Yep, despite having 300,000,000 guns we are only 48th or so:
Belgium, Japan, Sweden, all of whom are Western style Industrialized democracies , and all of whom have a much lower gun ownership rate, all have higher suicide rates.
In any case, suicide is a right. We cant ban guns because someone wants to exercise that right.
No. That doesn’t seem cool to me. I don’t think I blame guns for that. I blame the law that the man cited that made it legal for him to shoot those two people. He seemed clear on the law and noted it before going outside and shooting. Without that law he might have stayed inside.
You are right on this. Suicide is often spontaneous. A handy gun allows that spontaneity to be acted on, usually with success. Without a handy gun, it often requires some planning. That built in time delay is often enough to cause one to Reconsider. In another thread I cited that some studies that showed the suicide rate drops when handguns are bannned, like in Australia.
While this is a fact, and a shame. I don’t think it’s a strong argument to ban handguns. It’s not the role of government to protect one from oneself, imo.
No, it’s not really a fact. Yes, suicide by gun decreased.
But as I posted just up thread:
*Some researchers have found a significant change in the rate of firearm suicides after the legislative changes. For example, Ozanne-Smith et al. (2004)[50] in the journal Injury Prevention found a reduction in firearm suicides in Victoria, however this study did not consider non-firearm suicide rates. Others have argued that alternative methods of suicide have been substituted. De Leo, Dwyer, Firman & Neulinger,[51] studied suicide methods in men from 1979 to 1998 and found a rise in hanging suicides that started slightly before the fall in gun suicides. As hanging suicides rose at about the same rate as gun suicides fell, it is possible that there was some substitution of suicide methods. It has been noted that drawing strong conclusions about possible impacts of gun laws on suicides is challenging, because a number of suicide prevention programs were implemented from the mid-1990s onwards, and non-firearm suicides also began falling.[52]
Suicide reduction from firearm regulation is disputed by Richard Harding in his book “Firearms and Violence in Australian Life”[53] where, after reviewing Australian statistics, he said that “whatever arguments might be made for the limitation or regulation of the private ownership of firearms, suicide patterns do not constitute one of them” Harding quoted international analysis by Newton and Zimring[54] of twenty developed countries which concluded at page 36 of their report; “cultural factors appear to affect suicide rates far more than the availability and use of firearms. Thus, suicide rates would not seem to be readily affected by making firearms less available.”*
Texas takes an especially dim view of burglars. Aspiring burglars would do well to remember that.
Well in my post in another thread I linked to the article, too. Great minds think alike.
Where we differ, seems to be in conclusions. In an impulsive suicide, shooting oneself with a gun is pretty quick and certain. Other methods, including hanging take a little more work and planning, and are a little less certain.
So, the longer the delay between the impulse and the result, the greater the chance for second thoughts. So, any delay will ultimately save lives. How many? What percent? It doesn’t seem that the evidence is out and may be unlikely we will ever find a solid answer.
I don’t have a problem facing the reasonable conclusion that guns make suicide easier, and that if you take away guns a certain number of people will live who otherwise wouldn’t if they had immediate access.
I don’t think it’s much of an anti gun argument. Doubtless lives have been saved because people did not happen to be standing on top of a really high building when they decided to kill themselves. It’s not a rational argument against tall buildings. Similarly, I am sure that lives have been saved because people misplaced their rope and weren’t able to hang themselves and changed their mind by the time they found it. This would not be a good argument to suggest there be a waiting period to buy rope.
I do admire the 911 operator, though. That person did their best.
So without guns, you think we would have about the lowest suicide rate in the OECD? Really? I don’t think you have thought this through.
Incorrect.
Cite for that last thing, because I think that is actually false when there is a serious suicide attempt.
I consider it accepted fact that you are just as dead when you jump from a 20 story building as when you shoot yourself.
I consider it accepted fact that you are just as dead when you jump in front of a train.
cite?
It probably would cause a reduction but considering where our suicide rate is, I doubt it would be by very much.
No. I said I’m tired of this.
Honestly I’m tired enough of this to say fuck it. Let gun owners kill themselves. Let them murder other people with impunity, if they get the itch, as happens daily. Let the country burn in a blaze of muzzle flashes. Death to all!
Having attempted suicide and failing puts the person at much greater risk for a future attempt than someone who has not attempted suicide.
