|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 22 2013 16:42 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 16:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles. According to the suicide literature guns are more lethal than the other common methods. Tall buildings are irrelevant -- of course they are quite lethal, but they are quite rare in comparison. Hand grenade suicides are also quite lethal, rare, and irrelevant. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30. Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3. This assumes that people are equally inclined towards suicide. This is not the case. Many suicide "attempts" are not intended (or fully intended) to result in death. Those people will choose non-lethal or improbably lethal means regardless of firearms availability. By contrast, those who are determined to commit suicide will choose highly lethal means, and plenty of those are available regardless of firearms availability. Suicide by train also has a 90% fatality rate, and is widely available in many places. Suicide by hanging also has a fatality rate of over 70% and is available virtually always.
I understand that you may think those findings are irrelevant in light of your own personal interpretation of the data, but your own personal take on how suicidal people might behave isn't very persuasive next to this research. The data shows what it shows -- that variability in firearm prevalence better explains variability in suicide rate. I don't see how you think the subjective explanation you just provided excuses these findings and the authors' following conclusions. For starters, the fact that the findings are from authoritative sources and not the op/ed section of a magazine should indicate it's not something you can hastily explain away as irrelevant based on your opinion without providing significant evidence against theirs, i.e. a rebuttal followup/response letter from peers who question the results or methods. This is not to appeal to authority, but to request that you respond to it with something equally supported.
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided.
The implication is not that guns make people more suicidal. Instead it is that gun availability makes impulsive suicidal behavior more lethal.
On May 22 2013 16:42 sunprince wrote:
Once again, you're making arguments without considering replacement effects. That is, unless you can provide evidence or logic to show that gun control will not simply result in people choosing different means for suicide (or homicide), then you don't have an argument to show that gun control would make a difference.
The research shows that those who attempt suicide and survive go on to die by non-suicide means in 90% of cases -- real suicide attempts, not faked attempts/cries for attention. It shows that suicide fatality is significantly greater when firearms are the attempt method. If less guns are available, then less suicides occur. These are the findings, which you have not explained away. The data shows that when the prevalence of guns increases, the rate of suicide increases, even when controlled against other factors. If as you say, the ones who commit suicide by guns are also the ones who would commit suicide by any other means without guns being available, then the gun prevalence to suicide findings would not have been made and the results would not have been published in any of those peer reviewed journals. If you understand the results in these studies then it's quite clear that a reduction in gun prevalence would correspond to a reduction in gun suicide. Your idea that other rates of suicide would increase is not supported.
|
On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 16:42 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 16:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 16:22 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 15:05 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 15:00 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Well then guns are a good thing, instead of people living in misery because of lack of guns, they can die on their own terms and a fairly simply and quick death. Oh. So the firearm suicide rate is fine because it actually alleviates the overall level of misery in the US. Solid. In all seriousness, many suicides aren't premeditated over a long period of time. Many suicides precipitate after crisis events in life, which are unpredictable and happen quickly -- the availability of lethal means significantly exacerbates the outcome of the attempt. If you're assuming everyone or the majority of people who attempt and fail suicide go on to live in misery you're making things up. Lethal means are widely available regardless of gun control, whether it's sharp objects, medication, tall buildings, or vehicles. According to the suicide literature guns are more lethal than the other common methods. Tall buildings are irrelevant -- of course they are quite lethal, but they are quite rare in comparison. Hand grenade suicides are also quite lethal, rare, and irrelevant. The case-fatality rate for suicide attempts with guns is higher than other methods
Across the Northeast, case fatality rates ranged from over 90% for firearms to under 5% for drug overdoses, cutting and piercing (the most common methods of attempted suicide). Hospital workers rarely see the type of suicide (firearm suicide) that is most likely to end in death.
Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the Northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004; 723-30. Reducing access to lethal means can begin to reduce suicide rates today
This editorial in an issue of the flagship public health journal devoted entirely to veteran suicide emphasizes the importance of the availability of firearms in determining whether suicide attempts prove fatal.
