# Guns and National health **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756 "2013-03-01T19:55:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/21 "2013-03-02T20:48:50Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What are you talking about? > > Pretty simple concept: better more accessible affordable effective mental health services and a culture/system that gets people using those services results in fewer suicides and murder-suicides. > > I do not believe the NRA honestly cares about anything other than preventing new gun regulations of any sort. Their list idea is not to my read what the op was discussing nor what I am. The NRA has nothing to do with it at all if that it what you are talking about is my point. Gun law wise there is nothing different in Canada as would related to a familial murder-suicide. But even that is not that related. Canada’s suicide rate is almost identical to the us for practical purposes despite the fact that they do have a medical system I find preferable to the current employer subsidized version we have. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_OECD\_countries\_by\_suicide\_rate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate) So I am still confused about what data point your claim. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/22 "2013-03-02T21:28:55Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > My [sense of it](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/civil-committal) (and this little bit is consistent with it) is that involuntary commitment is no easier in Canada than in the U.S. So I get your point but this is to clarify some parts on how different this is from the US. From your link (Bolding is mine) [ > [@](#): > > These patients are normally referred to as “involuntary” patients. The specific criteria and procedure for civil commitment vary across Canada, but in most provinces and territories 2 conditions must usually be satisfied: the patient must be suffering from a mental disorder or mental illness, and **the patient must present a danger to self or others**. If these 2 conditions are satisfied, the legislation authorizes the patient to be kept in a psychiatric facility for a short period (usually 72 hours) for assessment purposes. Thereafter,\*\* if 2 doctors sign further certificates, the patient may be kept at the hospital for a much longer time\*\*. The Mental Health Act gives involuntary patients a number of legal rights, including the right to apply to a tribunal for a review of their case. The tribunal has the power to order that the patient be released from the hospital, if it concludes that the criteria for civil committal are no longer met. ]([The Canadian Encyclopedia](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/civil-committal)) Disclaimer: These laws differ widely due to case law and statute within both countries by a large amount. I am talking generalities here and I am not a lawyer and my only non-hobby interaction with the law was on a grand jury. Canada: The patient must present a danger to self or others US: The patient must present an "imminent danger” to self or others The word “imminent” is the one that frustrates the well meaning intents of many families with loved ones who are homeless due to mental illness. Many judges have decided that it means immediate, defined threat. > [@](#): > > “imminent danger likely to occur within reasonably short period of time unless appropriate treatment provided” This means that in many places in the US there needs to be a credible verified threat of violence or self harm. This threat needs to be verifiable as a threat in a court of law and must be concrete. E.G. “I am going to shoot up a school Tuesday” OK “I just feel like taking them out one of these days” Not “imminent”. As quoted above in general in Canada two doctors need to sign off on the commitment. In general in the US the only body that can involuntarily commit an individual is a court of law. That is a massive difference in the standard. Canada the patient must fight to gain their freedom, in the US the state/doctors/family must fight to get a commitment. I do wish congress would revisit that and consider adding another layer or law that would stand up to a challenge that reached SCOTUS or at least starting the push for an amendment . ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/23 "2013-03-02T21:29:42Z")
ISTM that a key question that needs to be answered is, how good is the medical establishment at predicting who is going to act out violently, either in suicide, murder, or both? And how much confidence do we need before we can intervene, possibly against the patient’s will? If, say, 10% of the severely depressed attempt suicide (I am pulling the figure out of the air/my ass), is that a great enough risk to compel the patient to be institutionalized and/or take whatever medications are prescribed? Do we need some judicial process to decide that some individual patient is at risk, and therefore needs to be denied access to firearms (or kept away from high buildings, or whatever)? > [@](#): > > better more accessible affordable effective mental health services and a culture/system that gets people using those services results in fewer suicides and murder-suicides. Maybe, but I don’t see accessibility or affordability as the issue in the Connecticut anecdote referred to above. Effective? Sure, by definition an effective mental health system is going to reduce suicide. But how effective is the system currently? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/24 "2013-03-02T21:37:07Z")
