then my grade-school friend who was the son of a prominent heart surgeon in town and had failed in the video rental business after its collapse and then as a designer house builder after the housing collapse in 2009 offed himself with his handgun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:01 AM

20. Color me shocked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:36 AM

24. Lotsa data out there on why having a gun around your home is actually a lot more dangerous

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to go west young man (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:58 AM

32. The ancients knew that; "live by the gun,die by the gun"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:10 AM

29. Two views on that.

The first is that I agree with the common view that suicide is often driven by depression or other mental illnesses. If the underlying condition were treated, the individual would likely realize that there is no need to end it all. So, from that perspective, I agree that gun access does make it easier for one to commit suicide rashly.

The second perspective is to realize that there can be well-informed, rational reasons to choose to die. There really are no-win situations and everyone dies eventually. There are hopeless personal situations--some incurable, hellish medical condition, for instance--as well as situations where suicide may be justified as contrition--the people responsible for the financial collapse come to mind. In any case, if I were in a no-win situation, I would want the physical ability to exit on my own terms.

Please note that I am not a Christian and do not believe the optimistic, but fanciful idea that every problem is solvable or that nothing is worse than death. As I noted, we will ALL die eventually, the only question is when and under what circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 06:26 AM

34. I will wait for the next study that shows.....

more studies lead to more ___, Too many studies and not enough thinking for yourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:09 AM

43. I think fixing the mental health care

Issues will be more effective at reducing those numbers than going after the firearms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:01 PM

46. Accounting for guns is a necessary component of mental health care

Accounting for guns is a necessary component of mental health care. The reason that an increase of household gun ownership increases suicide rates is that more suicidal people have access to a nearly certain means of success. Obviously the presence of guns does not cause one to feel suicidal. However, when one attempts suicide a choice must be made around the means. Each of the typical methods come with a success rate. Firearms are the most successful (along with poisoning by cyanide.) Therefore, when any other method on the list is chosen the rate of success, or in other words, the possibility of resuscitation, rescue, etc. increases. More attempts are made by overdose, many more, because pills are more available. However, guns are much more successful -- you don't come back from that. Suicide is obviously influenced by the mental state folks are in during the time leading up to the event. However, the catalyst for suicide is stress. Stressors are nearly one hundred percent problems that can be solved with solutions that a depressed or otherwise impaired individual needs help identifying. The time period between one's consideration of committing suicide and the identification of solutions is the point at which easy access to means must be eliminated. Therefore, access to firearms must be controlled for that individual during that period of time. It would be nice if informal support systems such as friends and family could reliably maintain that control. As a practitioner, I always explore that route first. You'd be surprised at the number of times one's philosophy regarding gun ownership trumps their ability to take reasonable actions around protecting a family member from suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackjackdavey (Reply #46)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:13 PM

47. Are you afraid of driving people away from help

because they think you will take away their guns? That is a huge issue the Army is grappling with over PTSD and it is a hard one to solve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:54 PM

107. No, I'm more afraid

of the far reaching and long lasting impact of a preventable suicide. However, to clarify, I don't advocate for "taking away guns." I advocate for mature, sensible and responsible gun ownership. At the end of the day folks are responsible for their own choices and that includes family and social systems as a whole. We work with families and individuals in order to make sensible and responsible arrangements either temporarily or permanently when someone in the system is at risk of suicide or homicide. If one maintains priorities that pose an ongoing risk of harm to self or others, that is the point at which formal arrangements via local law enforcement are made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Niceguy1 (Reply #43)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:29 PM

63. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, they are complementary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:18 PM

57. Suicides are two thirds of gun deaths in the US

Eliminate every murder in which a gun is used, and we'd still have an order of magnitude higher gun death rate than the rest of the industrialized world...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:57 AM

147. And yet gun free Japan has almost twice our suicide rate.

So does South Korea, China, Hungary, Greenland, Russia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Lithuania, Guyana, etc....
Is it suppose to matter less if they didn't use a gun or something?
So if guns drive suicides and we are #1 in gun ownership why are we 33rd in suicides?


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 01:34 PM

65. Of course, the gungeoneers are going to deny this study like all the others.

This is far from the first study finding that gun ownership significantly increases suicide risk, but unfortunately the opposition to gun control is not driven by reason, it is driven by ideology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:26 PM

80. Another recent study they deny: "Gun Ownership And Racist Attitudes Are Linked, Study Finds"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:37 PM

82. Why deny it? 19,000 people out of 50,000,000 chose a method

to kill themselves involving guns.

Their body, their choice, and they represent a very very tiny fraction of people who own guns and don't kill themselves.

Maybe we should ban all medications because a few people might abuse them, punish the many for the few - which seems to be the mantra.

Someone does something bad with something they own, therefore all people who own said thing are bad, solution - only let dick cheyney, cops, and other people in government have said thing.