Miller, Matthew. Preventing suicide by preventing lethal injury: the need to act on what we already know. American Journal of Public Health 2012; 102(S1):e1-3. This assumes that people are equally inclined towards suicide. This is not the case. Many suicide "attempts" are not intended (or fully intended) to result in death. Those people will choose non-lethal or improbably lethal means regardless of firearms availability. By contrast, those who are determined to commit suicide will choose highly lethal means, and plenty of those are available regardless of firearms availability. Suicide by train also has a 90% fatality rate, and is widely available in many places. Suicide by hanging also has a fatality rate of over 70% and is available virtually always. I understand that you may think those findings are irrelevant in light of your own personal interpretation of the data, but your own personal take on how suicidal people might behave isn't very persuasive next to this research. The data shows what it shows -- that variability in firearm prevalence better explains variability in suicide rate. I don't see how you think the subjective explanation you just provided excuses these findings and the authors' following conclusions. For starters, the fact that the findings are from authoritative sources and not the op/ed section of a magazine should indicate it's not something you can hastily explain away as irrelevant based on your opinion without providing significant evidence against theirs, i.e. a rebuttal followup/response letter from peers who question the results or methods. This is not to appeal to authority, but to request that you respond to it with something equally supported.
Since you have access to the editorial, feel free to post the relevant data summary which supports your position. That would facilitate a more effective discourse on this topic.
On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided.
A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed.
|
On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed.
Stabbing yourself with a knife is far more violent and painful and less reliable than a gun. A suicidal person can still fear pain and so not want to be stabbed (besides the practical difficulty with stabbing yourself). The effect of suicide by gun is violent but the action of pulling a trigger is not.
Suicide by high-speed crash is not as quick and does require some thought. There has to be a place to get sufficient speed and an object to crash in to (and just because someone is suicidal it doesn't mean they suddenly don't care about hurting other people).
Hypothetically, if everybody had a button they could press that would instantaneously and painlessly kill them, do you think the rate of suicide would remain the same? A guns is not quite so extreme but it is closer to such a button than any other method.
|
I find it unfathomable people can 'trust' their Government with such weapons, but balk at the notion of your fellow citizen having the same capacity. Lest I remind folks who the real murderers are - just take a look at the 20th Century alone, a Century of Democide, whereby over 200+ million folks were killed by Governments, and many of these were their own people, in fact, a majority. Why on Earth you trust an institution built upon violence, power, and coercion to wield such weapons in your benefit is quite frankly bordering on psychosis. Carry on.
|
On May 22 2013 17:57 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Stabbing yourself with a knife is far more violent and painful and less reliable than a gun. A suicidal person can still fear pain and so not want to be stabbed (besides the practical difficulty with stabbing yourself). The effect of suicide by gun is violent but the action of pulling a trigger is not. Suicide by high-speed crash is not as quick and does require some thought. There has to be a place to get sufficient speed and an object to crash in to (and just because someone is suicidal it doesn't mean they suddenly don't care about hurting other people). Hypothetically, if everybody had a button they could press that would instantaneously and painlessly kill them, do you think the rate of suicide would remain the same? A guns is not quite so extreme but it is closer to such a button than any other method.
The point is that firearms are simply one means among many comparable means, and that when you can see why we do not ban vehicles and knives, you will understand why we should not ban firearms (strict regulation, on the other hand, would make perfect sense with both firearms and vehicles).
|
On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed.
Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability.
|
On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability.
I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous.
As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from.
|
On May 22 2013 17:59 Wegandi wrote:
I find it unfathomable people can 'trust' their Government with such weapons, but balk at the notion of your fellow citizen having the same capacity. Lest I remind folks who the real murderers are - just take a look at the 20th Century alone, a Century of Democide, whereby over 200+ million folks were killed by Governments, and many of these were their own people, in fact, a majority. Why on Earth you trust an institution built upon violence, power, and coercion to wield such weapons in your benefit is quite frankly bordering on psychosis. Carry on.
