If American - which presidential candidate will you vote for?

[Mephistopheles]

Added 5 pro gun demagogues to ignore list.

 

Donated to https://secure.efsgv.org/page/contribute/efsgv

 

Good day's work.

 

Pro-gun propaganda kills people. Stop NRA, stop guns, stop gun violence.

 

Have you looked into Michael Bloomberg's "Every Town For Gun Safety" organization? I'm sure it has all the funding it needs but I am considering getting involved.

 

I saw it mentioned among others. I will look into it next time I do a donation. Thanks.

 

Of course, even pro-gun-control groups in USA treat 2nd amendment as a third rail. (yeah pun intended). So none of them stand up for a gun ban. Pity.

 

Yes that's unfortunate. But the only way to ever get to a repeal of the 2nd amendment would be through compromises over time, not all in one shot.

[Mephistopheles]

There were 11,208 firearm homicides and 21,175 firearm suicides in the US in 2013  (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

 

About 16% of firearm homicides occur during the course of a felony of any kind. The largest percentage of murders, more than 40%, occurs during arguments (Bogus, p. 7 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1140442). Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have written "Most of the circumstances that generate homicide are not property crimes involving strangers, but arguments among acquaintances that nobody would regard as distinctively criminal until the attack began." If people substituted other weapons for guns, that would reduce overall homicides as other weapons are less deadly. There was a "Tale of Two Cities" study conducted by a team of epidemiologists led by John Henry Sloan and published in the New England Journal of Medicine which compared crime rates over a 7 year period in Seattle, WA and Vancouver British Columbia. Quoting the Bogus article:

 

They selected these two cities because, although they are opposite sides of an international border, they had similar histories, geographies, cultures, and socio-economic profiles. Both cities had nearly identical population sizes, unemployment rates, and median household incomes in adjusted U.S. dollars. The percentages of inhabitants below the poverty line in both cities were also extremely close. Whites composed 79% of Seattle’s population and 76% of Vancouver’s. In Vancouver, Asians composed nearly all of the remaining quarter of the population while in Seattle the balance of the population was split among Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

 

Most of the top-ten television shows in one city also ranked among the top-ten in the other. Seattle and Vancouver, moreover, are only 140 miles apart, and both are major ports in the Pacific Northwest. They also share a common frontier history. Both cities were formed as a result of the gold rush and the completion of the transcontinental railroads in the late nineteenth century. As one might expect from twin cities, the burglary rates in Seattle and Vancouver were nearly identical. The aggravated assault rate, however, was slightly higher in Seattle. On examining the data more closely, the researchers found “a striking pattern.” There were almost identical rates of assaults with knives, clubs, and fists, but there was a far greater rate of assault with firearms in Seattle. Indeed, the firearm assault rate was nearly eight times higher than in Vancouver. The homicide rate was also markedly different in the two cities. During the seven years of the study, there were 204 homicides in Vancouver and 388 in Seattle – an enormous difference for two cities with nearly identical population sizes. Further analysis led to a startling finding: the entire difference was due to gun-related homicides. The murder rates with knives and all other weapons excluding firearms were nearly identical, but the murder rates with guns were five times greater in Seattle. That alone accounted for Seattle having nearly twice as many homicides. During the study period, people in Seattle could purchase a handgun for any reason after a thirty-day waiting period, and handguns were present in 41% of all households. Vancouver, on the other hand, required a permit for handgun purchases and issued them only to applicants with a lawful reason to own a handgun and who, after a careful investigation, were found to have no criminal record and to be sane. Self-defense was not a valid reason to own a handgun in Vancouver, and recreational use was strictly regulated. The penalty for illegal use was severe: two years imprisonment. Twelve percent of Vancouver homes had handguns. The central lesson of this study is that the prevalence of handguns is a major factor in homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies. The study also suggests answers to several other important questions. Do handguns deter crime?

 

If handguns deter burglaries, as some argue, the burglary rate in Seattle where so many more homes had handguns – should have been lower than the burglary rate in Vancouver. But it was not. (This finding has been confirmed by a study that found that both U.S. states and individual counties with a greater prevalence of guns also have both more total burglaries and more home invasions, that is, burglaries when someone is at home.) How often are handguns used for self-defense? The Seattle-Vancouver study found that less than 4% of the homicides in both cities resulted from acts of self-defense. And particularly, if handguns are not available, will people switch to other weapons? The answer must be no. Otherwise, Seattle and Vancouver would have had similar total homicide rates, and Vancouver would have had higher rates of homicide with other weapons.

