• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Would you report this kind of violation of stay at home order?

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
There mere act of owning a gun doesn't cause suicide rates to go up or go down if said ownership is removed. False equivalency logic fallacy. The lock down is causing spikes in suicide rates across the globe and will continue to do so as economic burdens increase. The statements you make are no where near comparable.
This is false, increased gun ownership is linked to increases in suicide rates. This is well established and something you’ve been informed of before.


Results. In both regional and state-level analyses, for the U.S. population as a whole, for both males and females, and for virtually every age group, a robust association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and suicide rates. Conclusions. Where firearm ownership levels are higher, a disproportionately large number of people die from suicide.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
There are trade-offs to gun ownership.

There are trade-offs to this lockdown.

That is the only point I was making.
Well sure there are trade offs but I think people are strongly overestimating the trade offs being made here.

Simply put the economic problems we are facing are not really due to government restrictions, they are due to fear of the virus. Therefore, loosening the restrictions will most likely not have a strong economic effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Careful you are going to fuck his feels and then he'll have to stomp and pout about being "personally attacked".
My prediction is that he will discount the reams of research showing this connection by making some declaration that the research doesn’t count due to some hilariously inept attempt at acting like he understands inferential statistics and logic.

THEN when I call him an idiot or an incompetent for doing this he will start whining about being personally attacked. :)
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
Well sure there are trade offs but I think people are strongly overestimating the trade offs being made here.

Simply put the economic problems we are facing are not really due to government restrictions, they are due to fear of the virus. Therefore, loosening the restrictions will most likely not have a strong economic effect.
I guess time will tell.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,966
2,282
136
No, I don't. People have the right to own guns.

How is that relevant? Someone asked how many people have died as a result of the lockdown, and I provided evidence that suicides have spiked.
So you don't even pretend to be consistent? Just pick and choose your 'logic' depending on the result you want?

If an increase in suicide is an argument against the lock-down, then it's also an argument against allowing people to own guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
This is false, increased gun ownership is linked to increases in suicide rates. This is well established and something you’ve been informed of before.

No.



Just because in the US, suicides are committed more often with a firearm does not show a link between the two. As ownership rates, especially new owners, sky rocket the rates of suicides are not keeping pace in result of ownership rates of the last several years.


Several studies show that a large portion of suicides with guns are from guns obtained illegally in the first place by people who would never pass a NICS check. So further gun laws would do nothing to stop that.

When looking at countries that have enacted stringent gun laws or even gun bans, their suicide rates did not precipitously fall either. One just has to look at New Zealand for their recent new gun legislation and actual increase in suicide rates afterwards without guns. But also same for Australia after their gun buy back program.


More suicides happen on bridges across the globe every year than happen from guns. By your logic, we should remove all bridges around the world. Heck the Golden Gate Bridge is responsible for over 100 deaths by suicide annually. (to note I am not actually advocating removal of bridges, just pointing out that stupid correlations and knee jerk decisions based upon those are the epitome of dumb).


For additional info. The top 20 countries by civilian firearm ownership rates aren't even in the top 20 of suicide rates by country

 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
So you don't even pretend to be consistent? Just pick and choose your 'logic' depending on the result you want?

If an increase in suicide is an argument against the lock-down, then it's also an argument against allowing people to own guns.
Well no, because most people, me among them, are willing to accept tradeoffs to gun-ownership. The benefit is worth the cost. Whatever arguments exist against the lockdown, their premise is probably that the benefits aren't worth the cost.

At any rate, I only posted this to indicate that there are tradeoffs to the lockdown.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
No.



Just because in the US, suicides are committed more often with a firearm does not show a link between the two. As ownership rates, especially new owners, sky rocket the rates of suicides are not keeping pace in result of ownership rates of the last several years.
Guns per capita is an irrelevant measure as if my neighbor owns one gun or one hundred guns doesn’t matter. It’s if they own one or not. The guy who wrote that non-peer reviewed opinion article made a basic analytic error that he should be embarrassed about. He then compounded this error by comparing the US to other countries and other cultures, introducing an additional confounding variable that he made no attempt to control for.

Actually competent research analyzes risk factors for suicide and finds that all else being equal, owning a gun makes it more likely you will die by suicide. This is a highly robust finding accepted by all major medical organizations in the country.


Several studies show that a large portion of suicides with guns are from guns obtained illegally in the first place by people who would never pass a NICS check. So further gun laws would do nothing to stop that.
If a gun was obtained legally is irrelevant as to whether or not guns are a risk factor for suicide.

When looking at countries that have enacted stringent gun laws or even gun bans, their suicide rates did not precipitously fall either. One just has to look at New Zealand for their recent new gun legislation and actual increase in suicide rates afterwards without guns. But also same for Australia after their gun buy back program.

These ‘bans’ affected only a small percentage of the guns in circulation in the country and once again, aggregate numbers of guns are not meaningful.

More suicides happen on bridges across the globe every year than happen from guns. By your logic, we should remove all bridges around the world. Heck the Golden Gate Bridge is responsible for over 100 deaths by suicide annually. (to note I am not actually advocating removal of bridges, just pointing out that stupid correlations and knee jerk decisions based upon those are the epitome of dumb).
This is bizarre and irrational logic. Bridges are not removed because their utility exceeds their costs. Guns do not have utility that exceeds their costs. Regardless, I was simply speaking to the well established statistical relationship between gun ownership and risk of completed suicide.


 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Well no, because most people, me among them, are willing to accept tradeoffs to gun-ownership. The benefit is worth the cost. Whatever arguments exist against the lockdown, their premise is probably that the benefits aren't worth the cost.

At any rate, I only posted this to indicate that there are tradeoffs to the lockdown.
There are trade offs but we should be aware that they are likely mild. People are DRASTICALLY overestimating how much of an effect government regulations are having vs. people just not wanting to go to the bar due to the virus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,091
9,965
136
No.



Just because in the US, suicides are committed more often with a firearm does not show a link between the two. As ownership rates, especially new owners, sky rocket the rates of suicides are not keeping pace in result of ownership rates of the last several years.


Several studies show that a large portion of suicides with guns are from guns obtained illegally in the first place by people who would never pass a NICS check. So further gun laws would do nothing to stop that.

When looking at countries that have enacted stringent gun laws or even gun bans, their suicide rates did not precipitously fall either. One just has to look at New Zealand for their recent new gun legislation and actual increase in suicide rates afterwards without guns. But also same for Australia after their gun buy back program.


More suicides happen on bridges across the globe every year than happen from guns. By your logic, we should remove all bridges around the world. Heck the Golden Gate Bridge is responsible for over 100 deaths by suicide annually. (to note I am not actually advocating removal of bridges, just pointing out that stupid correlations and knee jerk decisions based upon those are the epitome of dumb).


For additional info. The top 20 countries by civilian firearm ownership rates aren't even in the top 20 of suicide rates by country

Suicide by gun is greater then homicide by gun. Statistics show homes without guns are safer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,271
232
106
Blantantly false


Top 20 states with registered firearms only have Colorado in the top 20 states with highest suicide rates. This goes for countries as well as the states as in the top 20 countries with civilian rates of firearms (and no I am not talking about a few people hording guns but individual owners versus the population) also are not near the top 20 countries with high rates of suicide. The only causation indicator for suicide rates is mental health. Anything that upsets mental health causes increases in suicides all around the world. A 1% increase in unemployment has a direct link for example to an increase of 5000-10000 deaths of despair (amount depends on the study) which include suicides and domestic violence. This is because unemployment has a direct link to mental health. Mental health issues are a causational link to all suicides. People mentally healthy do not commit suicides. Gun ownership has no affect what so ever on mental health. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. The horrible studies using Massachusetts or Connecticut reduced suicide rates after they enacted stricter gun laws doesn't take into account other factors like they were already on a downward trend from years prior to suicide rates as well an upward trend for reduced unemployment. Anyone arguing such an absurd idea needs to be mocked and ridiculed.

Now, if you want to argue that guns are more likely to make suicides more effective... that may have a point but not really. How many overdoses have we had during the opioid epidemic compared to deaths from firearms? Far more deaths and those can be argued to be more or less suicides as no one is forcing those people onto pills to overdose and most know that taking them will lead to their deaths. It is a slow suicide but still a suicide.

Also, Asian countries, which have the highest restrictions on gun ownership also have the highest rate of suicides globally.


The vast majority of those deaths are from hanging and poisoning with a very high effective rate. Boiling down a crap ton of spinach and drinking the result is basically 100% mortality rate where guns in suicides in America are only an 85% effective mortality rate. That doesn't mean guns aren't effective, they just aren't the most effective method. Asian countries account for more than 60% of the global suicide rates annually, and account for around 35% of the worlds population. They also have the least amount of gun ownership among civilians.