Because we are in the 21st century and most of us can go about our daily lives without the constant fear of our government going Syrian style on us.
Moving on, can we perhaps take a more pragmatic stance on the issue? Too many arguments against stricter gun control have went along the lines of "don't let the government take away our freedom, it is our fundamental right as a US citizen to own a gun" or "how would we defend ourselves against a man with a gun?". The reality is you probably won't be needing a gun for any practical reason and that you probably won't be so paranoid about ending up in a mexican standoff if you don't have every guy in your neighbourhood armed with a gun. I believe the only real arguments we should be looking at is the effect on gun control on violence and crime applied to US specifically. Sweeping statements like "Switzerland allows guns and they have super low crime rate --> guns must have +ve effect" not included (should be obvious why).
|
|
|
On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/
I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times.
|
On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability.
Actually suicide by gun is more likely to be reported in the news thereby increasing the suicide rates by guns unintentionally. Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides, when adjusted for population, was 2x the suicide rate of the United States. The prefered method of suicide didn't involve guns. When the Micronesian government asked the news to not report suicides, the death rates went down significantly. This type of phenomenom is called the Werther effect and could explain why death by gun is more likely to result in suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_effect:
"The Werther effect not only predicts an increase in suicide, but the majority of the suicides will take place in the same or a similar way as the one publicized"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110:
In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour. In Goethe s novel, the contemporary recipient could find a lot of details to identify with. One of these aspects is the detailed description of Werther s mental state, which suggests that suicidality plays a role in the novel a long time before the suicidal act at the end. Even though we find several reports on imitation effects connected to Goethe s Werther in literary works, the epidemiological extent of this phenomenon could never be determined. Also current social scientific research on the impact of suicide stories on suicidal behaviour could not completely remove the remaining lack of evidence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, many studies support the hypothesis, that some aspects of quality of reporting could trigger short-term increases of suicides in certain population subgroups. In Austria, "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides", have been issued to the media since 1987 as a suicide-preventive experiment. Since then, the aims of the experiment have been to reduce the numbers of suicides and suicide attempts in the Viennese subway and to reduce the overall suicide numbers. After the introduction of the media guidelines, the number of subway suicides and suicide attempts dropped more than 80% within 6 months. Since 1991, suicides plus suicide attempts - but not the number of suicides alone - have slowly and significantly increased. The increase of passenger numbers of the Viennese subway, which have nearly doubled, and the decrease of the overall suicide numbers in Vienna (-40%) and Austria (-33%) since mid 1987 increase the plausibility of the hypothesis, that the Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior.
|
On May 22 2013 21:10 stuneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:21 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. I assume that's rhetorical, since knife availability is ubiquitous. As I've asked already, please post the data sets you're arguing from. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/I apologize if this has already been posted a dozen times.
The ones who should apologise are those who demand data that is already included in the posts they quote
|
On May 22 2013 21:18 Campitor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. Actually suicide by gun is more likely to be reported in the news thereby increasing the suicide rates by guns unintentionally. Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides, when adjusted for population, was 2x the suicide rate of the United States. The prefered method of suicide didn't involve guns. When the Micronesian government asked the news to not report suicides, the death rates went down significantly. This type of phenomenom is called the Werther effect and could explain why death by gun is more likely to result in suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_effect:"The Werther effect not only predicts an increase in suicide, but the majority of the suicides will take place in the same or a similar way as the one publicized" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110:In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour. In Goethe s novel, the contemporary recipient could find a lot of details to identify with. One of these aspects is the detailed description of Werther s mental state, which suggests that suicidality plays a role in the novel a long time before the suicidal act at the end. Even though we find several reports on imitation effects connected to Goethe s Werther in literary works, the epidemiological extent of this phenomenon could never be determined. Also current social scientific research on the impact of suicide stories on suicidal behaviour could not completely remove the remaining lack of evidence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, many studies support the hypothesis, that some aspects of quality of reporting could trigger short-term increases of suicides in certain population subgroups. In Austria, "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides", have been issued to the media since 1987 as a suicide-preventive experiment. Since then, the aims of the experiment have been to reduce the numbers of suicides and suicide attempts in the Viennese subway and to reduce the overall suicide numbers. After the introduction of the media guidelines, the number of subway suicides and suicide attempts dropped more than 80% within 6 months. Since 1991, suicides plus suicide attempts - but not the number of suicides alone - have slowly and significantly increased. The increase of passenger numbers of the Viennese subway, which have nearly doubled, and the decrease of the overall suicide numbers in Vienna (-40%) and Austria (-33%) since mid 1987 increase the plausibility of the hypothesis, that the Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior.
Wait? So are you suggesting that a media blackout on social issues will fix the problem better than restricting access to dangerous devices?
|
On May 22 2013 18:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 17:57 Melliflue wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Stabbing yourself with a knife is far more violent and painful and less reliable than a gun. A suicidal person can still fear pain and so not want to be stabbed (besides the practical difficulty with stabbing yourself). The effect of suicide by gun is violent but the action of pulling a trigger is not. Suicide by high-speed crash is not as quick and does require some thought. There has to be a place to get sufficient speed and an object to crash in to (and just because someone is suicidal it doesn't mean they suddenly don't care about hurting other people). Hypothetically, if everybody had a button they could press that would instantaneously and painlessly kill them, do you think the rate of suicide would remain the same? A guns is not quite so extreme but it is closer to such a button than any other method. The point is that firearms are simply one means among many comparable means, and that when you can see why we do not ban vehicles and knives, you will understand why we should not ban firearms (strict regulation, on the other hand, would make perfect sense with both firearms and vehicles).
And my point is that although there are many ways to commit suicide they are not all equal. Some methods are easier than others. For example, shooting yourself is easier than stabbing yourself. My hypothesis is that if you make it easier for people to commit suicide then more people will commit suicide.
Afaik we don't ban knives/vehicles despite their dangers because they are very useful. Guns are not as useful. Knives and vehicles are allowed because their use is deemed to outweigh the dangers. If you want to argue that guns should be legal for the same reason then you need to argue that the value guns contribute to a society outweighs the harm guns do.
On May 22 2013 23:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 21:18 Campitor wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. Actually suicide by gun is more likely to be reported in the news thereby increasing the suicide rates by guns unintentionally. Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides, when adjusted for population, was 2x the suicide rate of the United States. The prefered method of suicide didn't involve guns. When the Micronesian government asked the news to not report suicides, the death rates went down significantly. This type of phenomenom is called the Werther effect and could explain why death by gun is more likely to result in suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_effect:"The Werther effect not only predicts an increase in suicide, but the majority of the suicides will take place in the same or a similar way as the one publicized" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110:In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour. In Goethe s novel, the contemporary recipient could find a lot of details to identify with. One of these aspects is the detailed description of Werther s mental state, which suggests that suicidality plays a role in the novel a long time before the suicidal act at the end. Even though we find several reports on imitation effects connected to Goethe s Werther in literary works, the epidemiological extent of this phenomenon could never be determined. Also current social scientific research on the impact of suicide stories on suicidal behaviour could not completely remove the remaining lack of evidence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, many studies support the hypothesis, that some aspects of quality of reporting could trigger short-term increases of suicides in certain population subgroups. In Austria, "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides", have been issued to the media since 1987 as a suicide-preventive experiment. Since then, the aims of the experiment have been to reduce the numbers of suicides and suicide attempts in the Viennese subway and to reduce the overall suicide numbers. After the introduction of the media guidelines, the number of subway suicides and suicide attempts dropped more than 80% within 6 months. Since 1991, suicides plus suicide attempts - but not the number of suicides alone - have slowly and significantly increased. The increase of passenger numbers of the Viennese subway, which have nearly doubled, and the decrease of the overall suicide numbers in Vienna (-40%) and Austria (-33%) since mid 1987 increase the plausibility of the hypothesis, that the Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior. Wait? So are you suggesting that a media blackout on social issues will fix the problem better than restricting access to dangerous devices?