 

Suicide rates with firearms have a fatality rate of 85% (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/), far in excess of fatality rates by other means. The total suicide fatality rate of all methods is 9%.

 

Let's say that in total, banning firearm would conservatively save 33% of the firearm deaths in the US, so 10,000 people each year. For comparison purposes, the number of Americans that died in the Vietnam war was 58,000. One would have to assign a huge likelihood of mass murder by the US government in order to come close to offsetting the lives saved. For example, it would take a 5% chance each year that 200,000 are killed in some statist dystopia to get an expected lives saved that would offset the deaths prevented by eliminating firearms.

 

Great post!

[rb]

Yea, I don't think numbers and rational analysis will make a difference. If they would something would have been done by now.

[Mephistopheles]

Yea, I don't think numbers and rational analysis will make a difference. If they would something would have been done by now.

 

Agreed. Numbers never matter with most issues with the populace. But I think the country over the long term becomes more and more liberal, and we'll eventually get there, slowly but surely.

 

I'm surprised though that these numbers also don't seem to matter to some "value investors"; people who are supposed to be rational.

[doughishere]

Yea, I don't think numbers and rational analysis will make a difference. If they would something would have been done by now.

 

Agreed. Numbers never matter with most issues with the populace. But I think the country over the long term becomes more and more liberal, and we'll eventually get there, slowly but surely.

 

I'm surprised though that these numbers also don't seem to matter to some "value investors"; people who are supposed to be rational.

 

 

I wish I had your confidence in rationality, even among "value investors". Experience has taught me different even among those aware of their own limitations on rationality.

 

 

I know I struggle with being rational every day.

[Cardboard]

"I'm surprised though that these numbers also don't seem to matter to some "value investors"; people who are supposed to be rational."

 

Based on some of the responses in the thread already, maybe that you will be told that you are not a value investor either since you are basing your judgement on the short term. Over the long term, history has shown that tyrants always take over and for the populace to have no mean to defend freedom means a dictatorship and 10's of millions of death. LOL

 

And regarding this data, I just pulled something from Wikipedia indicating that the U.S. and Canada are about even and in the middle of the pack for 107 countries in terms of homicides/suicide per 10,000 people. Both have very different gun laws. Homicide is higher in the U.S. but, I see no difference between the U.S. and other developed countries on suicide.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate

 

Please don't shoot the messenger!

 

Cardboard

[rkbabang]

There were 11,208 firearm homicides and 21,175 firearm suicides in the US in 2013  (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm).

 

About 16% of firearm homicides occur during the course of a felony of any kind. The largest percentage of murders, more than 40%, occurs during arguments (Bogus, p. 7 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1140442). Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have written "Most of the circumstances that generate homicide are not property crimes involving strangers, but arguments among acquaintances that nobody would regard as distinctively criminal until the attack began." If people substituted other weapons for guns, that would reduce overall homicides as other weapons are less deadly. There was a "Tale of Two Cities" study conducted by a team of epidemiologists led by John Henry Sloan and published in the New England Journal of Medicine which compared crime rates over a 7 year period in Seattle, WA and Vancouver British Columbia. Quoting the Bogus article:

 

They selected these two cities because, although they are opposite sides of an international border, they had similar histories, geographies, cultures, and socio-economic profiles. Both cities had nearly identical population sizes, unemployment rates, and median household incomes in adjusted U.S. dollars. The percentages of inhabitants below the poverty line in both cities were also extremely close. Whites composed 79% of Seattle’s population and 76% of Vancouver’s. In Vancouver, Asians composed nearly all of the remaining quarter of the population while in Seattle the balance of the population was split among Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

 