As for the bridges remark I made earlier. Bridges have far less utility than guns. Bridges are not required in a society. There are other ways to get around including going a long way around. Humans can do without bridges just fine, it would just be an inconvenience. Guns on the other had have a ton of utility. First off, they keep the American government and foreign powers in check. They are effective at self defense. Effective at hunting. People use guns for recreation to improve mental health (which would incidentally decrease suicide rates). Bridges are just one method out of many to allow for the transfer of people or good across an area. Meaning if one wants to blame an object as a means of reducing suicides in a country, one would do better blaming bridges than blaming guns.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: brycejones

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,091
9,965
136
Blantantly false


Top 20 states with registered firearms only have Colorado in the top 20 states with highest suicide rates. This goes for countries as well as the states as in the top 20 countries with civilian rates of firearms (and no I am not talking about a few people hording guns but individual owners versus the population) also are not near the top 20 countries with high rates of suicide. The only causation indicator for suicide rates is mental health. Anything that upsets mental health causes increases in suicides all around the world. A 1% increase in unemployment has a direct link for example to an increase of 5000-10000 deaths of despair (amount depends on the study) which include suicides and domestic violence. This is because unemployment has a direct link to mental health. Mental health issues are a causational link to all suicides. People mentally healthy do not commit suicides. Gun ownership has no affect what so ever on mental health. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. The horrible studies using Massachusetts or Connecticut reduced suicide rates after they enacted stricter gun laws doesn't take into account other factors like they were already on a downward trend from years prior to suicide rates as well an upward trend for reduced unemployment. Anyone arguing such an absurd idea needs to be mocked and ridiculed.

Now, if you want to argue that guns are more likely to make suicides more effective... that may have a point but not really. How many overdoses have we had during the opioid epidemic compared to deaths from firearms? Far more deaths and those can be argued to be more or less suicides as no one is forcing those people onto pills to overdose and most know that taking them will lead to their deaths. It is a slow suicide but still a suicide.

Also, Asian countries, which have the highest restrictions on gun ownership also have the highest rate of suicides globally.


The vast majority of those deaths are from hanging and poisoning with a very high effective rate. Boiling down a crap ton of spinach and drinking the result is basically 100% mortality rate where guns in suicides in America are only an 85% effective mortality rate. That doesn't mean guns aren't effective, they just aren't the most effective method. Asian countries account for more than 60% of the global suicide rates annually, and account for around 35% of the worlds population. They also have the least amount of gun ownership among civilians.


As for the bridges remark I made earlier. Bridges have far less utility than guns. Bridges are not required in a society. There are other ways to get around including going a long way around. Humans can do without bridges just fine, it would just be an inconvenience. Guns on the other had have a ton of utility. First off, they keep the American government and foreign powers in check. They are effective at self defense. Effective at hunting. People use guns for recreation to improve mental health (which would incidentally decrease suicide rates). Bridges are just one method out of many to allow for the transfer of people or good across an area. Meaning if one wants to blame an object as a means of reducing suicides in a country, one would do better blaming bridges than blaming guns.
If its all mental health seems the most common for of suicide would be OD on sommething like sleeping pills. No pain, non violent and easy access.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Blantantly false

1) Lol another incompetent making a medium post. Not only does he use the same faulty guns per capita measure instead of % gun ownership he tries to prove his point using excel, and thinks that he should get an r^2 of 0.7 using a single IV for his ‘model’. Whoever wrote that post is an idiot.

2) you clearly didn’t read the guy’s post because he stated gun ownership leads to increased suicide numbers.

3) he also later admits that gun ownership is associated with higher homicide rates in high quality research but then tries to hand wave it away by saying other things are correlated more strongly.

Now let’s look at some actual empirical research on how fun ownership relates to homicide.


States in the top quartile of firearm ownership had a 64.6% ( p<0.001) higher incidence rate of domestic firearm homicide than states in the lowest quartile; however, states in the top quartile did not differ significantly from states in the lowest quartile of firearm ownership in observed incidence rates of nondomestic firearm homicide.
Top 20 states with registered firearms only have Colorado in the top 20 states with highest suicide rates. This goes for countries as well as the states as in the top 20 countries with civilian rates of firearms (and no I am not talking about a few people hording guns but individual owners versus the population) also are not near the top 20 countries with high rates of suicide. The only causation indicator for suicide rates is mental health. Anything that upsets mental health causes increases in suicides all around the world. A 1% increase in unemployment has a direct link for example to an increase of 5000-10000 deaths of despair (amount depends on the study) which include suicides and domestic violence. This is because unemployment has a direct link to mental health. Mental health issues are a causational link to all suicides. People mentally healthy do not commit suicides. Gun ownership has no affect what so ever on mental health. It doesn't even pass the sniff test. The horrible studies using Massachusetts or Connecticut reduced suicide rates after they enacted stricter gun laws doesn't take into account other factors like they were already on a downward trend from years prior to suicide rates as well an upward trend for reduced unemployment. Anyone arguing such an absurd idea needs to be mocked and ridiculed.