I think he was trying to suggest that the argument about more guns leading to more suicides is invalid because although having more guns does cause more suicides it is because the media is far more likely to report on a gun suicide than other kinds, and this copycat-like effect then explains why there are more gun suicides.
So in essence, I think he is saying that if the media didn't single out gun suicides then there would no relation between availability of guns and suicides. I don't agree with this, but I think this was the idea.
The idea is not to have a media blackout on suicides but to give no details on how a person committed suicide. I think.
|
United States24782 Posts
On May 23 2013 00:26 Melliflue wrote:
I think he was trying to suggest that the argument about more guns leading to more suicides is invalid because although having more guns does cause more suicides it is because the media is far more likely to report on a gun suicide than other kinds, and this copycat-like effect then explains why there are more gun suicides.
So in essence, I think he is saying that if the media didn't single out gun suicides then there would no relation between availability of guns and suicides. I don't agree with this, but I think this was the idea.
The idea is not to have a media blackout on suicides but to give no details on how a person committed suicide. I think.
I'm sure it's some combination. Easier access to guns most likely does at least somewhat increase the likelihood of people attempting suicide, or being successful. Public perception about suicide, as perpetuated mainly by the media, also must play a large role. I haven't seen evidence that one of these outweighs the other.
On May 22 2013 21:18 Campitor wrote:
Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides
Noooo
|
On May 23 2013 00:26 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:16 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:57 Melliflue wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Stabbing yourself with a knife is far more violent and painful and less reliable than a gun. A suicidal person can still fear pain and so not want to be stabbed (besides the practical difficulty with stabbing yourself). The effect of suicide by gun is violent but the action of pulling a trigger is not. Suicide by high-speed crash is not as quick and does require some thought. There has to be a place to get sufficient speed and an object to crash in to (and just because someone is suicidal it doesn't mean they suddenly don't care about hurting other people). Hypothetically, if everybody had a button they could press that would instantaneously and painlessly kill them, do you think the rate of suicide would remain the same? A guns is not quite so extreme but it is closer to such a button than any other method. The point is that firearms are simply one means among many comparable means, and that when you can see why we do not ban vehicles and knives, you will understand why we should not ban firearms (strict regulation, on the other hand, would make perfect sense with both firearms and vehicles). And my point is that although there are many ways to commit suicide they are not all equal. Some methods are easier than others. For example, shooting yourself is easier than stabbing yourself. My hypothesis is that if you make it easier for people to commit suicide then more people will commit suicide. Afaik we don't ban knives/vehicles despite their dangers because they are very useful. Guns are not as useful. Knives and vehicles are allowed because their use is deemed to outweigh the dangers. If you want to argue that guns should be legal for the same reason then you need to argue that the value guns contribute to a society outweighs the harm guns do. Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 23:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2013 21:18 Campitor wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. Actually suicide by gun is more likely to be reported in the news thereby increasing the suicide rates by guns unintentionally. Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides, when adjusted for population, was 2x the suicide rate of the United States. The prefered method of suicide didn't involve guns. When the Micronesian government asked the news to not report suicides, the death rates went down significantly. This type of phenomenom is called the Werther effect and could explain why death by gun is more likely to result in suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_effect:"The Werther effect not only predicts an increase in suicide, but the majority of the suicides will take place in the same or a similar way as the one publicized" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110:In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour. In Goethe s novel, the contemporary recipient could find a lot of details to identify with. One of these aspects is the detailed description of Werther s mental state, which suggests that suicidality plays a role in the novel a long time before the suicidal act at the end. Even though we find several reports on imitation effects connected to Goethe s Werther in literary works, the epidemiological extent of this phenomenon could never be determined. Also current social scientific research on the impact of suicide stories on suicidal behaviour could not completely remove the remaining lack of evidence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, many studies support the hypothesis, that some aspects of quality of reporting could trigger short-term increases of suicides in certain population subgroups. In Austria, "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides", have been issued to the media since 1987 as a suicide-preventive experiment. Since then, the aims of the experiment have been to reduce the numbers of suicides and suicide attempts in the Viennese subway and to reduce the overall suicide numbers. After the introduction of the media guidelines, the number of subway suicides and suicide attempts dropped more than 80% within 6 months. Since 1991, suicides plus suicide attempts - but not the number of suicides alone - have slowly and significantly increased. The increase of passenger numbers of the Viennese subway, which have nearly doubled, and the decrease of the overall suicide numbers in Vienna (-40%) and Austria (-33%) since mid 1987 increase the plausibility of the hypothesis, that the Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior. Wait? So are you suggesting that a media blackout on social issues will fix the problem better than restricting access to dangerous devices? I think he was trying to suggest that the argument about more guns leading to more suicides is invalid because although having more guns does cause more suicides it is because the media is far more likely to report on a gun suicide than other kinds, and this copycat-like effect then explains why there are more gun suicides. So in essence, I think he is saying that if the media didn't single out gun suicides then there would no relation between availability of guns and suicides. I don't agree with this, but I think this was the idea. The idea is not to have a media blackout on suicides but to give no details on how a person committed suicide. I think.
Got it.
I guess it read to me like someone suggesting that if the "media" stopped talking about suicides then suicides wouldn't be happening so much. Which sounds too much like telling news stations to shut up about bad news.
|
So many people use guns to commit suicide because they don't know of other cheaper and less violent ways to do so. I'm not saying we should give them better means to commit suicide, it's just that dumb people do dumb shit. I bet if we invested more in education, we'd see a large drop in suicides, especially suicides involving guns.
|
every Swiss citizen has a gun and Switzerland is probably the best country to live in.
|
On May 22 2013 13:49 LanTAs wrote:
Also, simply over generalizing my statement does not in any way change the argument that I am trying to write. If I said "I want fried chicken", it does not mean that I want roast, broiled, or barbeque chicken: it means I want some god damned fried chicken. In this case, the discussion is about gun control for civilians and I am making the argument that no citizen should be allowed to own or have a gun whatsoever for any reason. Nothing more, nothing less.
So you want to save lives. How about all the people the police/military have unjustly killed? Remember Ruby Ridge? Waco? Kent State? Remember the Chris Dorner manhunt? Remember the Empire State building shooting?
To ban civilians from having guns because they can't be trusted with them while simultaneously allowing police and military to have them when they can't be trusted is hypocrisy.