Most of the top-ten television shows in one city also ranked among the top-ten in the other. Seattle and Vancouver, moreover, are only 140 miles apart, and both are major ports in the Pacific Northwest. They also share a common frontier history. Both cities were formed as a result of the gold rush and the completion of the transcontinental railroads in the late nineteenth century. As one might expect from twin cities, the burglary rates in Seattle and Vancouver were nearly identical. The aggravated assault rate, however, was slightly higher in Seattle. On examining the data more closely, the researchers found “a striking pattern.” There were almost identical rates of assaults with knives, clubs, and fists, but there was a far greater rate of assault with firearms in Seattle. Indeed, the firearm assault rate was nearly eight times higher than in Vancouver. The homicide rate was also markedly different in the two cities. During the seven years of the study, there were 204 homicides in Vancouver and 388 in Seattle – an enormous difference for two cities with nearly identical population sizes. Further analysis led to a startling finding: the entire difference was due to gun-related homicides. The murder rates with knives and all other weapons excluding firearms were nearly identical, but the murder rates with guns were five times greater in Seattle. That alone accounted for Seattle having nearly twice as many homicides. During the study period, people in Seattle could purchase a handgun for any reason after a thirty-day waiting period, and handguns were present in 41% of all households. Vancouver, on the other hand, required a permit for handgun purchases and issued them only to applicants with a lawful reason to own a handgun and who, after a careful investigation, were found to have no criminal record and to be sane. Self-defense was not a valid reason to own a handgun in Vancouver, and recreational use was strictly regulated. The penalty for illegal use was severe: two years imprisonment. Twelve percent of Vancouver homes had handguns. The central lesson of this study is that the prevalence of handguns is a major factor in homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies. The study also suggests answers to several other important questions. Do handguns deter crime?

 

If handguns deter burglaries, as some argue, the burglary rate in Seattle where so many more homes had handguns – should have been lower than the burglary rate in Vancouver. But it was not. (This finding has been confirmed by a study that found that both U.S. states and individual counties with a greater prevalence of guns also have both more total burglaries and more home invasions, that is, burglaries when someone is at home.) How often are handguns used for self-defense? The Seattle-Vancouver study found that less than 4% of the homicides in both cities resulted from acts of self-defense. And particularly, if handguns are not available, will people switch to other weapons? The answer must be no. Otherwise, Seattle and Vancouver would have had similar total homicide rates, and Vancouver would have had higher rates of homicide with other weapons.

 

Suicide rates with firearms have a fatality rate of 85% (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/), far in excess of fatality rates by other means. The total suicide fatality rate of all methods is 9%.

 

Let's say that in total, banning firearm would conservatively save 33% of the firearm deaths in the US, so 10,000 people each year. For comparison purposes, the number of Americans that died in the Vietnam war was 58,000. One would have to assign a huge likelihood of mass murder by the US government in order to come close to offsetting the lives saved. For example, it would take a 5% chance each year that 200,000 are killed in some statist dystopia to get an expected lives saved that would offset the deaths prevented by eliminating firearms.

 

Country by country suicide rates do not correlate at all with gun ownership rates.  There is no evidence what so ever that lives would be saved in the suicide category with the removal of guns from society.  In Japan the suicide rate is significantly higher than the US even though the suicide by gun rate is almost zero.  I personally have known a few people who have committed suicide all three successful, none of which used guns as the method.  My wife has a family member who has attempted suicide probably 30 times since she was a teenager (she's in her 50's now) and every time the methodology is the same.  1) Take a bunch of pills.  2) Call everyone she knows "just to say goodbye".  3) Ambulance comes and she gets her stomach pumped. 

Many non-gun suicides are "unsuccessful" simply because the "victim" didn't really want to die.  Many "suicide attempts" are really about screaming for help or attention.  People who use guns however are usually those who mean it.  It is the difference between those who slit their wrists sideways and those who rip open up the vein and bleed out quickly.  Some people mean it, and others don't.  There are plenty of ways to kill yourself if you really have a mind to, from hanging, to high buildings, to drugs (without making goodbye calls), to suicide by cop, etc.  People in Japan and other countries with high suicide rates and low gun ownership rates manage to figure out how to do it, I'm sure Americans could as well.

 

[vox]

There is no evidence what so ever that lives would be saved in the suicide category with the removal of guns from society. 

 

I'm sorry, but this is flat out false. The Harvard School of Public Health has a compiled a number of peer reviewed studies that demonstrate that firearm access is a risk factor for suicide (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/). Their conclusion is "every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk."

 

Country by country comparisons fail to control for the diversity of religious beliefs, socio-economic opportunity, cultural biases, and countless other heterogeneous variables. In the US, states where there are more guns, there are more suicides.

 

Certainly, there will be those that commit suicide by other means, however, a large number of lives would undoubtedly be saved.

 

EDIT: This conclusion is also echoed by the American Public Health Association, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Trauma Society, and American Association of Suicidology in their amicus brief they filed in connection with DC vs. Heller (see pg. 8 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_PetitionerAmCu4MedicalOrgs.authcheckdam.pdf)

[rb]

Yea, I don't think numbers and rational analysis will make a difference. If they would something would have been done by now.

 

Agreed. Numbers never matter with most issues with the populace. But I think the country over the long term becomes more and more liberal, and we'll eventually get there, slowly but surely.