Now, if you want to argue that guns are more likely to make suicides more effective... that may have a point but not really. How many overdoses have we had during the opioid epidemic compared to deaths from firearms? Far more deaths and those can be argued to be more or less suicides as no one is forcing those people onto pills to overdose and most know that taking them will lead to their deaths. It is a slow suicide but still a suicide.

Also, Asian countries, which have the highest restrictions on gun ownership also have the highest rate of suicides globally.


The vast majority of those deaths are from hanging and poisoning with a very high effective rate. Boiling down a crap ton of spinach and drinking the result is basically 100% mortality rate where guns in suicides in America are only an 85% effective mortality rate. That doesn't mean guns aren't effective, they just aren't the most effective method. Asian countries account for more than 60% of the global suicide rates annually, and account for around 35% of the worlds population. They also have the least amount of gun ownership among civilians.


As for the bridges remark I made earlier. Bridges have far less utility than guns. Bridges are not required in a society. There are other ways to get around including going a long way around. Humans can do without bridges just fine, it would just be an inconvenience. Guns on the other had have a ton of utility. First off, they keep the American government and foreign powers in check. They are effective at self defense. Effective at hunting. People use guns for recreation to improve mental health (which would incidentally decrease suicide rates). Bridges are just one method out of many to allow for the transfer of people or good across an area. Meaning if one wants to blame an object as a means of reducing suicides in a country, one would do better blaming bridges than blaming guns.
Still using that per capita measure, which is nonsense.

Anyways I just thought it was funny to point out that you owned yourself with the dumb medium lost you linked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,159
1,159
106
1) Lol another incompetent making a medium post. Not only does he use the same faulty guns per capita measure instead of % gun ownership he tries to prove his point using excel, and thinks that he should get an r^2 of 0.7 using a single IV for his ‘model’. Whoever wrote that post is an idiot.
Not gonna read that garbage but did he seriously just regress with his only IV being guns per capita?
 

Meghan54

Diamond Member
Oct 18, 2009
9,490
2,303
136
LOL, calling the virus by standard naming conventions of point of origin is not being racist. You thinking it is though might be. Or do you think calling the swine flu animalist? Ebola, Spanish Flu, Lime Disease, or any other said named virus in history racist/regionalist? Get over it.

Bullshit. Do we call the N1H1 virus Swine Flu virus or American/Kansas Flu virus? It originated in Kansas.

BTW....the Spanish Flu also originated in......Kansas.

The reason it's called the Spanish Flu is simply because both the U.S. and most of Europe, which were involved in WWI, essentially put a muzzle on reporting of the flu and its deaths. The unbiased, unwashed information the world got on the Spanish Flu came from Spanish newspapers....Spain was a neutral in WWI and they were almost the sole place to obtain facts about the flu, hence became known as the Spanish Flu, despite it originating in the U.S.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Not gonna read that garbage but did he seriously just regress with his only IV being guns per capita?
As best as I can tell, yes. It’s also a daily dumb measure because everyone knows you can get a really high r^2 if you want to no matter how shitty your model is. It’s simply not a great measure.
 

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,159
1,159
106
As best as I can tell, yes. It’s also a daily dumb measure because everyone knows you can get a really high r^2 if you want to no matter how shitty your model is. It’s simply not a great measure.
Ofc, you can just add a shit-ton of IVs to up your r^2, but that's neither here nor there. It's just that using a fucking simple linear regression in this case is so retarded that it ceases to be funny, and you have people like HumblePie who probably haven't seen a regression before in their lives buying into this garbage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,181
18,981
136
Ofc, you can just add a shit-ton of IVs to up your r^2, but that's neither here nor there. It's just that using a fucking simple linear regression in this case is so retarded that it ceases to be funny, and you have people like HumblePie who probably haven't seen a regression before in their lives buying into this garbage.
My favorite part was that he started out arguing that there’s no connection between gun ownership and suicide and then linked this piece which argued the strong connection between gun ownership and suicide was twisting other findings, haha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDIYoda

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,276
2,973
126
There are trade-offs to gun ownership.

There are trade-offs to this lockdown.

That is the only point I was making.
So what is the statistical data to support your argument concerning suicides and this virus? Surely you have data and not just opinion based on no facts....
 

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,159
1,159
106
My favorite part was that he started out arguing that there’s no connection between gun ownership and suicide and then linked this piece which argued the strong connection between gun ownership and suicide was twisting other findings, haha.
I'm kinda surprised you guys still bother replying seriously to posters like that. You're not gonna change their minds, it's just banging your heads against a brick wall IMO.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY