Guns Used.....cont

[Gallstones]

I know the regulations.
I filled out the form and had a buyer check just a month ago.

Once again,
I say regulations are needed, you say why, Seth explains why, you take a fucking left turn!

I asked you why you think there should be regulations.

I already know what the regulations are, I didn't need Seth to tell me--you did.

[Kristie]

I know the regulations.
I filled out the form and had a buyer check just a month ago.

Once again,
I say regulations are needed, you say why, Seth explains why, you take a fucking left turn!

I asked you why you think there should be regulations.

I already know what the regulations are, I didn't need Seth to tell me--you did.

No, I think he was agreeing with the regulation.

[Blind groper]

This in no way addresses my doubt about how you can get statistics that removing handguns from the US public would reduce the number of overall successful suicides in the US. It smells of red herring.

I was a bit indirect.

Suicide rates depend on two things.

1. The number of suicide attempts.
2. The percentage of those attempts that succeed.

In the USA, there are about 220,000 attempts each year, of which 9% or 20,000 succeed. Of that 20,000, about 12,000 are hand gun suicides. The 'success' rate of attempts with hand guns is around 90%. (The 10% who survive are nearly all horribly maimed.) About 75% of all suicide attempts are with drugs, and only 2% succeed.

Now, it seems pretty damn clear that the percentage of attempts that succeed, if hand guns were not available, would drop very dramatically. The number of attempts would stay much the same, but a lot fewer would result in deaths.

When you consider that most suicide attempts are never repeated, is it not better if those attempts are made using drugs or other relatively benign method, rather than hand guns?

[FBM]

This in no way addresses my doubt about how you can get statistics that removing handguns from the US public would reduce the number of overall successful suicides in the US. It smells of red herring.

I was a bit indirect.

Suicide rates depend on two things.

1. The number of suicide attempts.
2. The percentage of those attempts that succeed.

In the USA, there are about 220,000 attempts each year, of which 9% or 20,000 succeed. Of that 20,000, about 12,000 are hand gun suicides. The 'success' rate of attempts with hand guns is around 90%. (The 10% who survive are nearly all horribly maimed.) About 75% of all suicide attempts are with drugs, and only 2% succeed.

Now, it seems pretty damn clear that the percentage of attempts that succeed, if hand guns were not available, would drop very dramatically. The number of attempts would stay much the same, but a lot fewer would result in deaths.

When you consider that most suicide attempts are never repeated, is it not better if those attempts are made using drugs or other relatively benign method, rather than hand guns?

The success rate of hanging is >70%, according to Wiki. We're not talking big number differences here. Especially since, as you keep ignoring, trying to take handguns away from all Americans would result in a nationwide shootout. The prohibitionist approach you suggest would kill more people than it might potentially save.



From the WHO:

Mental disorders (particularly depression and alcohol use disorders) are a major risk factor for suicide in Europe and North America; however, in Asian countries impulsiveness plays an important role. Suicide is complex with psychological, social, biological, cultural and environmental factors involved.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/preven ... revent/en/

Whilst hanging is one of the most reliable methods of suicide, as for firearms, it is not 100% effective - studies would suggest 77% - 88% effective1. Although when carried out correctly, there is high certainty of death.

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/hanging

Source
1.
JJ Card, "Lethality of suicidal methods and suicide risk: Two distinct concepts", Omega 5, 1974. NL Farberow and ES Shneidman, The Cry for Help, 1961.

[FBM]

The most lethal form of suicide is "shotgun to head," so by eliminating handguns, you're not even getting rid of the most lethal means. When and where I grew up, there were more shotguns more readily available than handguns.

And this: http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/ ... al-methods

puts the success rate of hanging at 89.5%. Again, in trying to force Americans to give up their handguns, you're not going to save nearly as many lives as you're going to cost.

[Blind groper]

FBM

I am not worried about what is 'the most lethal means'. I am worried about what actually kills the most people, and that is hand guns. Sure, a shotgun to the head might be even more lethal than the 90% killing rate of hand guns. But relatively rarely is a shotgun used, whereas hand guns are the most used successful form of suicide. Shotguns are not even in the same ball park.