On May 23 2013 00:26 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 18:16 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:57 Melliflue wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Stabbing yourself with a knife is far more violent and painful and less reliable than a gun. A suicidal person can still fear pain and so not want to be stabbed (besides the practical difficulty with stabbing yourself). The effect of suicide by gun is violent but the action of pulling a trigger is not. Suicide by high-speed crash is not as quick and does require some thought. There has to be a place to get sufficient speed and an object to crash in to (and just because someone is suicidal it doesn't mean they suddenly don't care about hurting other people). Hypothetically, if everybody had a button they could press that would instantaneously and painlessly kill them, do you think the rate of suicide would remain the same? A guns is not quite so extreme but it is closer to such a button than any other method. The point is that firearms are simply one means among many comparable means, and that when you can see why we do not ban vehicles and knives, you will understand why we should not ban firearms (strict regulation, on the other hand, would make perfect sense with both firearms and vehicles). And my point is that although there are many ways to commit suicide they are not all equal. Some methods are easier than others. For example, shooting yourself is easier than stabbing yourself. My hypothesis is that if you make it easier for people to commit suicide then more people will commit suicide. Afaik we don't ban knives/vehicles despite their dangers because they are very useful. Guns are not as useful. Knives and vehicles are allowed because their use is deemed to outweigh the dangers. If you want to argue that guns should be legal for the same reason then you need to argue that the value guns contribute to a society outweighs the harm guns do.Show nested quote +On May 22 2013 23:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 22 2013 21:18 Campitor wrote:On May 22 2013 18:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On May 22 2013 17:40 sunprince wrote:On May 22 2013 17:08 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You're saying that in absence of guns, the same people would still commit suicide. This is highly questionable next to the FINDING that suicides are made easier when guns are more available, combined with the fact that many suicides onset rapidly and could be avoided given more time to think. A readily available gun requires mere seconds to carry out the deed, while any other highly lethal method you mention requires more time/planning, after which the urge may likely have subsided. A readily available knife or vehicle also require mere seconds to carry out the deed. Suicide rate variability is best explained by variability in gun availability according to the research, not knife availability. Actually suicide by gun is more likely to be reported in the news thereby increasing the suicide rates by guns unintentionally. Micronesia had an epedimic of suicides, when adjusted for population, was 2x the suicide rate of the United States. The prefered method of suicide didn't involve guns. When the Micronesian government asked the news to not report suicides, the death rates went down significantly. This type of phenomenom is called the Werther effect and could explain why death by gun is more likely to result in suicide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werther_effect:"The Werther effect not only predicts an increase in suicide, but the majority of the suicides will take place in the same or a similar way as the one publicized" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18082110:In social sciences and in medicine, the term "Werther-effect" is used as a synonym for media induced imitation effects of suicidal behaviour. In Goethe s novel, the contemporary recipient could find a lot of details to identify with. One of these aspects is the detailed description of Werther s mental state, which suggests that suicidality plays a role in the novel a long time before the suicidal act at the end. Even though we find several reports on imitation effects connected to Goethe s Werther in literary works, the epidemiological extent of this phenomenon could never be determined. Also current social scientific research on the impact of suicide stories on suicidal behaviour could not completely remove the remaining lack of evidence of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, many studies support the hypothesis, that some aspects of quality of reporting could trigger short-term increases of suicides in certain population subgroups. In Austria, "Media Guidelines for Reporting on Suicides", have been issued to the media since 1987 as a suicide-preventive experiment. Since then, the aims of the experiment have been to reduce the numbers of suicides and suicide attempts in the Viennese subway and to reduce the overall suicide numbers. After the introduction of the media guidelines, the number of subway suicides and suicide attempts dropped more than 80% within 6 months. Since 1991, suicides plus suicide attempts - but not the number of suicides alone - have slowly and significantly increased. The increase of passenger numbers of the Viennese subway, which have nearly doubled, and the decrease of the overall suicide numbers in Vienna (-40%) and Austria (-33%) since mid 1987 increase the plausibility of the hypothesis, that the Austrian media guidelines have had an impact on suicidal behavior. Wait? So are you suggesting that a media blackout on social issues will fix the problem better than restricting access to dangerous devices? I think he was trying to suggest that the argument about more guns leading to more suicides is invalid because although having more guns does cause more suicides it is because the media is far more likely to report on a gun suicide than other kinds, and this copycat-like effect then explains why there are more gun suicides. So in essence, I think he is saying that if the media didn't single out gun suicides then there would no relation between availability of guns and suicides. I don't agree with this, but I think this was the idea. The idea is not to have a media blackout on suicides but to give no details on how a person committed suicide. I think.
Usefullness should have nothing to do with your rights. Alcohol fit for human consumption has no significant uses, and kills more people than guns. You still want the right to have alcohol, correct?
|
On May 23 2013 02:07 ref4 wrote:
every Swiss citizen has a gun and Switzerland is probably the best country to live in.
A military rifle which you can take home after 21 weeks of military service (+3 weeks every year after until your ~30) and you don't get any ammo.
So.... How does that compare to "background checks"? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
