Why More White Men Are Dying From Gun Suicides

Pray tell what nonsense is being referred to by yourself? Demonstrate such. Cite the evidence of such claims.

 

Yet again with the unfounded, emotionally rhetorical claim of the supposed "NRA gun culture of death" that has no actual basis in reality?

 

In other words you can neither refute what I've said nor defend your desire for a totalitarian regime without due process.

 

Asinine strawman duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Yet another instance of kneejerk denialism even after multiple FACTUAL and CREDIBLE sources have been provided in the past.

 

It depends upon the state and the country: https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2014/07/24/is-suicide-illegal-suicide-laws-by-country/

I think one reason to make suicide illegal is that it allows the law to intervene, especially in mental illness cases. It's not illegal to be nuts, but it is illegal to be a danger to oneself or others.

 

Untrue, but happy for you to play pretend.

Then why do we find significant effects of gun ownership on suicide rates?

 

I was mistaken. I was thinking about attempted suicides which used to be considered a crime.

 

structural forms of unemployment, affects guys more.

 

Re:

No, Post after Post, you repeatedly refer to "the research" without stating whose research or what "the research" claims to prove.
You keep claiming that "the research shows" and then continue with only stating your opinion. You're not impressing anyone.

Re:

I did not find ANY significant effect of gun ownership upon suicide rates. As I said, some of the suicide patients with whom I worked owned firearms but chose other means to kill themselves.
More disingenuous "researchers" would count those as "gun suicides" simply because the person owned a firearm AND committed suicide even though it was by other means.

 

Except for the fact that no actual facts, nor credible sources, were presented on the part of yourself to show that this supposed culture does exist, or ever has existed.

 

Noted.

 

For the simple fact that those who are selling the political narrative wish for such to be the case, so they present it in such a fashion. They deliberately twist facts to fit the presented narrative.

 

Gun ownership is a right, not a liberal inconvenience. The path to move against guns is a Constitutional Amendment, no other path is acceptable...

 

Isn't this tacit admittance that you're not actually aware of the research? Try Ajdacic-Gross et al., 2006, Changing Times: A Longitudinal Analysis of International Firearm Suicide Data, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96, pp. 1752-1755) to start you off!

 

Again with "the research", no assertion of your own & an outdated document that only includes distant countries that are nothing like the US (1)

"The research" to which you repeatedly refer is flawed because it cherry picks dissimilar countries. To be valid, "the research" should include ALL countries, the "other" Superpower, and/or America's Southern neighbors.

This is a debate forum, not a book club If you have any readily verifiable thoughts of your own on the thread, please feel to post them for further dismantlement.
Otherwise, posting names of flawed & bias documents impresses no one.


(1) "Changing Times: A Longitudinal Analysis of International Firearm Suicide Data"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586136/

EXCERPT "The following countries were included in the analysis: United States, Switzerland, Finland, France, Canada, Sweden, Australia, the Netherlands, England and Wales, Scotland, Norway, Spain, and New Zealand."CONTINUED


(2) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.
Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

It was chosen as it is arguably the most comprehensive study. Unlike standard crime analysis (where data variability makes international comparison difficult), the paper is able to use differences in international experience to provide an aggregated test of the suicide hypothesis.

This amused me. First, having dissimilar countries is actually a positive (else we'd effectively have two constants!). And it is churlish to think all countries should be included. The deciding factor should be on issues of data quality.

You wanted an example. I gave you one. Your reaction is a tad blubbering!

There are of course numerous papers to read, so I can forgive you 'a little' for not reading the research. Randomly chosen examples...

Anestis and Anestis (2015), Suicide Rates and State Laws Regulating Access and Exposure to Handguns, American Journal of Public Health.
Anglemyer et al. (2014),The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Annals of Internal Medicine.
Gagné et al (2010), Firearms regulation and declining rates of male suicide in Quebec, BMJ Injury Prevention.
Griffin et al (2018 ), A decompositional analysis of firearm-related mortality in the United States, 2001-2012, Preventive Medicine.
Miller at al. (2016), Are we missing something pertinent? A bias analysis of unmeasured confounding in the firearm-suicide literature, Epidemiologic Reviews.
Reisch et al (2013), Change in suicide rates in Switerland before and after firearm restriction resulting from the 2003 Army XXI reform, American Journal of Psychiatry.

Enjoy!

 

"Washington, DC—Data for 2016 reveals that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest gun suicide rates in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

"In addition, states with the lowest gun suicide rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation."
http://www.vpc.org/press/states-wit...er-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-suicides/

Guns do make a difference (and it's not for the good).

 

I've yet to see you post ANYTHING "factual and credible"; much less with sources.

 

For about the last 4 Posts you have talked about "the research" as if all research concludes the same thing yet you have not yet articulated what it is that you are asserting.

If you are asserting that suicidal individual "A" who does not have access to a firearm is less likely to commit suicide with a firearm than suicidal individual "B" who does have access to a firearm, I would agree.
But I do not think that the mere presence of a firearm makes an individual more likely to commit suicide than one who does not.
In other words, both suicidal individuals would be dead with or without a firearm present.

 

You didn't read the papers referenced did you? You've let me down, so you have. If you had you'd know that they include a meta-analysis and a review article.

I don't care what you think. This isn't about opinion. This is about evidence. Haven't you worked that out yet?

 

This nonsense has been discussed at length in previous discussions. It is as much nonsense now as it was the very first time it was brought up. The method utilized in the commission of a suicide is irrelevant and not worth discussing, as it makes no difference. If someone wishes to end their own existence, they will, and nothing is going to stop them.

Beyond that matter, there is absolutely no evidence, literally none whatsoever, that firearms ownership is in any way connected or related to suicide. One simply does not lead to the other.

 

That's drivel. The evidence shows that there aren't perfect substitutes to firearms (i.e. as gun prevalence increases, suicide increases)

 

The nation of Japan would beg to differ on the matter.

Beyond that, there is no evidence that has been presented on the part of yourself. Nothing has been referenced except for politically-motivated opinion pieces bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation, and subjected to an intellectually dishonest peer-review process that has been proven as devoid of credibility.

 

The analysis is international, as I've already demonstrated.

Your standard anti-intellectualism. I've referred to meta-analysis that confirms the nature of the findings. You can't dismiss it. You haven't even had the good grace to read it.