Roughly 12,000 of the approximately 20,000 successful suicides each year are with hand guns. Shotguns are hardly mentioned.

Compared to hanging.
Yes, hanging is quite lethal also, although nowhere near as much. However, it takes a lot more effort to set up a hanging. Remember, suicides are mostly a matter of impulse. In the USA, jumping from a high building, which is just as lethal as hand guns, accounts for only 2% of suicides. Why should it not be as common as hand gun suicide? Mainly because it is too difficult to find a suitable jump point. By the time it is all set up for the jump, the impulse has weakened or passed.

Hanging suffers the same "drawback". It requires effort and determination. A lot of people, of course, have that determination. But twice as many suicides are by hand gun anyway, because it is so much quicker and easier to hold a hand gun to your head and pull the trigger.

We are talking here of killing yourself. Not making a cup of tea. That act requires a lot of mental gumption, and much of the time the impulse is simply not strong enough. making it easy and effortless to kill yourself increases the chances of actually doing it. ie. the hand gun is the biggest killer. It is too damn easy.

Why do you think most attempts are by drugs, in spite of the well known fact that they are lousy in terms of success? It is because it is easy to consume drugs, and a weak and passing impulse is sufficient to induce that action. A more lethal but more difficult system like hanging requires a lot of determination, meaning a weak impulse is not enough.

The idea that someone who does not have a hand gun will kill him/herself anyway is a fallacy. They are most likely statistically to try drugs instead which normally fails. And most attempts are not repeated.

[Warren Dew]

No, I think he was agreeing with the regulation.

Seth seems to agree with some regulation. However, Gallstones' "why" was in response to your specifically advocating "strong" regulation, which Seth has given no indication of agreeing with.

Do you think refusing guns to the diagnosed mentally insane is sufficiently strong regulation?

[FBM]

Worldwide, suicide by hanging is more prevalent than that by any type of firearm. The impulse doesn't seem to pass so quickly for non-Americans, so why expect Americans to give up so quickly? Suicide by jumping from tall buildings is common here in Korea; the time it takes to get up there doesn't seem to allow the impulse to pass. Is there something about the attention spans of Kiwis, Koreans and Japanese that make their impulses different from American ones?

OK, so suicide by handgun is more prevalent than suicide by shotgun. So what? Take away handguns and more people will use shotguns. You won't have done a thing. Take away handguns and shotguns, then Americans will join the Kiwis and other countries (which already have much higher suicide rates than the US) in hanging themselves. You won't have accomplished a thing.

The success rate of hanging is 89.5%. That of handguns is less than 10% higher. You're just not accomplishing much.

Especially considering the amount of violence that you'd cause by trying to disarm Americans.

[Warren Dew]

FCompared to hanging.
Yes, hanging is quite lethal also, although nowhere near as much. However, it takes a lot more effort to set up a hanging.

Doubtful. Even in the U.S., it's generally easier to get rope than to get a hand gun.

Remember, suicides are mostly a matter of impulse.

Repeating an assertion does not make it true. Nearly all suicides have contemplated suicide for some time.

The idea that someone who does not have a hand gun will kill him/herself anyway is a fallacy. They are most likely statistically to try drugs instead which normally fails.

Sounds like a misapplication of statistics. We've established that the ones who use guns are more determined than the ones who just take whatever is in the medicine cabinet. It seems far more likely that the people who use guns in the U.S., or hanging in Japan, are the ones who are actually serious about wanting to be dead, as opposed to the casual wrist cutters who are really just making a cry for help. It seems far more likely that in the U.S., if you banned hand guns, the suicides who used hand guns would simply use shotguns instead.

[Warren Dew]

OK, so suicide by handgun is more prevalent than suicide by shotgun. So what? Take away handguns and more people will use shotguns. You won't have done a thing. Take away handguns and shotguns, then Americans will join the Kiwis and other countries (which already have much higher suicide rates than the US) in hanging themselves. You won't have accomplished a thing.

The success rate of hanging is 89.5%. That of handguns is less than 10% higher. You're just not accomplishing much.