Fear - not just something the RW is selling to others.

I will ADMIT that I am for laws that will make it a crime to shoot yourself. I am sure doing so will save lives. We need to let people know about said law so that they will then think about it "Gosh, if I kill myself with a gun, I could go to jail! So therefore I will not."

Someone OD's on drugs, we ask why - because that is the right question. With a gun, the vultures circle and ask how so that they can exploit that death to push an agenda and, under the guise of saving the souls of others and such, find ways to brand all of the many who don't abuse guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #82)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:22 PM

89. Illustrating my point...

No doubt, the fact that experts on suicide disagree with your claim that guns are simply a "choice of method", but that in fact they make suicide more likely, makes no difference. Epidemiologists, and suicide experts, what do they know?

But then, why bother with studies and a nuanced understanding of how the world actually works, when adolescent libertarianism gives easy satisfying answers to everything! Medical licenses, car safety requirements, food inspections, drug prescriptions, who needs them! Why punish the many for the few!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #89)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:44 PM

92. "Experts" say suicide is a complex issue

and I will doubt that you can find very many professional clinicians who will say that guns CAUSED the suicide, which is what you are implying. A simple statistical correlation does not mean that guns are the cause. Why are US suicide rates higher than many industrialized countries but lower than others? If guns are the "cause" then why do some countries with low gun ownership have higher suicide rates? You have to make real arguments - and it is those who make the claim (that it is causal) that have the responsibility to make the arguments. You have no right to sneer at those who do not agree that there is a sufficient causal effect established.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 03:55 PM

97. Of course, and gun availability is only part of it.

I'm not implying that gun ownership "causes" suicide, only that it contributes to the risk. An overwhelming majority of mental health practitioners and suicide experts would agree with this, exactly as I've stated it, and there are plenty of studies to back this up.

Suicide has many causes, like you said, it is a complex issue, so trying to isolate a single cause for each and every suicide is somewhat silly. Instead, people speak of risk factors, of which gun availability is just one. It's not just a "simple statistical correlation", it's actually an extensive body of statistical evidence including case-control and ecological studies, both of which are controlled for confounding factors, as well as understanding of the nature of suicide, that it's often an impulsive act, in which case access to easy and lethal means can often make the difference between a passing suicidal thought, a survived suicidal attempt with less lethal means, or a completed suicide with the most lethal means in general use, which is a gun. On the off chance that you are actually interested in this and aren't just here to defend guns at all costs, I invite you to read on...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #97)


Response to askeptic (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 04:43 PM

105. Guns don't cause suicide -- guns cause death

As I noted in my post above -- this data does not in any way suggest that guns cause suicide. Instead, the data verifies what professional clinicians such as myself already know which is that increasing access to the most lethal means of suicide equals more successful suicides. That is all. As I also noted above, you cannot provide competent mental health services without accounting for the presence of firearms within the family or social system of each potentially suicidal client. With that said, I would encourage you and other gun owner advocates to understand that most mental health practitioners are not advocating for any fundamental change in the right for healthy and responsible individuals to own a firearm. In fact, at my practice we go out of our way to work with the families and friends to secure firearms informally -- we work with folks in order to increase their attention to detail around responsible ownership in order to prevent a tragedy that affects individuals, families and entire communities. To do otherwise would be grossly incompetent and negligent. However, as I also mentioned above, the blasé attitude toward the extraordinary ability of guns to kill loved ones often leads to more formal interventions such as involving local law enforcement in order to temporarily secure firearms when someone in the family is displaying a heightened risk of harm to self or others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:27 PM

112. Thank you both

I agree that it is important to at least make sure firearms are lock-disabled, but I think that is wise in any case. Removal is likely best for a determined adult, but then this study says that isn't the person that is of concern.

I am also wondering about the correlation in another sense, in that the 30-55 age group suicides have increased by 30% in the last 10 years. This is also the age group hit hardest by the recession. Isn't it also the age group most likely to own a gun? Just wondering how that is adjusted for in arriving at P.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 02:52 PM

83. Well, DUH.

I've suffered from clinical depression all my life. Right now it is under very good control but that hasn't always been the case & if I ever owned a gun I'd be dead now. Knowing this, I will never own one or have on in my house. Common sense, no study required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:47 PM

113. I guess people can argue forever whether the increase in suicides is related to the increase in guns

but one thing that you cant really dispute is that if a person is feeling suicidal, having a gun sure makes it easy to do. A person who is acting on an impulse could kill themselves before they even had time to think it through and change their mind. Same could be said for homicide, guns make it easy to do on an impulse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddad56 (Reply #113)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:06 PM

121. +10000. Gunz also make it easy for bullies -- like Zimmerman -- to hurt innocent people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:21 PM

134. It's not rocket science

I know a lot of great people who own guns and are responsible about it and not obsessive. More guns equals more gun violence. Study after study has proven this. In places where there are permissive gun laws there are more gun deaths whether they be accidental, suicide or intentional. There has to be better regulations. If we have the ability to prevent drunks from driving cars, we should be able to prevent guns getting in the hands of mentally ill or otherwise unstable people. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Redfairen (Original post)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 11:57 AM

148. So I'd guess those countries with the most guns,

would also have the highest suicides rates, right?