Also, guns are by FAR the most effective means of a successful suicide (yes, getting run over by a train is probably very effective too but for whatever reason it is not a commonly chosen method of suicide):
Does this mean that in countries with much higher suicide rates per capita that they actually have much higher attempts that are simply unsuccessful?? :eek:
I don’t know but interestingly the country with the highest suicide rate in the world is Sri Lanka and one of the favored means of suicide is jumping in front of a train which I already stipulated is probably a pretty effective means of suicide.
Also of interest is suicides are the highest in Sri Lanka among the elderly. Dunno what to make of it, just found it an interesting statistic.
I’ll chime in. Suicide is as good a reason as any to own a gun. Hunter Thompson, noted liberal journalist and gun freak, ended his own life in such a way.
I own an AR-15 from Radical Firearms and a Ruger .45 pistol. My AR has two 30 round mags and I have about 600 rounds of ammunition. Why? I don’t know.
I’m also an alcoholic and prone to being unstable if I relapse. Maybe I’ll kill myself. Maybe I won’t. But if I decide to do that, rational, drunk, sober or otherwise, I want to own that decision and a gun is the best way to end the business quickly. I don’t have Doctor Kevorkian on speed dial should I deem that decision necessary, and despite that I’d leave two sons in my wake, it’s still my decision to make…with MY guns. End of story.
I agree it is your decision to make.
I submit though that you, like anyone, can make a bad and/or hasty decision and suicide with a gun is close to irrevocable. It’s not a mistake most people get a chance to recover from.
I had a good friend, one of my favorite people in the world, commit suicide in the darkest hour of the night after some trouble in his life brought him to a low spot. In those moments that pistol seemed a good choice.
I can never know for certain but I believe deeply that had he been able to make it to the morning things would have worked out and he’d still be here.
So we agree that Begbert’s “accepted fact” is actually false.
“the odds of successfully committing suicide are 140 times greater when a gun is used than for any other method” Really? A gunshot is 140 times more likely to kill you than jumping off a building or hanging yourself? What am I missing here? Did they mean 140%, even then I don’t think so. I don’t know anyone that jumped out of the world trade center on 9/11 and survived. The survival rate drops to almost nothing when you jump from a 6 story building onto a concrete sidewalk.
Sure you could “attempt suicide” from a 2 story building but that’s the jumping equivalent of raking a razor over your wrists. If you’re serious about killing yourself, its not that hard to find a 6 story building.
Sure. But it has been shown the gun control does not affect suicide rates, just the number of suicides done by gun. They turn to hanging, jumping or even driving into oncoming traffic.
Still sniping, I see.
I noticed that comment of Whack-a-Mole’s, considered it for a second, and realized that it obviously didn’t contradict my statement. Yes, a person who has attempted suicide once is more likely to try again than somebody who has never attempted it - because the average person who has not attempted suicide is not experiencing circumstances that drive them to commit suicide. So yeah, they’re less likely to reach for a gun than somebody who was at some point in dire circumstances and very well might still be. Honestly, this goes basically without saying. Big shiny duh.
Of course this doesn’t disprove the idea that suicide recidivism rates might be low (though obviously not as low as that of people who are thrilled with their lives). I mean, obviously.
In the united states, the popular methods of suicide are firearms, hanging, and poisoning (including with drug overdoses). Falls comprise only 2.5% of suicides; transportation methods only 0.4%.
Now, I’m not certain, but I get the impression that this cite lists only successful attempts - explaining why cutting only is the cause in 1.8% of suicides, despite being so popular from a pop culture perspective.
If I were to extrapolate from the data, I would say that firearms and hanging are the big winners they are because they are pretty reliable ways to off yourself, as opposed to cutting and overdoses. The fact that hopping off buildings and jumping in front of trains rate so incredibly low suggests to me that almost nobody is trying them - probably because you have to leave your home to do so. (And possibly travel to a different city - I probably live in one of the few cities in my state with tall buildings, and we still don’t have a subway.)
You have the argument backwards. Guns, mowing you own grass, drinking slurpies, and wearing red hats are legal by default. The constitution did not bestow the right to own a gun, it confirmed and reinforced a person’s already existing sovereign right to do so by protecting that right from government infringement.
Your question should be ‘why should owning a gun be illegal?’.
Before any intelligent discussion on this can be had one has to deal with the issue of how to criminalize something that criminals will accept and follow and balance that with criminalizing that thing for law abiding citizens who are not the justification for the criminalization AND who will have a default right infringed by doing so.
tex