well of course the number of 'defensive' gun incidents was a steaming pile of BS

[fskimospy]

If you mean higher risk of successful suicide then why word it any other way?

Saying higher risk of suicide leaves open the interpretation that your chance of attempting it is higher, which would be the conclusion your average person would come to...the change in wording imparts an emotional charge to the results that shouldn't be there, which is indicative of a bias

This is actually indicative of using the dictionary definition of suicide.

From the CDC:

Suicide

Death caused by self-directed injurious behavior with any intent to die as a result of the behavior.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/definitions.html

At what point are you going to realize that your bias is the real issue here?

 

[corwin]

Can you provide me with an example of a 'good statistic'?

I gave you a couple already but once again...

Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer
Correlation and causation confirmed

Drinking increases your risk of sclerosis of the liver
Correlation and causation once again confirmed

Those are good statistics

 

[SlowSpyder]

What is this based on?

Nothing other than my own thoughts. I didn't say no one ever uses a gun in a half hearted attempt. But I'd be very surprised if those not serious about trying to kill themselves would honestly shoot themselves.

There are plenty of people who survive gunshot suicides. If your theory is correct, they should attempt suicide again at rates much higher than those who attempt suicide by other means. Can you provide any data that backs this up?

I have no information to share. I didn't provide a theory, simply saying that the stats can't know if those who make more half hearted attempts naturally gravitate towards methods that aren't so likely to end in death vs. those who truly want to die to gravitate towards choices that are more likely to cause death.

 

[fskimospy]

And I'm confused as to why anyone would put any level of real faith behind these stats, they tell nothing.

I'm sorry, but you have provided no coherent argument as to why these stats mean nothing, you have provided no assertion of expertise that they mean nothing, and your conclusion that they mean nothing flies in the face of authoritative sources from universities, NGOs, the CDC, and others.

Simply put, if you're going to decide that entire fields of study that people have devoted their lives to are wrong you better come up with some pretty compelling counter-arguments. You haven't.

You can, and have been arguing, that a gun creates a higher odds of dying by gun if you include suicide. Great.

Actually suicide is not necessary. You have a higher chance of dying from both suicide and homicide independently.

South Korea has very strict gun laws but has a much higher suicide rate than us. When people are determined, they'll find a way.

That's not relevant to any of the studies listed that I'm aware of as it would involve an entirely separate cohort and different controls.

And to me that is why you do come of as anti-gun. You are putting faith behind a meaningless statistic that appears anti-gun and riding it all the way to the end.

As I hope I've adequately explained, I accept expert research from numerous different authoritative sources across many years and I'm ok with accepting the conclusions of them regardless if they tell me something I don't want to hear. Do you think you do the same?

I only come off as anti-gun because people who are committed to gun rights view literally any information that might indicate that gun ownership is a bad idea as being anti-gun. Reality is not pro or anti gun, it is simply what is.

 

[fskimospy]

I have no information to share. I didn't provide a theory, simply saying that the stats can't know if those who make more half hearted attempts naturally gravitate towards methods that aren't so likely to end in death vs. those who truly want to die to gravitate towards choices that are more likely to cause death.

Ah but they can! That's my whole point! You said that those using a gun are more determined to die than others. If that's the case, they should have a greater number of repeat attempts.

I'm aware of no data that indicates this whatsoever, by the way.

 

[corwin]

This is actually indicative of using the dictionary definition of suicide.

From the CDC:


http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/definitions.html

At what point are you going to realize that your bias is the real issue here?

Yet any idiot on the street with half a brain cell to rub together could have told you, without consulting some shit study, that using a gun to attempt suicide pretty much guarantees you will succeed...hooray captain obvious

But now you can trumpet some "study" that says

MORE GUNS, MORE SUICIDE

and go right on ignoring the mental health issues that are required to be present before someone attempts suicide with ANYTHING AT ALL

You want to try and protect people from themselves, which is never going to happen

 

[dank69]

...

and go right on ignoring the mental health issues that are required to be present before someone attempts suicide with ANYTHING AT ALL

You want to try and protect people from themselves, which is never going to happen

Having failed to build a successful argument against what we've been telling you all along, you now move on to arguing against something we are not doing. If that is what it takes to salvage your pride, so be it.

 

[fskimospy]

I gave you a couple already but once again...

Smoking increases your risk of lung cancer
Correlation and causation confirmed

Drinking increases your risk of sclerosis of the liver
Correlation and causation once again confirmed

Those are good statistics

What makes you think that causation is confirmed?

The studies that established the link between smoking and lung cancer/alcohol and sclerosis of the liver do not actually establish causation, they simply show a correlation between smoking/drinking and their associated diseases that are extraordinarily unlikely to have occurred by random factors that aren't controlled for.

This is in fact the same standard of statistical significance that these studies use.

 

[HumblePie]

Worthless stats is worthless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

US rates 30th on successful suicide rates per capita. That's 29 other countries ahead of us and pretty much ALL those 29 countries have far stricter gun ownership laws.

A person using a gun to commit suicide the first time is far more likely to be successful. That isn't an item of argument. The point being is a gun the most effective method of suicide? That is what seems to be an argument danced around here, but with 29 countries with far more suicides in both per capita relationship AND in sheer raw numbers begs to argue a completely different point. That guns are not the most effective means to suicide.

The problem with many other means of suicide is that if they aren't successful they leave the person physically and mentally far worse off than they were before the attempt. Usually physically or mentally impaired which tends to make people more determined to finish what they started in the first place.

Unsuccessful gun suicides also leave permanent physical and sometimes mental impairment as well.

Guns are mainly a highly talked about side issue when it comes to suicides both successful and unsuccessful. Who cares about the tool used for the suicide attempt, but why the attempt was made in the first place. That should be the real discussion on suicides and guns shouldn't even be mentioned.

But without mentioning guns for suicide deaths in this country, anti-gun ownership people in this country don't have as much to argue for. Homicide rates based on guns is fairly low and usually done in very small horrible places in our country. When factoring out the ghettos and other bad inner city areas, homicide deaths by guns are very low and far out classed by other means. Deaths as a whole as attributed to gun violence is very low compared to just about any other cause of death in this country.

As for defensive uses of guns, it is very hard to figure if impossible. I've had friends who've had to defend themselves, property, or family with a gun. Sometimes the defense was just to deter another person, many times around here it is to stop a feral hog or coyote. None of which will ever be reported for any sort of tracking purposes. Nor would many of the gun owning country people around here be at all inclined to answer any such study question if asked based on my experience of the people around here that own a gun for their ranch/farm.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ah but they can! That's my whole point! You said that those using a gun are more determined to die than others. If that's the case, they should have a greater number of repeat attempts.

I'm aware of no data that indicates this whatsoever, by the way.

So of those who survived a suicide attempt by gun, very few of them made a repeat attempt? I guess statistically the suicide attempt by gun saved their life, then? Statistics don't lie and always tell the whole picture, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Yet any idiot on the street with half a brain cell to rub together could have told you, without consulting some shit study, that using a gun to attempt suicide pretty much guarantees you will succeed...hooray captain obvious

But now you can trumpet some "study" that says

MORE GUNS, MORE SUICIDE

and go right on ignoring the mental health issues that are required to be present before someone attempts suicide with ANYTHING AT ALL

You want to try and protect people from themselves, which is never going to happen

Wait, what happened to the bias and conspiracy you were alleging a few posts back? Are we done with that now?

You're just raging like a lunatic now.

 

[corwin]

Having failed to build a successful argument against what we've been telling you all along, you now move on to arguing against something we are not doing. If that is what it takes to salvage your pride, so be it.

Yeah no...

Wait, what happened to the bias and conspiracy you were alleging a few posts back? Are we done with that now?

You're just raging like a lunatic now.

There is obvious bias in the wording of the results...but go on with trying to save people from themselves, I am really done with this now, I have too much school work to finish

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah no...

There is obvious bias in the wording of the results...but go on with trying to save people from themselves, I am really done with this now, I have too much school work to finish

The obvious bias that you declared was the result of them using the word as explicitly defined in the dictionary.

 

[fskimospy]

So of those who survived a suicide attempt by gun, very few of them made a repeat attempt? I guess statistically the suicide attempt by gun saved their life, then? Statistics don't lie and always tell the whole picture, right?

No, I'm saying that I'm not aware of them being repeat attempters at rates greater than other types of suicide.

Since that seems to be the crux of your argument, that those most determined to die use guns, doesn't it seem important to know if that's true or not?

 

[dank69]

Yeah no...

There is obvious bias in the wording of the results...but go on with trying to save people from themselves, I am really done with this now, I have too much school work to finish

Also, please point out where we are trying to save people from themselves.

 

[SlowSpyder]

No, I'm saying that I'm not aware of them being repeat attempters at rates greater than other types of suicide.

Since that seems to be the crux of your argument, that those most determined to die use guns, doesn't it seem important to know if that's true or not?

No, the crux of my argument is that these are meaningless statistics.

We have no way of knowing how a person may change or reevaluate things after a violent failed suicide attempt vs. a non-violent attempt where they simply fall asleep only to wake up at a hospital.

If you think someone who swallows 23 Benadryl pills is as determined to die as someone who pops the trigger guard off their shotgun so they can operate the trigger with their toe, loads up a 3" shell of buckshot, and puts the barrel in their mouth and shoots, well, that's up to you.

There are way too many factors and moving parts to determine much of anything from the stats. And I simply don't care if you are indeed right, that you are .00010% likely to die by suicide with a gun in your home vs. .00015% likely to die without one. It just doesn't matter, the factors that create these numbers lie elsewhere in my opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the crux of my argument is that these are meaningless statistics.

And like I've already covered, you've provided no credible basis for this.

We have no way of knowing how a person may change or reevaluate things after a violent failed suicide attempt vs. a non-violent attempt where they simply fall asleep only to wake up at a hospital.

If you think someone who swallows 23 Benadryl pills is as determined to die as someone who pops the trigger guard off their shotgun so they can operate the trigger with their toe, loads up a 3" shell of buckshot, and puts the barrel in their mouth and shoots, well, that's up to you.

I'm not saying anything one way or the other. You attempted to discount the research presented to you by saying that gun owners were more determined to die. It stands to reason that if someone is more determined to die that will show up in both past and future behavior.

You can't just say "but maybe aliens are zapping their brains with a mind control laser so this research doesn't count" and then when asked to provide evidence of the aliens say "I can't but the research doesn't count anyway". That's just an avoidance technique so you don't have to address uncomfortable findings.

There are way too many factors and moving parts to determine much of anything from the stats. And I simply don't care if you are indeed right, that you are .00010% likely to die by suicide with a gun in your home vs. .00015% likely not to without. It just doesn't matter, the factors that create these numbers lie elsewhere in my opinion.

You realize that the problem you're describing is literally the entire reason regression analysis was invented, right? It exists to isolate effects from individual factors (in this case, gun ownership).

 

[Pipeline 1010]

To anybody here arguing that we should ban guns because of increased successful suicide rates: if people had been using pools or cars or knives at a very high success rate, would you be advocating banning those, too? Is this really about suicide reduction or is just about gun banning?

 

[fskimospy]

To anybody here arguing that we should ban guns because of increased successful suicide rates: if people had been using pools or cars or knives at a very high success rate, would you be advocating banning those, too? Is this really about suicide reduction or is just about gun banning?

Literally no one here is arguing that.

 

[ivwshane]

to anybody here arguing that we should ban guns because of increased successful suicide rates: If people had been using pools or cars or knives at a very high success rate, would you be advocating banning those, too? Is this really about suicide reduction or is just about gun banning?

no one is proposing that you freaking dumb ass gun nutters!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It never hurts to have a gun in the house for self defense

http://www.click2houston.com/news/police-homeowner-shoots-kills-suspect-in-home-invasion/30867944

Houston police are investigating after they say a homeowner shot and killed a suspect in a home invasion Thursday.

The incident happened at 7502 Corporate in southwest Houston around 2:30 p.m.

Police tell Local 2 they believe four armed suspects tried to break into an apartment and did not realize there were two people, including the homeowner, inside.

Officers said both the suspects and the homeowner fired shots. The homeowner hit and killed one person, who was found on the sidewalk outside the apartment. The other three are still on the run

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly.

http://time.com/3662154/breakfast-in-bed-shooting/

A North Carolina man was shot in the chest Friday morning after his wife allegedly mistook him for a home intruder when he was trying to surprise her with breakfast in bed.

Fort Bragg soldier Zia Segule, 28, returned home unannounced to surprise his wife Tiffany Segule with breakfast after she thought he’d gone to work, Fayetteville police told WTVD. The alarm sounded and his Tiffany, who was in bed at the time, thought there was an intruder. She shot through the closed bedroom door and hit her husband in the chest.

Zia was able to walk and talk after taking a bullet, and has since been released from the hospital and returned home Friday afternoon. He told reporters, “I’m good.” Tiffany Segule was questioned by police, who say she may have been alarmed by recent break-ins in the area.