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

Excluding Greenland because of a small sample size, South Korea leads the world with 31 suicides per 100,000 people, and yet they're 149th in the world in gun ownership at 1.1 per 100 people (the US has 89 guns per 100 people, by comparison).

Okay, one country is a statistical aberration, lets look further.

Lithuania is #3 in suicide rate at 31 per 100k people. Gun ownership is 160th in the world at .06 per 100 people.
Guyana is #4 in suicides and 45th in gun ownership.
Kazakhstan is #5 in suicides and 142nd in gun ownership
Belarus is #6 in suicides and 79th in gun ownership
China is #7 in suicides and 102 in gun ownership
Slovenia is #8 in suicides and 47 in gun ownership
Hungary is #9 in suicides and 93 in gun ownership
Japan is #10 in suicides and 164 in gun ownership

Okay, maybe the correlation isn't as clear as they think, or maybe there are significant other factors that have much more of an impact than gun ownership does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #148)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:08 PM

149. Yeah, I agree...

......could be as simple as people who need a gun might live in a more depressed and dangerous area with less economic activity and less access to mental health care and thus be at a higher risk of suicide.

I mean all most all suicide means have a step where it is to late to back out, ie you've stepped in front of the bus/train or off the bridge or building or swallowed the pills or pulled the trigger. None of those things are that hard to accomplish and I don't think the lack of one method will drive the rate down very much as people will seek other means, carbon monoxide or unlit gas are painless and easy to arrange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #149)

Sat Nov 16, 2013, 12:14 PM

150. I agree completely.

I'm not trying to say more guns can't be a contributing factor, but some seem to be drawing the conclusion that the number of guns is a close indicator of the number of suicides and that doesn't seem to be backed up on an international scale. The guns are a means to an (unfortunate) end. If the goal is to reduce suicides, one would perhaps find it more effective to focus efforts on other areas. Of course, if one's concern isn't primarily the suicides themselves, but rather the number of guns, then this argument works better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #149)

Sun Nov 17, 2013, 10:12 PM

175. You're both missing the point

The data does not suggest more guns equal more suicides. The data points out that more guns equal more SUCCESSFUL suicides. The other methods you mention are less lethal therefore one is more likely to survive the attempt. The list of countries with high suicide rates and low gun ownership rates is not relevant. The data suggests that if Lithuania, for instance, had more guns it would also have a higher rate of SUCCESSFUL suicides when compared to suicide attempts as a whole. To illustrate the point: folks who attempt suicide by overdose or carbon monoxide poisoning are much more likely to be interrupted or successfully treated medically allowing for the possibility of solving or treating whatever issue prompted the suicide attempt. You usually don't get second chances after a shotgun blast in the face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackjackdavey (Reply #175)

Tue Nov 19, 2013, 12:14 AM

177. I think if you're missing the point if your attempting to address

mental health issues only AFTER one has unsuccessfully attempted suicide. A more effective solution to the issue of suicide is much greater access to mental health care to deal with issues BEFORE one even becomes suicidal. Yes, I'll agree that access to guns doesn't help the problem, but even the removal of ALL guns everywhere (if that were possible) doesn't address the core issue, as demonstrated by those countries with high suicide rates and low gun ownership rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #177)

Tue Nov 19, 2013, 05:27 PM

178. Nope, that is the point.

It is exceedingly difficult to provide mental health services to someone who is already deceased. "Access to mental health services" has become a vague political catchphrase that has come to mean nearly nothing of practical value. There is no debate regarding your point that providing services to someone before they attempt suicide is the ideal, obviously. However, in reality, parasuicidal behavior or an actual attempt is very often the first thing that alerts families to a serious problem. That is a very common dynamic with teenagers. I'm sure you're familiar with teenage impulsivity -- that, combined with a break up or some other humiliating social event combined again with a family system that tolerates the relative isolation of its members (typical teenager brooding in their bedroom) leads to incidents that are dangerous and of course especially so if the teenager impulsively grabs the household gun. In such a situation, in my community, we can will and do see people that day without regard for time of day or ability to pay. We can help solve any stressor or mental health problem. Access isn't the issue. Timing is. We can't help when it's too late. Guns make too late more likely.

However, in case I wasn't clear, I know of no one in the field who is advocating for the removal of all guns as a means of addressing the problem of suicide. I know I'm not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread