US Court Upholds "Safe Space" for Florida Gun Owners

[fskimospy]

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-charts/10lc---by-age-group-2006-7_6_09-a.pdf

Really? Oh wait not really. That was 2006 and it's changed a bit since then and has gone down as suicide rates gone down. But suicide rates are more correlated to mental health problems, not gun ownership. Again bad correlation analysis doesn't make it so. Almost everyone anywhere that commits suicide has a mental health problem at the time of the incident. Not everyone that owns guns commits suicide at all. Nor are suicides only committed by guns. Nor are guns the overwhelming majority of type of suicide when look at the world rates of suicides as most people in the world don't have easy access to firearms. So you are being absolutely stupid.

Look at compiled WHO data like this site...

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-vs-japan-top-10-causes-of-death

Suicide rates are a leading cause of death for the 20-35 age range and suicide by firearm is less than 1% there. It is also almost double the rate of the US. This goes for many Asian countries. Again larger data sets provide better insight.

No it doesn't, as firearm ownership is almost nonexistent there. The question here is if owning a gun is a risk factor for suicide, so including datasets where people do not own guns is illogical. You're just linking random things now.

No it is not. Owning a gun does not directly increase rates for suicide. The ONLY correlation one can draw, when looking at a larger data set of including suicide rates for around the world is that suicide by guns leads to a higher mortality rate on the first attempt. That's it. Nothing more. That is the strongest correlation that can be drawn from larger data sets of suicide data.

SERIOUSLY WTF??!?!?! your conclusion is wose than the ??? profit bullshit on these forums. You can't go from 3 to 4 with that. Your therefore number 4 is retarded. It doesn't increase your risk for committing suicide. It increases your risk of being successful if you attempt suicide. Not the actual act of committing it. Can't believe you are that retarded to even think that.

'Committing suicide' means 'successfully attempting suicide'. Are you even reading what I'm writing or are you just ranting? If you think there is a problem with my logic please address each point in order and say where you think the logic breaks down. Be as specific as possible.

OMG did you even read that wiki?

That meta analysis was fucking horrible as it is clearly agenda driven from bias on a witch hunt to prove gun ownership = higher risk of committing suicide. DERP DERP!!! Thanks for winning the retard prize.

I sure did read that wiki link, and I can't help notice the irony of you declaring a study 'fucking horrible' due to agenda driven bias when it's obvious you didn't even read it. If a competent researcher were to evaluate it for agenda driven bias that would be a significant undertaking as you would need to look into the literature yourself and understand it's state, evaluate their study selection criteria, evaluate their model, etc. I'm positive you have done none of these things and I strongly doubt you are even capable of doing them due to the fact that you lack any expertise in the field, any understanding of the state of the medical literature, and the general incompetence you've displayed here.

That is why people don't use meta-analysis for real work as it is laden with too many issues. There is a reason for the scientific process and actual data analysis.

Meta-analysis is widely used worldwide by researchers of all types. You make yourself look stupid by saying things like this.

 

[interchange]

Millions of people own guns, very few of those gun owners die in any given decade, let alone year. There are plenty of other things to focus on for doctors when it comes to providing healthcare advice.

To say that gun suicide is a trivial public health problem is patently absurd. Suicide is the #11 cause of death, over half of which involve firearms.

Doctors don't need to focus on renal failure (#12 cause of death), liver failure (#13), or sepsis (#14) either. Millions of people own kidneys, livers, and immune systems.There are plenty of other things to focus on after all.

You are right in that in many cases suicide is an impulsive action at the moment, but I remember from some previous studies I read that it's very rarely something that happens on the spur of the moment. Usually it takes years of depression, mental health issues, or accumulated stress. There are usually many signs and cries for help prior to most suicide attempts. A person coming into a doctor office for a cold or finding a new family doctor is very unlikely to fall into the above categories of people with elevated risk of suicide. Even if they do own a firearm.

I support any efforts we take which are reasonably in the interest of persons with mental suffering receiving aid.

But your knowledge of suicide is poor. This may help: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

 

[Pens1566]

Good to see our resident poster boy for Dunning Kruger is at it again.

 

[HumblePie]

No it doesn't, as firearm ownership is almost nonexistent there. The question here is if owning a gun is a risk factor for suicide, so including datasets where people do not own guns is illogical. You're just linking random things now.

I can't believe how insanely stupid this comment is. When deciding what are risk factors for suicide, and trying to prove gun ownership is a likely risk factor, you must include datasets from places that gun ownership is severely restricted. Why? Because if gun ownership was an increased risk factor, then reduced ownership would show reduced levels of suicides if other factors are equal or the same. This is why the listed known risk factors for increased suicide do not include gun ownership for organizations like the national suicide prevention center.

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/how-we-can-all-prevent-suicide/
https://afsp.org/about-suicide/risk-factors-and-warning-signs/

The CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html

Or the World Health Organization.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf?ua

Not a single major medical organization lists gun ownership ANYWHERE in their publications as an increased risk factor for suicide or reduction of firearm ownership as a way to prevent or reduce suicide rates.

So when factoring in larger datasets in a non biased or agenda driven way, one comes to the same conclusion as all those major medical associations. Gun ownership is NOT an increased risk factor for suicides.

'Committing suicide' means 'successfully attempting suicide'. Are you even reading what I'm writing or are you just ranting? If you think there is a problem with my logic please address each point in order and say where you think the logic breaks down. Be as specific as possible.

Guns in America are a factor for increased successful suicide attempts. That is what the data sets provide when looking at the American population. That isn't the same when looking at larger data sets or other populations. Do guns make it easier for people in America to commit suicide successfully? Sure do. That isn't in dispute. The mere presence of a firearm doesn't increase the risk factor for attempting suicide, as all those major medical organizations I linked to in this post already have stated. In other countries, there are also other methods of suicide attempts that are just as highly successful as firearms. Why? Because where there is a will there is a way. When firearms are not allowed with easy access, then people looking to end their lives will find other methods. This is why other countries, even major modern ones like Japan, Korea, and others have even higher successful rates of suicide as compared to the US.

I sure did read that wiki link, and I can't help notice the irony of you declaring a study 'fucking horrible' due to agenda driven bias when it's obvious you didn't even read it. If a competent researcher were to evaluate it for agenda driven bias that would be a significant undertaking as you would need to look into the literature yourself and understand it's state, evaluate their study selection criteria, evaluate their model, etc. I'm positive you have done none of these things and I strongly doubt you are even capable of doing them due to the fact that you lack any expertise in the field, any understanding of the state of the medical literature, and the general incompetence you've displayed here.

Ohh I read the meta analysis alright. I already pointed out why it was junk just based on the original premise of the study. They literally put the cart before the horse and looked to find a trend line in the data that suited their purpose. That study was the basic equivalent of these graphs.

http://www.tylervigen.com/chart-pngs/8.png
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

Meta-analysis is widely used worldwide by researchers of all types. You make yourself look stupid by saying things like this.

It is used as a precursor for further analysis and trials. It is not used as the sole decision making process, and it has to be done properly. Hence why I said real work. For some fields a meta analysis is done only to help form proper hypothesis as I stated earlier. The above study was not done in that manner and was done strictly as a biased agenda by literally putting the cart before the horse. It was pure junk. Most meta analysis that is good is using it as a "pre-hypothesis" or a way to direct further studies. I didn't say it wasn't used, I said it wasn't used for real work, meaning it is not the meat of the real work. Even then, since many meta analysis studies don't form any real conclusions, are typically a bit more time consuming because vectors aren't normally controlled for nor are baselines used, they aren't always done or seen with much values outside a few specialized fields.

 

[HumblePie]

To say that gun suicide is a trivial public health problem is patently absurd. Suicide is the #11 cause of death, over half of which involve firearms.

Doctors don't need to focus on renal failure (#12 cause of death), liver failure (#13), or sepsis (#14) either. Millions of people own kidneys, livers, and immune systems.There are plenty of other things to focus on after all.

Never said doctors shouldn't focus on suicide prevention. I said they shouldn't focus on gun ownership. As I listed the risk factors for suicides do not include gun ownership from any major medical organization.

As far as top causes of death, here is the CDC list

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Suicide it's on that list but look at the numbers, and then the relative actual risk factors. Half of suicides are successfully done in the US by firearms, but the other half are by other methods. As I said earlier, there mere presence of a gun isn't a risk factor for committing suicide, so asking about gun ownership to a patient that doesn't show actual signs of suicide risk factors is just plain stupid and political. As I said it's a difference of scale. 20K deaths versus anything else that is over double the rate for deaths according to the CDC. I've also never had a doctor ask me about risk factors for renal or liver failure unless those factors are included as factors for other higher risk death rate categories. Such drinking which is a risk factor in all sorts of major death categories well above either suicide or liver failure. Death by guns is a very small factor for any death category by comparison to something like drinking alcohol.

I support any efforts we take which are reasonably in the interest of persons with mental suffering receiving aid.

But your knowledge of suicide is poor. This may help: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

LOL, no it's not, I just said that gun ownership by itself is not a risk factor as born out by every major medical organization on the planet. Since it's not a risk factor, nor statistically significant as a vector for preventing or reducing suicide, it is not really something a good doctor should be asking about.

 

[fskimospy]

I can't believe how insanely stupid this comment is. When deciding what are risk factors for suicide, and trying to prove gun ownership is a likely risk factor, you must include datasets from places that gun ownership is severely restricted. Why? Because if gun ownership was an increased risk factor, then reduced ownership would show reduced levels of suicides if other factors are equal or the same. This is why the listed known risk factors for increased suicide do not include gun ownership for organizations like the national suicide prevention center.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of research and data analysis. Places like Japan have dramatically different social and cultural norms than the US which introduces a large number of confounding variables to your analysis. The entire purpose of controlled studies is to find groups that are as similar as possible except for the introduction of the independent variable you are testing. Adding in dramatically dissimilar populations that functionally entirely lack your IV would reduce the explanatory value of your model, not increase it.

https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/how-we-can-all-prevent-suicide/

From the suicide hotline page:

Easy access to lethal means

https://afsp.org/about-suicide/risk-factors-and-warning-signs/

From AFSP list of risk factors:

Access to lethal means including firearms and drugs

The CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/riskprotectivefactors.html

From the CDC link of risk factors:

Easy access to lethal methods

Or the World Health Organization.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/131056/1/9789241564779_eng.pdf?ua

From the introduction of the WHO link that you obviously did not read:

There is no single explanation of why people die by suicide. However, many suicides happen impulsively and, in such circumstances, easy access to a means of suicide – such as pesticides or firearms – can make the difference as to whether a person lives or dies.

Not a single major medical organization lists gun ownership ANYWHERE in their publications as an increased risk factor for suicide or reduction of firearm ownership as a way to prevent or reduce suicide rates.

So when factoring in larger datasets in a non biased or agenda driven way, one comes to the same conclusion as all those major medical associations. Gun ownership is NOT an increased risk factor for suicides.

Literally every single link you provided mentioned firearm possession or 'access to lethal means' (which clearly includes guns).

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here own themselves as hard as you just did.

Guns in America are a factor for increased successful suicide attempts. That is what the data sets provide when looking at the American population. That isn't the same when looking at larger data sets or other populations. Do guns make it easier for people in America to commit suicide successfully? Sure do. That isn't in dispute. The mere presence of a firearm doesn't increase the risk factor for attempting suicide, as all those major medical organizations I linked to in this post already have stated. In other countries, there are also other methods of suicide attempts that are just as highly successful as firearms. Why? Because where there is a will there is a way. When firearms are not allowed with easy access, then people looking to end their lives will find other methods. This is why other countries, even major modern ones like Japan, Korea, and others have even higher successful rates of suicide as compared to the US.

If something has no effect on the rate of ATTEMPTS but does have an effect on the rate of SUCCESS then it is a risk factor for suicide. It can't possibly get simpler than that.

Ohh I read the meta analysis alright. I already pointed out why it was junk just based on the original premise of the study. They literally put the cart before the horse and looked to find a trend line in the data that suited their purpose. That study was the basic equivalent of these graphs.

http://www.tylervigen.com/chart-pngs/8.png
http://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.jpg

This means you have literally no clue what a meta-analysis is. The purpose of a meta analysis is basically saying this: 'a bunch of studies have been published about the relationship of guns to suicide and homicide, we will combine all those studies together to test their hypothesis more thoroughly'. It would be literally impossible to conduct meta-analysis without identifying the subject you want to research before doing it because otherwise you would have no criteria with which to select the studies to include.

This is so basically, laughably stupid. The total incompetence is unbelievable.

It is used as a precursor for further analysis and trials. It is not used as the sole decision making process, and it has to be done properly. Hence why I said real work. For some fields a meta analysis is done only to help form proper hypothesis as I stated earlier. The above study was not done in that manner and was done strictly as a biased agenda by literally putting the cart before the horse. It was pure junk. Most meta analysis that is good is using it as a "pre-hypothesis" or a way to direct further studies. I didn't say it wasn't used, I said it wasn't used for real work, meaning it is not the meat of the real work. Even then, since many meta analysis studies don't form any real conclusions, are typically a bit more time consuming because vectors aren't normally controlled for nor are baselines used, they aren't always done or seen with much values outside a few specialized fields.

This is bafflingly wrong, meta-analysis happens AFTER other analysis, not before. In fact, by definition it has to occur after other analysis and trials have been done, otherwise you would have nothing to meta-analyze.

You really are the poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect.

 

[HumblePie]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of research and data analysis. Places like Japan have dramatically different social and cultural norms than the US which introduces a large number of confounding variables to your analysis. The entire purpose of controlled studies is to find groups that are as similar as possible except for the introduction of the independent variable you are testing. Adding in dramatically dissimilar populations that functionally entirely lack your IV would reduce the explanatory value of your model, not increase it.

Social norms are a minor factor, but the main underlying major increased risk factors for suicide have been identified the world over. Japan, Korea, and the other places just have social scenarios which give an increased amount of certain risk factors, like stress from job/school/performance, that isn't here. The fact that stress is an actual risk factor for suicide isn't different, just the application of that factor. But nice strawman attempt I guess. Do you even know what "risk factor" in as a medical terminology actually is?

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5377

Risk factor: Something that increases a person's chances of developing a disease. For example, cigarette smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer, and obesity is a risk factor for heart disease.

Something that directly leads to the increase of a medical condition. Suicidal mental condition (an actual medical condition) has risk factors that can lead a person to that condition. Gun ownership does not in any way lead a person to that state. To even believe or state that is asinine. Depression, stress, and other mental/medical conditions are actual risk factors to leading a person to be part of a suicidal mental state condition. Please stop being retarded on this.

From the suicide hotline page:




From AFSP list of risk factors:




From the CDC link of risk factors:




From the introduction of the WHO link that you obviously did not read:




Literally every single link you provided mentioned firearm possession or 'access to lethal means' (which clearly includes guns).

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on here own themselves as hard as you just did.

Wow, everyone has access to lethal means everywhere. The fact this goes over your head is astounding. Are guns a lethal means for suicide? Yep. That's not an increased risk factor for suicide. Lethal means for killing oneself are EVERYWHERE. Pesticide, cars, bridges, water, sharp objects, blunt objects, and basically anything. The fact that a person can successfully commit suicide by almost an unlimited number of means doesn't make any specific means a specific risk factor for actual motivation for committing suicide. Are firearms in the US recognized as a more preferred method? Yes. No one again is denying that. You keep fucking conflating two separate things here. Preferred methods of execution and actual increased risk factors (ie what motivates people to attempt suicide). Guns do not in any way increase motivation, and thus are not a risk factor.


If something has no effect on the rate of ATTEMPTS but does have an effect on the rate of SUCCESS then it is a risk factor for suicide. It can't possibly get simpler than that.

This means you have literally no clue what a meta-analysis is. The purpose of a meta analysis is basically saying this: 'a bunch of studies have been published about the relationship of guns to suicide and homicide, we will combine all those studies together to test their hypothesis more thoroughly'. It would be literally impossible to conduct meta-analysis without identifying the subject you want to research before doing it because otherwise you would have no criteria with which to select the studies to include.

This is so basically, laughably stupid. The total incompetence is unbelievable.

This is bafflingly wrong, meta-analysis happens AFTER other analysis, not before. In fact, by definition it has to occur after other analysis and trials have been done, otherwise you would have nothing to meta-analyze.

Meta analysis happens after field test studies for a specific purpose. Like usually do this drug affect heart disease. When several different studies are compiled to see if there is a greater trend line, that is meta analysis. It is especially more useful when various studies are failing at figuring out something specific. Then a larger meta data analysis may point researchers into a direction that may yield better results. That is the purpose of meta analysis. It's a tool for guidance for further studies. I never said it was done only prior to any studies. I said it was done prior to further study. Again, you have a reading comprehension problem going on. Meta analysis is more useful in certain fields, like medication drug research as an example, versus other fields of research. Even then, it is meant, if done well, to be taken as a way to clarify further research avenues, not to be an end product in itself.

You really are the poster child for the Dunning-Krueger effect.

LOL, you are the only one with superiority attitude in the way you argue with logic fallacies. I know exactly my limitations, and thus you don't see me making silly arguments like you do in damn near every thread on this forum. In fact I rarely participate in most threads on this forum unlike yourself. I tend to stay in the tech/game/OT forum most of the time because shills like you make P&N what it has been for a very long time.[/quote][/quote]

 

[fskimospy]

Social norms are a minor factor, but the main underlying major increased risk factors for suicide have been identified the world over. Japan, Korea, and the other places just have social scenarios which give an increased amount of certain risk factors, like stress from job/school/performance, that isn't here. The factor that stress is an actual risk factor for suicide isn't different, just the application of that factor. But nice strawman attempt I guess.

Irrelevant. I was explaining to you why your idea of including Japan and Korea in an analysis was stupid.

Wow, everyone has access to lethal means everywhere. The fact this goes over your head is astounding. Are guns a lethal means for suicide? Yep. That's not an increased risk factor for suicide. Lethal means for killing oneself are EVERYWHERE. Pesticide, cars, bridges, water, sharp objects, blunt objects, and basically anything. The fact that a person can successfully commit suicide by almost an unlimited number of means doesn't make any specific means a specific risk factor for actual motivation for committing suicide. Are firearms in the US recognized as a more preferred method? Yes. No one again is denying that. You keep fucking conflating two separate things here. Preferred methods of execution and actual increased risk factors (ie what motivates people to attempt suicide). Guns do not in any way increase motivation, and thus are not a risk factor.

It actually does mean that guns are a risk factor for suicide, as literally every one of your links mentioned. You are trying to redefine 'risk factor for suicide' to 'risk factor for suicide attempt', which is a definition that none of the organizations you linked to use. If you have a problem with what constitutes a risk factor for suicide, take it up with all of those major medical organizations that you thought were so credible just a few posts back as they all say you're wrong.

Again, I've never seen that level of self ownage on here, ever. It was amazing. The fact that you can't even own up to it after blowing yourself up that completely is somehow simultaneously impressive and pathetic.

Meta analysis happens after field test studies for a specific purpose. Like usually do this drug affect heart disease. When several different studies are compiled to see if there is a greater trend line, that is meta analysis. It is especially more useful when various studies are failing at figuring out something specific. Then a larger meta data analysis may point researchers into a direction that may yield better results. That is the purpose of meta analysis. It's a tool for guidance for further studies. I never said it was done only prior to any studies. I said it was done prior to further study. Again, you have a reading comprehension problem going on. Meta analysis is more useful in certain fields, like medication drug research as an example, versus other fields of research. Even then, it is meant, if done well, to be taken as a way to clarify further research avenues, not to be an end product in itself.

You're just babbling in circles now and meta-analysis is often an end product, especially for things like studies relating to drug approval. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about.

At least you appear to have dropped the idea that the meta-analysis was putting the cart before the horse as that would be logically impossible given the goals of meta-analysis, so that's a step in the right direction.

LOL, you are the only one with superiority attitude in the way you argue with logic fallacies. I know exactly my limitations, and thus you don't see me making silly arguments like you do in damn near every thread on this forum. In fact I rarely participate in most threads on this forum unlike yourself. I tend to stay in the tech/game/OT forum most of the time because shills like you make P&N what it has been for a very long time.

If you knew your limitations you would have cut your losses in this conversation a long time ago, haha.

 

[HumblePie]

Irrelevant. I was explaining to you why your idea of including Japan and Korea in an analysis was stupid.

Just because YOU want to deem it irrelevant doesn't make it so. Just because the data goes contrary to your agenda doesn't change the data.

Your argument that gun ownership is a risk factor that leads one to committing suicide is what the dataset of those countries directly refutes. The other dataset that MILLIONS of Americans own and purchase guns every year and only 20K suicides (little less than half) are committed by guns also directly refutes the claim that gun ownership is a "risk factor' for suicide rates.

It actually does mean that guns are a risk factor for suicide, as literally every one of your links mentioned. You are trying to redefine 'risk factor for suicide' to 'risk factor for suicide attempt', which is a definition that none of the organizations you linked to use. If you have a problem with what constitutes a risk factor for suicide, take it up with all of those major medical organizations that you thought were so credible just a few posts back as they all say you're wrong.

Again, the bold shows you do not know what risk factor means. It is something that DIRECTLY increases the risk of a given medical outcome for happening. Owning a bathtub, razors, guns, a car, or a bridge does not directly, nor even indirectly, increase a person's risk for attempting suicide. Those items are a means, not a risk factor. You are the idiot that cannot see that and still continue to spout your drivel.

Again, I've never seen that level of self ownage on here, ever. It was amazing. The fact that you can't even own up to it after blowing yourself up that completely is somehow simultaneously impressive and pathetic.

let's break down the factors on the first link

• Mental disorders, particularly mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and certain personality disorders
• Alcohol and other substance use disorders
• Hopelessness
• Impulsive and/or aggressive tendencies
• History of trauma or abuse
• Major physical illnesses
• Previous suicide attempt(s)
• Family history of suicide
• Job or financial loss

• Loss of relationship(s)
• Easy access to lethal means
• Local clusters of suicide
• Lack of social support and sense of isolation
• Stigma associated with asking for help
• Lack of healthcare, especially mental health and substance abuse treatment
• Cultural and religious beliefs, such as the belief that suicide is a noble resolution of a personal dilemma
• Exposure to others who have died by suicide (in real life or via the media and Internet)

Which one of these is not like the others..... Only one of those doesn't contribute directly to mental health in a negative way and is just a general "warning"... oh wait that's access to lethal means. Of which is stupid because lethal means is literally anything and everything. The real point is if someone is exhibiting warning signs, of which guns ownership isn't listed, usually due to the increased risk factors, then that person may be at risk for attempted suicide.

You're just babbling in circles now and meta-analysis is often an end product, especially for things like studies relating to drug approval. Again, you just don't know what you're talking about.

At least you appear to have dropped the idea that the meta-analysis was putting the cart before the horse as that would be logically impossible given the goals of meta-analysis, so that's a step in the right direction.



If you knew your limitations you would have cut your losses in this conversation a long time ago, haha.

I didnt drop it, because I never stated it. You are the one making the stupid argument. I said meta analysis is never used for a conclusion, but a means for figuring out further study. That it is really only useful for certain applications and fields of study, and outside those fields is prone to bias and agendas. You are the one that was pointing to a meta analysis study that is full of agenda bias as a conclusion that the mere presence of a gun incites people to commit suicide.

 

[sm625]

I take it that your question is meant to highlight stupid rules/laws, etc?
I'm glad you agree that this law was stupid, thanks for being rational.

No, we need these rules to prevent microaggressions. Do you know how traumatic it can be for a child to have a gun-shaped pop tart pointed at him? The damage can last a lifetime. Luckily there are medications that can help.

 

[interchange]

Never said doctors shouldn't focus on suicide prevention. I said they shouldn't focus on gun ownership. As I listed the risk factors for suicides do not include gun ownership from any major medical organization.

As far as top causes of death, here is the CDC list

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

Suicide it's on that list but look at the numbers, and then the relative actual risk factors. Half of suicides are successfully done in the US by firearms, but the other half are by other methods. As I said earlier, there mere presence of a gun isn't a risk factor for committing suicide, so asking about gun ownership to a patient that doesn't show actual signs of suicide risk factors is just plain stupid and political. As I said it's a difference of scale. 20K deaths versus anything else that is over double the rate for deaths according to the CDC. I've also never had a doctor ask me about risk factors for renal or liver failure unless those factors are included as factors for other higher risk death rate categories. Such drinking which is a risk factor in all sorts of major death categories well above either suicide or liver failure. Death by guns is a very small factor for any death category by comparison to something like drinking alcohol.

LOL, no it's not, I just said that gun ownership by itself is not a risk factor as born out by every major medical organization on the planet. Since it's not a risk factor, nor statistically significant as a vector for preventing or reducing suicide, it is not really something a good doctor should be asking about.

You are simply, totally, completely wrong. Here are 76 references to studies demonstrating means restriction is an effective preventive effort for suicide (firearms representing >50% of suicides in the US):

References
1
WHO
Suicide prevention (SUPRE)
http://www.who.int.proxy.library.emory.edu/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicideprevent/en/(2011) (accessed Feb 16, 2012).

2
A Shah
The relationship between suicide rates and age: an analysis of multinational data from the World Health Organization
Int Psychogeriatr, 19 (2007), pp. 1141–1152

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (74)
3
CK Law, PSF Yip, YY Chen
The economic and potential years of life lost from suicide in Taiwan, 1997–2007
Crisis, 32 (2011), pp. 152–159

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (16)
4
G Hadlaczky, D Wasserman, CW Hoven, DJ Mandell, C Wasserman
Suicide prevention strategies: case studies from across the globe
RC O’Connor, S Platt, J Gordon (Eds.), International handbook of suicide prevention—research, policy and practice, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK (2011), pp. 475–486

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (3)
5
YY Chen, KC Wu, S Yousuf, PSF Yip
Suicide in Asia: opportunities and challenges
Epidemiol Rev, 34 (2012), pp. 129–144

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (71)
6
KL Knox, Y Conwell, ED Caine
If suicide is a public health problem, what are we doing to prevent it?
Am J Public Health, 94 (2004), pp. 37–45

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (136)
7
MA Oquendo, D Currier, JJ Mann
Prospective studies of suicidal behavior in major depressive and bipolar disorders: what is the evidence for predictive risk factors?
Acta Psychiatr Scand, 114 (2006), pp. 151–158

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (136)
8
JJ Mann, A Apter, J Bertolote, et al.
Suicide prevention strategies: a systematic review
JAMA, 294 (2005), pp. 2064–2074

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (1207)
9
MS Daigle
Suicide prevention through means restriction: assessing the risk of substitution. A critical review and synthesis
Accid Anal Prev, 37 (2005), pp. 625–632

Article | PDF (106 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (84)
10
R Clarke, D Lester
Suicide: closing the exits, Springer Verlag, New York, NY (1989)

11
RS Spicer, TR Miller
Suicide acts in 8 states: incidence and case fatality rates by demographics and method
Am J Public Health, 90 (2000), pp. 1885–1891

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (186)
12
AA Elnour, J Harrison
Lethality of suicide methods
Inj Prev, 14 (2008), pp. 39–45

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (43)
13
VC Chen, AT Cheng, HK Tan, et al.
A community-based study of case fatality proportion among those who carry out suicide acts
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 44 (2009), pp. 1005–1011

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (19)
14
PSF Yip, ED Caine, RC Kwok, YY Chen
A decompositional analysis of the relative contribution of age, sex and methods of suicide to the changing patterns of suicide in Taipei City, 2004–2006
Inj Prev (2011) http://dx.doi.org.proxy.library.emory.edu/10.1136/injuryprev-2011-040177 published online Oct 25.

15
K Hawton
Restricting access to methods of suicide: rationale and evaluation of this approach to suicide prevention
Crisis, 28 (suppl 1) (2007), pp. 4–9

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (55)
16
S Johnson
The ghost map: the story of London's most terrifying epidemic—and how it changed science, cities and the modern world, Riverhead Books, London (2006)

17
RV Clarke
Introduction
RV Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention: successful case studies, Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, NY (1997), pp. 1–43

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (1)
18
YY Chen, KC-C Wu, PSF Yip
Suicide prevention through restricting access to suicide means and hotspots
RC O’Connor, S Platt, J Gordon (Eds.), International handbook of suicide prevention: research, policy and practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2011), pp. 545–560

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (2)
19
V Ajdacic-Gross, MG Weiss, M Ring, et al.
Methods of suicide: international suicide patterns derived from the WHO mortality database
Bull World Health Organ, 86 (2008), pp. 726–732

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (130)
20
D Gunnell, M Eddleston, MR Phillips, F Konradsen
The global distribution of fatal pesticide self-poisoning: systematic review
BMC Public Health, 7 (2007), p. 357

Full Text via CrossRef
21
YY Chen, PSF Yip
Prevention of suicide by jumping: experiences from Taipei City (Taiwan), Hong Kong and Singapore
D Wasserman, C Wasserman (Eds.), Oxford textbook of suicidology and suicide prevention, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2009), pp. 569–572

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (6)
22
YY Chen, D Gunnell, TH Lu
Descriptive epidemiological study of sites of suicide jumps in Taipei, Taiwan
Inj Prev, 15 (2009), pp. 41–44

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (10)
23
K Thomas, SS Chang, D Gunnell
Suicide epidemics: the impact of newly emerging methods on overall suicide rates—a time trends study
BMC Public Health, 11 (2011), p. 314

Full Text via CrossRef
24
N Kreitman
The coal gas story: United Kingdom suicide rates, 1960–71
Br J Prev Soc Med, 30 (1976), pp. 86–93

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (218)
25
T Amos, L Appleby, K Kiernan
Changes in rates of suicide by car exhaust asphyxiation in England and Wales
Psychol Med, 31 (2001), pp. 935–939

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (58)
26
M Nordentoft, P Qin, K Helweg-Larsen, K Juel
Restrictions in means for suicide: an effective tool in preventing suicide: the Danish experience
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 37 (2007), pp. 688–697

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (24)
27
DM Studdert, LC Gurrin, U Jatkar, J Pirkis
Relationship between vehicle emissions laws and incidence of suicide by motor vehicle exhaust gas in Australia, 2001–06: an ecological analysis
PLoS Med, 7 (2010), p. e1000210

Full Text via CrossRef
28
JA Mott, MI Wolfe, CJ Alverson, et al.
National vehicle emissions policies and practices and declining US carbon monoxide-related mortality
JAMA, 288 (2002), pp. 988–995

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (85)
29
GD Skilling, PD Sclare, SJ Watt, S Fielding
The effect of catalytic converter legislation on suicide rates in Grampian and Scotland 1980–2003
Scott Med J, 53 (2008), pp. 3–6

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (4)
30
D Gunnell, M Eddleston
Suicide by intentional ingestion of pesticides: a continuing tragedy in developing countries
Int J Epidemiol, 32 (2003), pp. 902–909

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (222)
31
D Gunnell, R Fernando, M Hewagama, WD Priyangika, F Konradsen, M Eddleston
The impact of pesticide regulations on suicide in Sri Lanka
Int J Epidemiol, 36 (2007), pp. 1235–1242

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (134)
32
DM Roberts, A Karunarathna, NA Buckley, G Manuweera, MH Sheriff, M Eddleston
Influence of pesticide regulation on acute poisoning deaths in Sri Lanka
Bull World Health Organ, 81 (2003), pp. 789–798

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (114)
33
L Vijayakumar, R Satheesh-Babu
Does ‘no pesticide’ reduce suicides?
Int J Soc Psychiatry, 55 (2009), pp. 401–406

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (13)
34
F Konradsen, R Pieris, M Weerasinghe, W van der Hoek, M Eddleston, AH Dawson
Community uptake of safe storage boxes to reduce self-poisoning from pesticides in rural Sri Lanka
BMC Public Health, 7 (2007), p. 13

Full Text via CrossRef
35
AL Beautrais, DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood
Firearms legislation and reductions in firearm-related suicide deaths in New Zealand
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 40 (2006), pp. 253–259

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (48)
36
FS Bridges
Gun control law (Bill C-17), suicide, and homicide in Canada
Psychol Rep, 94 (2004), pp. 819–826

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (39)
37
J Caron
Gun control and suicide: possible impact of Canadian legislation to ensure safe storage of firearms
Arch Suicide Res, 8 (2004), pp. 361–374

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (23)
38
J Caron, M Julien, JH Huang
Changes in suicide methods in Quebec between 1987 and 2000: the possible impact of bill C-17 requiring safe storage of firearms
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 38 (2008), pp. 195–208

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (10)
39
S Chapman, P Alpers, K Agho, M Jones
Australia's 1996 gun law reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings
Inj Prev, 12 (2006), pp. 365–372

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (72)
40
AH Cheung, CS Dewa
Current trends in youth suicide and firearms regulations
Can J Public Health, 96 (2005), pp. 131–135

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (13)
41
KR Conner, Y Zhong
State firearm laws and rates of suicide in men and women
Am J Prev Med, 25 (2003), pp. 320–324

Article | PDF (78 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (30)
42
D De Leo, J Dwyer, D Firman, K Neulinger
Trends in hanging and firearm suicide rates in Australia: substitution of method?
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 33 (2003), pp. 151–164

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (38)
43
F Marinho de Souza, J Macinko, AP Alencar, DC Malta, OL de Morais Neto
Reductions in firearm-related mortality and hospitalizations in Brazil after gun control
Health Aff, 26 (2007), pp. 575–584

44
M Gagne, Y Robitaille, D Hamel, D St-Laurent
Firearms regulation and declining rates of male suicide in Quebec
Inj Prev, 16 (2010), pp. 247–253

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (19)
45
ND Kapusta, E Etzersdorfer, C Krall, G Sonneck
Firearm legislation reform in the European Union: impact on firearm availability, firearm suicide and homicide rates in Austria
Br J Psychiatry, 191 (2007), pp. 253–257

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (62)
46
H Klieve, M Barnes, D De Leo
Controlling firearms use in Australia: has the 1996 gun law reform produced the decrease in rates of suicide with this method?
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 44 (2009), pp. 285–292

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (32)
47
WS Lee, S Suardi
The Australian firearms buyback and its effect on gun deaths
Contemp Econ Policy, 28 (2010), pp. 65–79

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (8)
48
G Lubin, N Werbeloff, D Halperin, M Shmushkevitch, M Weiser, HY Knobler
Decrease in suicide rates after a change of policy reducing access to firearms in adolescents: a naturalistic epidemiological study
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 40 (2010), pp. 421–424

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (25)
49
J Ozanne-Smith, K Ashby, S Newstead, VZ Stathakis, A Clapperton
Firearm related deaths: the impact of regulatory reform
Inj Prev, 10 (2004), pp. 280–286

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (42)
50
A Rodriguez Andres, K Hempstead
Gun control and suicide: the impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 1995–2004
Health Policy, 101 (2011), pp. 95–103

Article | PDF (164 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (22)
51
M Rosengart, P Cummings, A Nathens, P Heagerty, R Maier, F Rivara
An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates
Inj Prev, 11 (2005), pp. 77–83

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (33)
52
DW Webster, JS Vernick, AM Zeoli, JA Manganello
Association between youth-focused firearm laws and youth suicides
JAMA, 292 (2004), pp. 594–601

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (68)
53
CH Cantor, PJ Baume
Access to methods of suicide: what impact?
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 32 (1998), pp. 8–14

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (91)
54
PW Wong, PM Liu, WS Chan, et al.
An integrative suicide prevention program for visitor charcoal burning suicide and suicide pact
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 39 (2009), pp. 82–90

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (7)
55
PSF Yip, CK Law, KW Fu, YW Law, PW Wong, Y Xu
Restricting the means of suicide by charcoal burning
Br J Psychiatry, 196 (2010), pp. 241–242

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (31)
56
YY Chen, SF Liao, PR Ten, et al.
The impact of of media reporting of the suicide of a singer on suicide rates in Taiwan
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol, 47 (2012), pp. 215–221

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (26)
57
YY Chen, F Chen, PSF Yip
The impact of media reporting of suicide on actual suicides in Taiwan, 2002–2005
J Epidemiol Community Health, 65 (2010), pp. 934–940

58
KP Chan, PS Yip, J Au, DT Lee
Charcoal-burning suicide in post-transition Hong Kong
Br J Psychiatry, 186 (2005), pp. 67–73

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (71)
59
CW Tsai, D Gunnell, YH Chou, CJ Kuo, MB Lee, YY Chen
Why do people choose charcoal burning as a method of suicide? An interview based study of survivors in Taiwan
J Affect Disord, 131 (2011), pp. 402–407

Article | PDF (157 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (28)
60
The Age Company
UK records first online suicide pact
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...ne-suicide-pact/2005/09/30/1127804638937.html (Sept 30, 2005) (accessed Feb 16, 2012).