 

I'm surprised though that these numbers also don't seem to matter to some "value investors"; people who are supposed to be rational.

Guns just seem to be in a league of their own. I suspect that a lot of otherwise rational people loose sight of that when it comes to guns. Or even rationality sometimes gets lost in the political process around guns. I think a good example is that a background checks: A majority of both the population and of gun owners in the US support background checks but nobody will touch that at a political level.

 

I also don't think that it is a liberal over conservative thing since tons of liberals love their guns. Case in point uber liberal Bernie Sanders didn't have a problem with guns and liberal Vermont is ranked as the second most gun friendly state in the nation. Way ahead of Florida and TEXAS!

 

Then there's also this resistance to tyranny stuff. All these guys imagine themselves as captain America, AR 15 in hand defending freedom from the big bad tyrannical government that just snuk in. What they miss is that tyranny doesn't sneak in. Tyranny is invited, applauded and welcomed in. They always point to Hitler. If Germans had guns we wouldn't have had Hitler. Hitler was elected and supported. Germans back then didn't really have a problem with what he was doing. Look in the US right now, when Trump opens his mouth the words of a tyrant come out. Do people have a problem? Do they reach for their guns to protect liberty from tyranny? No. They go to rallies, applaud, justify and vote.

[rb]

And regarding this data, I just pulled something from Wikipedia indicating that the U.S. and Canada are about even and in the middle of the pack for 107 countries in terms of homicides/suicide per 10,000 people. Both have very different gun laws. Homicide is higher in the U.S. but, I see no difference between the U.S. and other developed countries on suicide.

 

Cardboard

Yes. The homicide rate in Canada is 1.45 per 100,000. In the US it is 4.5 per 100,000 - 210% higher.

[Cardboard]

"Do they reach for their guns to protect liberty from tyranny? No. They go to rallies, applaud, justify and vote."

 

And the leftists like yourself go there and beat peaceful people. Try to shut them up. That is exactly what the yellow jackets were doing in Germany in the early thirties.

 

Cardboard

 

 

[rb]

"Do they reach for their guns to protect liberty from tyranny? No. They go to rallies, applaud, justify and vote."

 

And the leftists like yourself go there and beat peaceful people. Try to shut them up. That is exactly what the yellow jackets were doing in Germany in the early thirties.

 

Cardboard

I don't see how your post contradicts anything of what i've just said? Are there nut jobs on the left as well. Yes. That doesn't change anything about what I've just said.

 

Btw, i don't really see myself as a big leftists. On certain things such as healthcare, education, and to a certain extent pensions my views align with the left because analysis shows that government involvement produces more efficient or more beneficial outcomes. Of course some of that is influenced by some personal views such as I am not ok with someone not getting healthcare they need because they have less money than me and cannot afford the insurance. However on most issues I'm a conservative free market guy also not because of ideology but because in most cases free markets do produce the best outcome. Now all in all can i say that I can identify with the Republican party platform? No. But it's not my fault that the party has become totally unhinged. If that makes me a raging leftists, oh well, so be it.

[Cardboard]

"Let's say that in total, banning firearm would conservatively save 33% of the firearm deaths in the US, so 10,000 people each year."

 

Our so called life defenders from the left want to save 10,000 lives a year by banning guns while data shows near zero difference with France on overall intentional deaths and 4.6 more per 100,000 vs their dream country: Denmark.

 

At the same time, they cheer 1,000,000 intentional death per year via legal abortion. Does not even include illegal.

 

By the way, why is abortion a Republican platform item? I can understand the religious aspect but, defending the weak should be a priority of Democrats. No?

 

And from a very cynical view point, if there were more abortion each year, which are mostly conducted in Democrats strongholds such as California and New York, would it not be a positive for Republicans to encourage it? Fewer Democrats voters long term?

 

 

Do you also see how fast Democrats jumped on guns following the event in Orlando? They simply have no plan to address the real issue. It wasn't guns in use in Boston. What did they do to fix the issue?

 

Cardboard   

[goldfinger]

Why is there no choice for "no one"?  :o

[Mephistopheles]

"Let's say that in total, banning firearm would conservatively save 33% of the firearm deaths in the US, so 10,000 people each year."

 

Our so called life defenders from the left want to save 10,000 lives a year by banning guns while data shows near zero difference with France on overall intentional deaths and 4.6 more per 100,000 vs their dream country: Denmark.

 

At the same time, they cheer 1,000,000 intentional death per year via legal abortion. Does not even include illegal.

 

By the way, why is abortion a Republican platform item? I can understand the religious aspect but, defending the weak should be a priority of Democrats. No?