 

[SlowSpyder]

And like I've already covered, you've provided no credible basis for this.

I disagree.

I'm not saying anything one way or the other. You attempted to discount the research presented to you by saying that gun owners were more determined to die. It stands to reason that if someone is more determined to die that will show up in both past and future behavior.

You can't just say "but maybe aliens are zapping their brains with a mind control laser so this research doesn't count" and then when asked to provide evidence of the aliens say "I can't but the research doesn't count anyway". That's just an avoidance technique so you don't have to address uncomfortable findings.

I haven't avoided anything, I think I've tried to argue my side of the issue head on and brought up a number of variables that we can't account for.

You realize that the problem you're describing is literally the entire reason regression analysis was invented, right? It exists to isolate effects from individual factors (in this case, gun ownership).

No, I'm not familiar at all with it. My point is that these statistics paint with too wide of a brush. There are likely parts of the population that, for whatever reason, are at a higher risk for suicide than the rest of the population. For the majority of us, I don't believe these stats have any real meaning. We could take a step back and say that, compared to the entire world population, the vast majority of which do not have guns, of those murdered or who choose to end their life, gun ownership is not likely to increase your risk of a firearms related death (I don't have that stat, though I imagine it is true, but just for the sake of the point I'm trying to make go with it please). But I think we'd agree that would be too broad of a picture to have any real meaning. I think the same thing is happening here.

 

[3chordcharlie]

So wrong it's not funny...with only around 600 "accidental" shootings a year with no breakdown on where they happened it's almost a statistical anomaly that someone will be unintentionally hurt in your home

You are counting only deaths. Accidental shootings resulting in injury are much harder to quantify, because they suffer from the same reporting problems as 'successful home defense'.

The ratio is quite high, possibly over 20 injuries per death. I see some numbers reported above.

Accidental discharge causing property damage, or having the potential to cause injury, isn't addressed anywhere that I can see. But if you figure a hand-gun hit rate of 20-40% when you are aiming, you have to figure it's lower when you aren't aiming. Every time that happens, the person involved, and anyone nearby (notably: without requiring their knowledge or consent), have a non-negligible chance of being injured or killed.

I don't think guns are the number one problem facing society, and probably not even top-5. But "statistical anomaly" is reaching pretty far.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree.

I haven't avoided anything, I think I've tried to argue my side of the issue head on and brought up a number of variables that we can't account for.

But that's not accurate. In fact a number of the proposed confounding variables you brought up are in fact accounted for in various studies.

No, I'm not familiar at all with it. My point is that these statistics paint with too wide of a brush. There are likely parts of the population that, for whatever reason, are at a higher risk for suicide than the rest of the population. For the majority of us, I don't believe these stats have any real meaning.

This is a big fundamental error in regards to statistics and how regression analysis works. What regression analysis does in effect is estimate the impact of of firearms availability on suicide and homicide risk even after taking into account other factors.

So... basically almost by definition these stats have real meaning for the majority of us. That's the whole point. That's why these studies are done. They matter for the average person.

We could take a step back and say that, compared to the entire world population, the vast majority of which do not have guns, of those murdered or who choose to end their life, gun ownership is not likely to increase your risk of a firearms related death (I don't have that stat, though I imagine it is true, but just for the sake of the point I'm trying to make go with it please). But I think we'd agree that would be too broad of a picture to have any real meaning. I think the same thing is happening here.

Two issues here. First and foremost this has nothing to do with firearms related death. It is suicide and homicide by all means, not suicide or homicide by firearm. That's extremely important to recognize as I've seen numerous people make such an error. The reason that stat would not be meaningful is because those without a firearm or in areas without them would be definitionally incapable of committing a firearms related suicide or homicide.

These stats are far, far more useful as they directly measure the impact of the introduction of a firearm into the home as compared to overall suicide and homicide rates, controlling for demographics, etc. That's super important because of its direct measurement. I hope that clears things up. In short, the research is way ahead of you on this.

This isn't to talk shit, but I get the impression that your knowledge of the status of the research in this area, research methods, and statistics in general isn't super high. I don't think you're in a very good place to say that peer reviewed research by experts in the field is worthless, particularly based on the critiques you've offered so far. If you have other credible research on gun violence that challenges these findings I'd be interested to read it, btw.

One last question: what evidence would it take for you to accept that firearms availability leads to a greater chance of suicide and homicide for the average person?