61
J Pirkis, M Nordentoft
Media influences on suicide and attempted suicide
RC O’Connor, S Platt, J Gordon (Eds.), International handbook of suicide prevention: research, policy and practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (2011), pp. 531–544

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (2)
62
T Niederkrotenthaler, M Voracek, A Herberth, et al.
Role of media reports in completed and prevented suicide: Werther v Papageno effects
Br J Psychiatry, 197 (2010), pp. 234–243

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (85)
63
K Hawton, E Townsend, J Deeks, et al.
Effects of legislation restricting pack sizes of paracetamol and salicylate on self poisoning in the United Kingdom: before and after study
BMJ, 322 (2001), pp. 1203–1207

View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (213)
64
K Hawton, S Simkin, J Deeks, et al.
UK legislation on analgesic packs: before and after study of long term effect on poisonings
BMJ, 329 (2004), p. 1076

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (150)
65
DN Bateman
Limiting paracetamol pack size: has it worked in the UK?
Clin Toxicol, 47 (2009), pp. 536–541

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (22)
66
AL Beautrais
Effectiveness of barriers at suicide jumping sites: a case study
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 35 (2001), pp. 557–562

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (63)
67
AL Beautrais, SJ Gibb, DM Fergusson, LJ Horwood, GL Larkin
Removing bridge barriers stimulates suicides: an unfortunate natural experiment
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 43 (2009), pp. 495–497

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (21)
68
O Bennewith, M Nowers, D Gunnell
Effect of barriers on the Clifton suspension bridge, England, on local patterns of suicide: implications for prevention
Br J Psychiatry, 190 (2007), pp. 266–267

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (48)
69
CK Law, PSF Yip, WS Chan, KW Fu, PW Wong, YW Law
Evaluating the effectiveness of barrier installation for preventing railway suicides in Hong Kong
J Affect Disord, 114 (2009), pp. 254–262

Article | PDF (337 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (37)
70
AR Pelletier
Preventing suicide by jumping: the effect of a bridge safety fence
Inj Prev, 13 (2007), pp. 57–59

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (26)
71
T Reisch, K Michel
Securing a suicide hot spot: effects of a safety net at the Bern Muenster Terrace
Suicide Life Threat Behav, 35 (2005), pp. 460–467

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (34)
72
M Sinyor, AJ Levitt
Effect of a barrier at Bloor Street Viaduct on suicide rates in Toronto: natural experiment
BMJ, 341 (2010), p. c2884

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (1)
73
K Skegg, P Herbison
Effect of restricting access to a suicide jumping site
Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 43 (2009), pp. 498–502

Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (10)
74
G Glasgow
Do local landmark bridges increase the suicide rate? An alternative test of the likely effect of means restriction at suicide-jumping sites
Soc Sci Med, 72 (2011), pp. 884–889

Article | PDF (304 K) | View Record in Scopus | Citing articles (9)
75
D Gunnell, M Miller
Strategies to prevent suicide
BMJ, 341 (2010), p. c3054

Full Text via CrossRef
76
VA de Silva, S Senanayake, P Dias, R Hanwella
From pesticides to medicinal drugs: time series analyses of methods of self-harm in Sri Lanka
Bull World Health Organ, 90 (2012), pp. 40–46

 

[fskimospy]

Just because YOU want to deem it irrelevant doesn't make it so. Just because the data goes contrary to your agenda doesn't change the data.

Your argument that gun ownership is a risk factor that leads one to committing suicide is what the dataset of those countries directly refutes.

No, it doesn't. Any competent data analyst would tell you that's an illogical claim.

The other dataset that MILLIONS of Americans own and purchase guns every year and only 20K suicides (little less than half) are committed by guns also directly refutes the claim that gun ownership is a "risk factor' for suicide rates.

This is a basic analytic error. I'm not sure how anyone who says they do data analysis professionally would say that. The number of gun owners who commit suicide every year is a meaningless number when it comes to evaluating guns as a risk factor for suicide. The important question is if suicide is more likely for gun owners than for non-gun owners with the same characteristics, and basically all empirical evidence indicates that it is.

Again, the bold shows you do not know what risk factor means. It is something that DIRECTLY increases the risk of a given medical outcome for happening. Owning a bathtub, razors, guns, a car, or a bridge does not directly, nor even indirectly, increase a person's risk for attempting suicide. Those items are a means, not a risk factor. You are the idiot that cannot see that and still continue to spout your drivel.

No, it means you don't know what a risk factor means. In fact, using your standard the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention doesn't know what a risk factor for suicide is either, despite you previously quoting them as an authoritative source. Under their 'suicide risk factor' section:

Access to lethal means including firearms and drugs

Literally every organization you linked to included access to lethal means, which guns obviously are, as a risk factor for suicide. Do you know better than they do? If not, explain why they are incorrectly including guns as a risk factor.

let's break down the factors on the first link

Which one of these is not like the others..... Only one of those doesn't contribute directly to mental health in a negative way and is just a general "warning"... oh wait that's access to lethal means. Of which is stupid because lethal means is literally anything and everything. The real point is if someone is exhibiting warning signs, of which guns ownership isn't listed, usually due to the increased risk factors, then that person may be at risk for attempted suicide.

So to be clear you're calling your own sources stupid now? LOL. You linked to those guys to show how they didn't consider guns to be a risk factor despite clearly not even bothering to read the links and then when confronted with the fact that they do consider guns to be a risk factor declared your own links stupid.