The only context in which the NRA was mentioned was presuming that Voyager must have been substituting the NRA’s positions (list of “lunatics”) for what was being proposed by the op just because he read “mental health” and “guns” in the same paragraph. What are you imagining I have written about the NRA relevant to this thread? Is it endemic here that people see a word or so and then respond in some free association manner? Now the stats on suicide rates being only marginally lower in Canada is actually pertinent and a strong counterpoint to my using Canada’s health system as a role model for decreasing suicide rates. No Shodan that really is not so key. If all (or close to all) are effectively treated because treatment is available, affordable, and without stigma, then there is no need to do something against someone’s will. The op did not propose compelling treatment. ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/25 "2013-03-02T21:40:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This sort of thing is such a small subset of gun deaths that while tragic, you can’t let it drive policy until you have handled the broader problems of gun violence mostly from criminals (putting suicide aside). > > I’m not sure about that, I also support universal health care but I am not sure of the connection to gun violence. The connection to ANY kind of violence is not the main point. We, as a nation, need Universal Health Care. We also need to prosecute criminals. We don’t need to disarm law abiding citizens. If good health care policies benefit mental patients who may become violent at some point, all the better. It’s not a priority that gun violence be a major factor in mental health treatment, though it may be a benefit that is realized when treatment is available. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/26 "2013-03-02T21:52:38Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The only context in which the NRA was mentioned was presuming that Voyager must have been substituting the NRA’s positions (list of “lunatics”) for what was being proposed by the op just because he read “mental health” and “guns” in the same paragraph. What are you imagining I have written about the NRA relevant to this thread? Is it endemic here that people see a word or so and then respond in some free association manner? > > Now the stats on suicide rates being only marginally lower in Canada is actually pertinent and a strong counterpoint to my using Canada’s health system as a role model for decreasing suicide rates. > > No Shodan that really is not so key. If all (or close to all) are effectively treated because treatment is available, affordable, and without stigma, then there is no need to do something against someone’s will. The op did not propose compelling treatment. Don’t get me wrong..I am all for increasing treatment and decreasing stigma I just need to point out data when I think it is wrong, or want to know more to see if I need to change my position. IMHO, to stop random spree shooters we do need access but the sigma part is the part that no one is talking about. Many of the recent large mass-murders seem to have been of the opinion that they were marked people and less useful in the world. Thus the motivation for getting revenge before ending it all. I don’t want to thread jack but IMHO the main barrier in my social circles to reducing that bias is from the complementary and alternative medicine crowd…I fully understand the placebo effect is real but they have so much legal power to push woo that it is hard to fight the natural fears and ignorance that people have. (Note in my state insurance is required to treat homeopaths the same as real doctors) Note for other posts in the thread. More than 80% of people who seek treatment for depression see massive improvement these days and for most people it is not a life long event. The mental health professionals I have talked to do not pretend to have any ability to detect if a person will be violent (outside of past actions) and most who have those feelings do not follow through with them. I am sure at some point in your life you may have said “some times I just want to kill my brother” but most don’t really mean it nor do they follow through with it if they do. Damn good thing too that vast majority of people are good. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/27 "2013-03-02T22:07:35Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > No Shodan that really is not so key. If all (or close to all) are effectively treated because treatment is available, affordable, and without stigma, then there is no need to do something against someone’s will. The op did not propose compelling treatment. AFAICT the woman in Connecticut had treatment available, but (apparently) her care-giver did not accurately predict that she would become violent. So treatment that is available and affordable and so forth is only going to “work” insofar as we can make that prediction. The OP says > [@](#): > > So my theory is, perhaps it’s not only gun control, but also National health which is helping to control nuts from going off. But if Canada’s rate is 10.2 vs. 10.5 in the US, that is not a very strong argument. Suicide is more common among the elderly. Elder suicide in Canada is [something like 14 out of 100,000](http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/seniors.asp?cID=5801) (as of 1993). In the US as of 2007 it is about 14.3 ([cite](http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=232&name=DLFE-242.pdf) - pdf). The elderly are covered by Medicare in the US. Yet the disparity remains. UHC might or might not be a good idea, but I doubt it will make a major difference in suicide rates. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/28 "2013-03-02T22:26:13Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > AFAICT the woman in Connecticut had treatment available, but (apparently) her care-giver did not accurately predict that she would become violent. So treatment that is available and affordable and so forth is only going to “work” insofar as we can make that prediction. > > The OP says But if Canada’s rate is 10.2 vs. 10.5 in the US, that is not a very strong argument. > > Suicide is more common among the elderly. Elder suicide in Canada is [something like 14 out of 100,000](http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/seniors.asp?cID=5801) (as of 1993). In the US as of 2007 it is about 14.3 ([cite](http://www.suicidology.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=232&name=DLFE-242.pdf) - pdf). The elderly are covered by Medicare in the US. Yet the disparity remains. > > UHC might or might not be a good idea, but I doubt it will make a major difference in suicide rates. > > Regards, > Shodan Can police accurately predict who, among those with no criminal record will be a violent criminal? But if doesn’t matter if you can “accurately predict that she would become violent” if they people come in for treatment on their own. It is a highly treatable illness 17% of the population will have sever depression in their lifetime…are they all at risk of becoming killers? Cite: [http://psychcentral.com/library/depression\_tx.htm](http://psychcentral.com/library/depression_tx.htm) The stigma against mental health treatment is high in Canada, it is not a good example but outside of elderly suicide, which is much more complex (many are due to fears about degenerative illness and a lack of death with dignity options). But if 80% of people with clinical depression respond to medication within a few weeks and other treatments also are effective how would not being depressed cause someone to still do a murder suicide? Also if they thought they had someone to turn to, someone who understood and that not all was lost it would help prevent it. Also the fact that it is not 100% effective doesn’t make it of no value, there is a demonstrated positive effect. Just not in the way presented above. Gun control doesn’t reduce suicide rates either, as was discovered in Australia. (I get that it reduces firearm suicides but it doesn’t reduce the rate overall) Cite [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551044](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551044) But that is the issue, this is not a simple problem, one that can be spoon-fed to the public and solved in 6 weeks. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/29 "2013-03-03T00:42:23Z")
> [@SirGalahad](#): > > We, as a nation, need Universal Health Care. I agree with this. It would be more fair. It would reduce personal bankruptcies. And it might reduce some administrative expenses. However, I don’t see it making a measureable impact on either suicide or homicide. The US already has much higher total heath care costs than any other country. And our [government health expenditures are similar to those of other prosperous nations which _do_ have universal heath care.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html) So, realistically, you can’t expect the amount of health care delivered to Americans to go much higher. And consider that, in many areas of the US, community mental heath centers and [other non-profits](http://www.gphainc.org/mission.asp) are already providing the kind of mental health care – sometimes good, sometimes not – you might expect in a universal system. Also consider that psychiatry – and I am pro-psychiatry – does not have a permanent cure for most diagnoses. And also consider that mental health professionals are generally against telling the government the names of unstable patients who shouldn’t have guns. And the therapists have a good reason – the patients then won’t see them. > [@](#): > > We also need to prosecute criminals. We already do. The US has the world’s highest incarceration rate. If you prefer to subtract out the [21.7 percent of our prisoners in for drug offences](http://www.gphainc.org/mission.asp), we then have the world’s third highest incarceration rate, behind only the [Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, and the Seychelles](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate). This suggests to me that we are at a point of diminishing returns there. There is no one answer. Fewer high tech medical procedures with money saved used to for more psychiatric hospital beds – it should help some. Fewer prison beds with money saved going to probation would, I think, help even more. But a third item that would help is fewer guns. I’d treat them more like automobiles in terms of licensing, and more like cigarettes in terms of trying to convince people they are a bad choice. In case you anyone is still wondering what the heck fewer legal guns has to do with criminal guns, see: [Guns used to kill police officers: Where they come from](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/20/AR2010112002865.html) > [@](#): > > Legal purchase was the leading source of weapons used to kill police officers. And where the perpetrator didn’t get it legally – the original owner did. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/30 "2013-03-03T01:12:08Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Gun control doesn’t reduce suicide rates either, as was discovered in Australia. (I get that it reduces firearm suicides but it doesn’t reduce the rate overall) > > Cite [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551044](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22551044) These authors are from the International Coalition for Women in Shooting and Hunting. That raises a question of objectivity, although, of couse, even advocates can be correct. I have access to a university library web site, but full text access to this article is embargoed for 18 months. A slightly better summary than your abstract can be found from this link: [http://www.ic-wish.org/method\_restriction\_youth\_suicide.htm](http://www.ic-wish.org/method_restriction_youth_suicide.htm) There no point in commenting without reading the entire article. I just emailed them, via the above link, asking for the full article. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/31 "2013-03-03T03:05:20Z")
Although neighbors, there are some major differences between Canada and the US in addition to UHC. One that stands out like a sore thumb is population size and density. IIRC some gun enthusiasts in another thread point out that one of the border states like Minnesota firearm murder rates are roughly equal to Canada but I haven’t looked into it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/32 "2013-03-03T05:01:47Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **DA** what _about_ the broader problem of gun violence from criminals? The fact that homicide rates have [consistently decreased over the past 20 years](http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm) and are now less than 60% of what they were? Total violent crime 63% of what it was? Yeah, and? How does that make focusing on a small sliver of gun violence while ignoring the vast majority make any sense? Are you under the impression that criminal gun violence