 

And from a very cynical view point, if there were more abortion each year, which are mostly conducted in Democrats strongholds such as California and New York, would it not be a positive for Republicans to encourage it? Fewer Democrats voters long term?

 

 

Do you also see how fast Democrats jumped on guns following the event in Orlando? They simply have no plan to address the real issue. It wasn't guns in use in Boston. What did they do to fix the issue?

 

Cardboard   

 

For the record, I am not a Democrat. I'd say I'm Libertarian. I also am: pro-life, anti-death penalty, a non-interventionalist, anti-gun, and a borderline vegan.

 

Where are you getting the per 100,000 numbers from? I'm not so sure about suicide, but if we talk about homicide from all causes, the U.S. is much worse than France and Denmark. 4.9/100k in the U.S. 1.2 in France. 1.0 in Denmark.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

Edit: Just looked it up. Including suicide, 16.8 U.S., 16.1 France, 12.2 Denmark.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_death_rate

 

Someone said that suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves with or without guns. I'm certainly more inclined to believe this than the argument that homicidal people will find a way to kill others with or without guns, or will find guns regardless of their legality.

 

Also, when I step out the door, or anyone from my family does, homicide is a bigger concern for me than is suicide.

[DTEJD1997]

Hey guys:

 

Before this goes too far off the rails....I would caution members to "check their privilege".

 

I am going to guess that most members of this forum come from a middle class or higher background.

 

I grew up in Detroit in the late 70's and early 80's.  The city was an ABSOLUTE nightmare.  Violence was absolutely almost out of control.  Society seemed to be coming apart at the seems.  Police were almost ineffectual.  The area I grew up in was the highest end part of Detroit, "Indian Village".  Very beautiful, very large houses built by industrialists in the very early part of the 20th century.  It was about 3 blocks wide by 12 blocks long.  It was surrounded on 3 sides by ghetto.  Over the years, on every block, people were killed, shot at, bludgeoned, etc.  Break ins and property crimes were too numerous to even keep track of.  Once my father was shot at by a  thief breaking into his car.  Luckily, he was not hit, and the thief took off after firing.  When the police were summoned, they asked if anybody was wounded, was the thief still there?  If not, they would be there sometime that night,  they came 3 hours later.

 

Gun ownership was not that common amongst the homeowners.  It should have been. 

 

Why should people not be allowed to arm themselves if police are ineffectual?  People have a right to protect themselves and their property, rich & poor alike.

 

I think that some people who live in good areas and have led "sheltered lives"  tend to forget about this...

 

The problem with your argument is that it's not the people in the terrible parts of town that desire to be gun owners, nor are they the most vocal about 2A rights. It's people in rural areas that are politically conservative that are most likely to be vocal in this issue. It is not solely a utilitarian or safety issue, but the simple fact that some people just like guns and view it as a fundamental right. Not an existential battle to survive. Privileged people also want guns!

 

I can assure you that people in less affluent areas of town want guns too!  Frequently, they have them also....

 

You are right however that there are MANY facets to the gun discussion.  Some people collect them, some people are hunters, target shooters, some are business people, others want it for defensive purposes.

 

I would argue that when government does NOT protect it's people, does not keep civil order, citizens ABSOLUTELY have a right to self defense. 

 

Finally, in a side note, several posters can't seem to discuss this in a civil/rational manner.  This board is supposed to be better than the general internet rabble....

[adesigar]

This was recorded before the shooting happened.

 

 

Lets hear the Republicans and Libertarians excuse for why a potential terrorist can be put on a no fly list but is free to buy all the weapons and ammo he wants.

 

 

[rb]

Our so called life defenders from the left want to save 10,000 lives a year by banning guns while data shows near zero difference with France on overall intentional deaths and 4.6 more per 100,000 vs their dream country: Denmark.

 

Maybe I'm not sure what you're trying to say but intentional deaths in France and Denmark per 100,000 are in the low 1s. US is at 4.5. Not sure how that is zero difference.

[DTEJD1997]

This was recorded before the shooting happened.

 

 

Lets hear the Republicans and Libertarians excuse for why a potential terrorist can be put on a no fly list but is free to buy all the weapons and ammo he wants.

 

I"ve got a problem with this, AND with the "no fly" list.  If people are to be banned from flying, or buying guns, or watching videos on the inter web, etc....they need to have a judicial proceeding to deny them of their liberty.  You can't have the government just taking away liberties.  That is unconstitutional. 

 

If somebody is guilty of terrorist support, fine, have a proceeding/trial and get a verdict....

 

NOTE: this does not apply to non citizens....

[cwericb]

 

I am not against gun ownership itself as there are a number of legitimate reasons to do so.

 

But what I really do not understand is why any civilized country would allow its citizens AND it’s enemies to purchase and own military weapons such as assault weapons whose sole purpose  is to kill people. How can any rational person justify that? And for anyone who thinks so little of their own country and who is paranoid enough to believe that assault rifles are needed to protect them from their own government, than really shouldn’t you need to consider relocating to another country?

[Cardboard]

I agree that assault weapons should not be sold freely to the public. Like I mentioned before, you can't buy tanks, portable missiles so there should be a line.

 

And RB, you should read the chart before commenting. I said difference between these countries regarding intentional death not homicide.

 

And regarding homicide, is it a 100% correlation to more guns? I suspect there is correlation but, I could also say something like Vox and mix everyone:

 

"Country by country comparisons fail to control for the diversity of religious beliefs, socio-economic opportunity, cultural biases, and countless other heterogeneous variables."

 

So maybe that the higher number of homicide deaths in the U.S. vs other Western countries has little to do with higher gun ownership but, other reasons such as what he mentioned or what I also suspect: too many living under poverty.

 

Cardboard

[cwericb]

This sort of puts things in perspective...

[vox]

Someone said that suicidal people will find a way to kill themselves with or without guns. I'm certainly more inclined to believe this than the argument that homicidal people will find a way to kill others with or without guns, or will find guns regardless of their legality.

 

I agree that the link is not immediately obvious if you assume that everyone acts in a rational manner. But the consensus in the literature is that it would help. Quoting Catherine Barber and Matthew Miller (http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/sites/actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/files/Reducing%20a%20Suicidal%20Persons%20Access%20to%20Lethal.pdf): "Reducing the availability of highly lethal and commonly used suicide methods has been associated with declines in suicide rates of as much as 30%–50% in other countries."

 

To paraphrase their argument, many suicidal crises are short-lived. Their survey of people who had seriously considered suicide in the past year found that for about 30%, the suicidal period lasted under an hour. Surveyers of attempters have found that the interval between deciding on suicide and actually attempting was 10 minutes or less for 24% - 75% of attempters (with the lower end of the range reported by a study of those nearly dying in their attempt). Second, the method people use depends, to a non-trivial extent on its ready availability. Third, the proportion of attempts that results in deaths vary dramatically across methods, the lethality of the method readily available during a suicidal crisis plays an important role in whether the person survives; intent matters, but means also matter. Fourth, approximately 90% of attempters who survive a nonfatal attempt will not go on to die by suicide thereafter, a finding that holds true even in studies focusing only on medically serious attempts, such as jumping in front of a train.

 

There are empirical studies that demonstrate this as well. I think the most compelling example is that among the Israeli Defense Force, soldier suicides disproportionately occurred on weekends and 90% involved firearms. A 2006 policy aimed at preventing suicides required soldiers to leave their weapons on base during weekend leave. The suicide rate decreased by 40%; weekend firearm suicides dropped significantly, with no change in weekday suicides, and no change in non-firearm suicides.

 

Also, when I step out the door, or anyone from my family does, homicide is a bigger concern for me than is suicide.

 

Sure, but before you step out the door, if you own a gun and have children or family members with depression, you should probably be more concerned with suicide than homicide.

[Cardboard]

Vox,

 

The data shows zero correlation between number of suicides in various countries and number of guns per 100,000. If you advocate the elimination of all guns because they are "more effective" at committing suicide or "can't change you mind after" then that is a different discussion. I still believe that overtime that the numbers would revert to the same rate that we see currently.

 

I too know an individual who attempted several times and in every instance it appeared to be a call for help instead of true determination despite being real close a few times to the point of no return. Likely for that reason, he never used a gun which was available to him.

 

Regarding availability of guns and number of homicides there is certainly a correlation. What to do about it is a tough question.

 

Cardboard

[vox]

1. Anecdotal examples doesn't encompass the plurality of suicide attempts. My thesis was not that all firearm suicides would be prevented, nor even a majority of firearm suicides, but rather one third (a conservative estimate that is supported by the research).

 

2. Naive cross country comparisons of suicide rates fail to distinguish between a litany of variables that impact peoples intent and means of committing suicide. If you look at ecologic studies that compare US states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels, and that control for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide, there is an extremely strong correlation between household gun ownership rates and firearm suicide rates.