This is just getting better and better. I love it.

I didnt drop it, because I never stated it.

Okay now you're just lying:

That's putting the cart before the horse. You don't go in look at numbers to prove something like that.

You are the one making the stupid argument. I said meta analysis is never used for a conclusion, but a means for figuring out further study. That it is really only useful for certain applications and fields of study, and outside those fields is prone to bias and agendas.

You're just making shit up now.

You are the one that was pointing to a meta analysis study that is full of agenda bias as a conclusion that the mere presence of a gun incites people to commit suicide.

That is not what the study says, which is further proof that you have not read the thing you're criticizing.

 

[fskimospy]

You are simply, totally, completely wrong. Here are 76 references to studies demonstrating means restriction is an effective preventive effort for suicide (firearms representing >50% of suicides in the US):

I can't wait for him to tell you that as a mental health professional that you're wrong about what suicide risk factors are.

 

[glenn1]

I can't wait for him to tell you that as a mental health professional that you're wrong about what suicide risk factors are.

If you are truly concerned about reducing 'suicide risk factors' then you'd spend way more time advocating for doctors to warn patients about risk factors that are literally orders of magnitude higher, such as being LGBTQ. Maybe the Trump admin should budget for a few million to encourage doctors at every visit to remind how much peril they're in. We're not doing it to badger the gays, we're just showing how much we love them with our warnings.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

 

[fskimospy]

If you are truly concerned about reducing 'suicide risk factors' then you'd spend way more time advocating for doctors to warn patients about risk factors that are literally orders of magnitude higher, such as being LGBTQ. Maybe the Trump admin should budget for a few million to encourage doctors at every visit to remind how much peril they're in. We're not doing it to badger the gays, we're just showing how much we love them with our warnings.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

That doesn't make any sense as being LGBTQ is not something the patient can affect. What on earth would make you say such a silly and irrational thing? Outside of that, I fully support doctors paying closer attention to their patient's mental health if they are part of a group that is disproportionately prone to suicide. That's just good medicine.

What's nice though is that all the attention Florida got through this stupid law will hopefully encourage more doctors to ask about gun ownership even more often. As someone who appears to share my concern for suicide risk factors I'm sure you're excited as well! Think about all the good Florida may have done, even if it wasn't on purpose!

 

[interchange]

If you are truly concerned about reducing 'suicide risk factors' then you'd spend way more time advocating for doctors to warn patients about risk factors that are literally orders of magnitude higher, such as being LGBTQ. Maybe the Trump admin should budget for a few million to encourage doctors at every visit to remind how much peril they're in. We're not doing it to badger the gays, we're just showing how much we love them with our warnings.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-face-high-rates--suicide-attempts/31626633/

What is the intervention you propose should you determine that someone were at high risk due to being transgender? Did you notice that this article was not about LGBTQ, just T?

Regardless, screening for a risk factor does you no good unless you couple it with an intervention that reduces the negative outcome. So, what is that intervention? And do you have data supporting that intervention?

For guns, there are over 40 million, and I provided 72 references demonstrating that the intervention is effective. There are an estimated 1.4 million transgender people in the US. Not trivial at all, so I am curious as to the intervention you propose and the strength of it.

The best you are going to come away from this is developing another indicated intervention than the one being discussed.

 

[glenn1]

That doesn't make any sense as being LGBTQ is not something the patient can affect. What on earth would make you say such a silly and irrational thing? Outside of that, I fully support doctors paying closer attention to their patient's mental health if they are part of a group that is disproportionately prone to suicide. That's just good medicine.

What's nice though is that all the attention Florida got through this stupid law will hopefully encourage more doctors to ask about gun ownership even more often. As someone who appears to share my concern for suicide risk factors I'm sure you're excited as well! Think about all the good Florida may have done, even if it wasn't on purpose!

Go for it, maybe doctor inquiries can be the latest proximate cause making firearms sales go even more parabolic than they are now.

 

[IGBT]

A 2nd Amendment "Sanctuary City / State" declaration for legal fire arms owners is also on the horizon.

 

[fskimospy]

Go for it, maybe doctor inquiries can be the latest proximate cause making firearms sales go even more parabolic than they are now.

Hey, people have a right to be stupid all they want! I'm just glad we both agree that more doctors warning their patients about the risks of gun ownership is a positive thing that should both continue and expand.

 

[glenn1]

A 2nd Amendment "Sanctuary City / State" declaration for legal fire arms owners is also on the horizon.

Backdoor re-empowerment of the 10th Amendment via states effectively performing nullification of laws they dislike passed by the other party in DC.

 

[glenn1]

Hey, people have a right to be stupid all they want! I'm just glad we both agree that more doctors warning their patients about the risks of gun ownership is a positive thing that should both continue and expand.

Maybe someday you'll outgrow your childish puritanical urges to tell other how stupid their choices are (and doctors also) but probably not.

 

[fskimospy]

Maybe someday you'll outgrow your childish puritanical urges to tell other how stupid their choices are (and doctors also) but probably not.

But I thought you wanted doctors to warn patients about threats to their health? I'm terribly confused.

 

[glenn1]

But I thought you wanted doctors to warn patients about threats to their health? I'm terribly confused.

Sure, which is why doctors should spend their time talking about the most relevant threats. Like being black. Or transsexual. Or how being liberal makes you far less happy (which is a contributing factor towards suicide).

 

[fskimospy]

Sure, which is why doctors should spend their time talking about the most relevant threats. Like being black. Or transsexual. Or how being liberal makes you far less happy (which is a contributing factor towards suicide).

But we already covered this, there is no appropriate intervention that the doctor can recommend for those, unlike with guns. I'm sure you agree since no intervention for the things you mentioned is possible the doctor should spend whatever time you would like to use for your black education and devote it all to further gun instruction.

I can't tell you how nice it is for you to finally embrace doctors educating their patients on gun ownership though. And they say people never learn!

 

[HumblePie]

Life is a high risk factor for suicide. Every single person that has ever committed suicide has been alive before hand. We must stop and think about this risk factor and do something about it! Without life no one could ever commit suicide again anywhere! there we go problem solved.