will eventually shrink down to the frequency of gun violence committed by the mentally ill? > [@](#): > > There _is no epidemic of gun violence_ in the United States right now. There is instead a _consistently improving_ trend. The consistently improving trend is on crime and gun violence is just coming down with crime in general. Guns still account for 2/3 of all homocides in the country. Most successful suicides are committed with a gun. > [@](#): > > Of course we can do better and of course keeping guns out of the hands of those who have no legal right to have them (by universal background checks, better enforcement of current laws against straw purchases, encouraging more responsible ownership, see many other debates) is a good idea but further reducing homicide rates should not be driving policy while suicide rates are as high as they are. And actions like that woman’s, and often that of other high visibility mass shootings, are, IMHO, more akin to suicides than to typical homicides. I would add a national registry for all guns. I haven’t read anything so far that leads me to think we can reduce the number of suicides. What are you proposing? > [@](#): > > [Suicide is far above homicide as a leading cause of death](http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/leading_causes.html) in the United States. Suicide is the 10th largest cause for those over 10 years old; homicide only 15th. And its rate has been > > [pretty flat](http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/statistics/trends01.html) over that same last 20 years that saw such an impressive drop in homicide rates and violent crime in general. To [dig deeper](http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/statistics/trends02.html) down in those over 65, flat in the 10 to 24 group, and increased in those 25 to 64. Firearms lead the list for mechanism of suicide completion. The percents of High Schoolers who have considered, planned, and even attempted suicide at some point is [frightening](http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/suicide/statistics/youth_risk.html). > > You want to make a meaningful impact rather than something that you can feel good about while it actually does very little? Put a bit more effort at improving mental health service quality, availability, and affordability, and a bit less arguing over assault weapons. (And please note, having insurance does not mean that the insurance offers much in the way of mental health coverage, let alone create a system and a culture that gets people to come to help _even when_ it is covered and available.) So? By your reasoning, we should entirely ignore suicide in favor of battling heart disease and cancer. I agree that we need to remove the stigma of mental illness and increase access to treatment but what more can we do really? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/33 "2013-03-03T05:41:06Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > My [sense of it](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/civil-committal) (and this little bit is consistent with it) is that involuntary commitment is no easier in Canada than in the U.S. > > Clearly part of your problem is that you are responding to the NRA talking points (keep lists of the lunatics) and not what was brought up in this op, which is something completely different. This is a narrow discussion and acknowledging the claim of the op, that accessible affordable and effective quality mental health services might be a bigger factor contributing to differences in gun violence rates than laws controlling gun ownership, does not require one to accept an either/or proposition. One can also believe that a different set of gun regulations than what we currently possess would also help … or not. > > My problem is also that it seems to be presented as a virtual either/or, with most who really want to _do something_ focusing on gun laws, not improved mental health. If it must be either/or I would put forth that while passing new gun laws will help people feel like they have done something, they will actually do very little. Improved mental health is harder to actually accomplish, but much more likely to have real impact. IMHO. I’m trying to find a mechanism where it would help. For improved access to mental health services to significantly reduce gun violence, it would have to either cure a significant number of people whose problem eventually will lead to violence, or somehow reduce their access to firearms. Is there evidence that those with access to mental health services have a lower rate of gun violence, correcting for economic factors? For the second, it would mean all sorts of checks which go beyond the premise of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/34 "2013-03-03T05:44:06Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This sort of thing is such a small subset of gun deaths that while tragic, you can’t let it drive policy until you have handled the broader problems of gun violence mostly from criminals (putting suicide aside). Sure, but unless you think all criminals are mentally ill by definition, the OP seems to be talking about gun violence from people who have not been criminals up to the point they kill someone. As for suicides, perhaps available treatment would reduce the suicide rate - but there is plenty of suicide on college campuses, and students do have access to mental health services. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/35 "2013-03-03T05:47:01Z")
Funny, I am reading _yours_ as the post that says one should be relatively ignored until the other is addressed. Yes, amazingly enough deceasing crime in general has been pretty effective in decreasing violent crime, including crimes with guns, including murders. Actually that seems the most effective approach. And has been pretty damn effective. My support for a wide variety of gun control measures has been expressed in many threads over the years; it just seems to me that maybe just maybe doing more to reduce suicides would be something given _some_ attention too when one is talking about deaths with guns, given that more die from suicide than murder and all. Yes, I believe we can prevent many suicides. And yes I believe that identification and effective treatment of those with mental illness and, even more challenging, prevention of the social isolation that seems to be increasing in our society to my read, can be effective tools. Education about how suicide is a big risk associated with guns unsecured in a household can also help. Decreasing gun availability, especially unsecured gun availability, does help decrease suicide rates. I don’t have access to that Australian data but the [overall](http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/suicide-eng.htm) data is pretty clear to my read anyway. The simple fact is that making it just a bit harder to complete the act helps, it forces a pause, a chance to come up with a different course. Detoxified gas in houses; smaller size bottles of aceteminophen; no easy access to guns; so on. Canada may not be the model, but what do countries with low suicide rates (like the U.K.) do right? How can that be emulated? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/36 "2013-03-03T05:54:53Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ISTM that a key question that needs to be answered is, how good is the medical establishment at predicting who is going to act out violently, either in suicide, murder, or both? And how much confidence do we need before we can intervene, possibly against the patient’s will? > > If, say, 10% of the severely depressed attempt suicide (I am pulling the figure out of the air/my ass), is that a great enough risk to compel the patient to be institutionalized and/or take whatever medications are prescribed? Do we need some judicial process to decide that some individual patient is at risk, and therefore needs to be denied access to firearms (or kept away from high buildings, or whatever)? > > Regards, > Shodan I agree with this, but another way of reducing violence would be if treatment reduces the occurrence of violence even if the therapist cannot predict it. I suspect we’d be hearing this shouted from the rooftops if there was evidence of it. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/37 "2013-03-03T11:35:02Z")
There is an argument that the USA contains a specific cultural affection for guns - and using them. There are other nations where semi-automatic weapons and pistols are owned by the general populace but not used with anything like the gay abandon of the USA. Canada, Switzerland and Israel come to mind. So it is not a mental health problem per se but rather a collective attitude which encourages weapon ownership. The argument is that the USA came to democracy too quickly at a time when there was a general suspicion of governments and local law authorities. That suspicion has been reinforced through generations until the right to bear arms has attained sacrosanct status. That is not normal in most of the developed world. I for example fear many things for my children but being shot is not even at the extreme range of my fears. It is so unlikely that I don’t even think about it. Here is an interesting article on the issue: [http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/international/guns-and-culture-in-america-10183/](http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/international/guns-and-culture-in-america-10183/) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/38 "2013-03-03T13:14:10Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > Here is an interesting article on the issue: If I was on the pro-gun side of the debate, I’d want to examine every claim in there pretty carefully. A few are exaggerated despite the overall picture being correct. And I wish they’d mention that most of our gun deaths are suicides (and most of our non-gun suicide attempts fail). Others will disagree, but, as far as I’m concerned, an eighteen year old being murdered and an eighteen year old committing suicide are equally tragic. So long as you don’t bring a gun into your hotel room, there’s little reason to fear visiting us. Most of the difference in violent death mortality between your country and mine is eliminated if you just look at US households which don’t have a gun. They couldn’t get away with it down South, but where I live, pediatricians ask if you have a gun in the house almost as often as family practice docs ask about smoking, and for similar reasons. See: [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full](http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/105/4/888.full) ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/39 "2013-03-03T13:23:39Z")
A P.S. on my last link, since it claims US gun death is a decreasing problem. I’ve seen some of the pro-gun people here also say that. My last link was from year 2000. Since then, gun deaths here have held steady: [http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states](http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states) > [@](#): > > In the United States, the annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is > > 2011: 10.35 > 2010: 10.266 > 2009: 10.22 > 2008: 10.39 > 2007: 10.37 > 2006: 10.35 > 2005: 10.39 > 2004: 10.10 > 2003: 10.39 > 2002: 10.51 > 2001: 10.38 > 2000: 10.19 > 1999: 10.35 ---
**Author:** ![solosam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@solosam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/solosam)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756/40 "2013-03-03T22:30:43Z")
If I had mental health problems, and I knew the government would take my guns away or prohibit me from buying new guns, why would I choose to seek mental health treatment? Obviously, nobody wants the violent crazies to have guns. But I wouldn’t seek treatment if I perceived that I would be “punished” for doing so. I was hospitalized for depression at one point. Now every time I buy a gun or apply for a license or anything, I have to get a document from a shrink saying I’m sane enough to own one. Oddly enough, the Army has no problem handing me an M-4 but buying one for myself is a big deal. Anyway, if I had known how much of a PITA it was going to be, and the life-long legal stigma it would create, I would not have agreed to be hospitalized. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guns-and-national-health/651756.md?page=3)