It might actually be worse than that. Possibly the reason Japan's suicide rate is higher than that in the U.S. is specifically that the effective suicide method culturally accepted there is hanging rather than guns. Among the Japanese, hanging has a reputation as a painless method of suicide; for someone contemplating suicide who doesn't mind being dead, but does mind pain, that reputation might result in a higher suicide rate. Banning guns in the U.S. might actually result in a cultural shift to hanging as a method of suicide that would cause our suicide rate to double, too.

[FBM]

As far as I can tell from stats available online, poisoning and hanging take up about 85~90% of suicides in S. Korea, too. The jumpers are most often the schoolkids who have been bullied or whose grades aren't up to their parents' expectations.

[Blind groper]

Suicide by jumping from tall buildings is common here in Korea;the time it takes to get up there doesn't seem to allow the impulse to pass.

I have not (yet) researched suicide in Korea. But it does not seem especially difficult to see why jumping is more common than hand guns. Lots of people living in high rise buildings (the same applies in Hong Kong, where jumping is the most common method of suicide, and a very big percentage of the population live in high rise buildings) and almost none having hand guns.

ssibly the reason Japan's suicide rate is higher than that in the U.S. is specifically that the effective suicide method culturally accepted there is hanging rather than guns.

Wrong.
i did do a bit of research on Japan. The reason suicide rates are high is that people who have just lost their job often kill themselves. A cultural matter. Not something that would happen in the USA.

We've established that the ones who use guns are more determined than the ones who just take whatever is in the medicine cabinet.

Bullshit.
No such thing has been established. The statistics show that the probability of suicide massively increases when a hand gun is in the home. This implies that a hand gun is actually an easy method, and requires less determination.

Doubtful. Even in the U.S., it's generally easier to get rope than to get a hand gun.

Yet hand gun suicides are far more common.

Nearly all suicides have contemplated suicide for some time.

That one is true. But the impulse to suicide is still brief and temporary. Lots of people have thought about suicide, including people who are very well adjusted. Thinking about it means nothing. Taking action means everything.

Take away handguns and more people will use shotguns.

Unlikely.
If shotguns were an acceptable means, they would already be in widespread use. I do not know why people are reluctant to use shotguns (or rifles) although I could speculate. However, in homes where shotguns or rifles are present, they are not used. In homes where hand guns are present, they are us

(which already have much higher suicide rates than the US)

As I have tried so repeatedly to tell you, that does not matter. It is irrelevant. This debate is about guns, and it is the impact of gun availability, and especially hand gun availability that counts. In Japan, suicide is culturally acceptable as a means of atoning for failure, which is absolutely not the case in the west. Japanese will kill themselves when they lose a job, which westerners do not. This accounts for the high suicide rate. So gun availability is not an issue with high Japanese suicide rates. But it most definitely is a major issue in the USA.

[Gallstones]

In regards to methods for self extinction, I'd much prefer the most certain over the likely to be rescued.
I wouldn't be kidding or pretending or seeking attention--I'd be seeking total and permanent escape.

[FBM]

Suicide by jumping from tall buildings is common here in Korea;the time it takes to get up there doesn't seem to allow the impulse to pass.

I have not (yet) researched suicide in Korea. But it does not seem especially difficult to see why jumping is more common than hand guns. Lots of people living in high rise buildings (the same applies in Hong Kong, where jumping is the most common method of suicide, and a very big percentage of the population live in high rise buildings) and almost none having hand guns.

This doesn't address the point that I was making. If success at suicide were so dependent upon impulse, as you claim, this fails to explain why there are so many successful suicides in countries where it takes more sustained planning, time and effort to complete the act. I don't doubt that impulse in an important factor; I just doubt it has much to do with the presence of a handgun. More people do it without handguns than with.

Take away handguns and more people will use shotguns.

Unlikely.
If shotguns were an acceptable means, they would already be in widespread use. I do not know why people are reluctant to use shotguns (or rifles) although I could speculate. However, in homes where shotguns or rifles are present, they are not used. In homes where hand guns are present, they are us

It's physically easier to manipulate a handgun for a self-headshot. But it's far from impossible to do with a shotgun. Remove the handgun and you've got an even more effective means with which to accomplish the task. If you mean to say that in homes where there are no handguns but only long guns, people change their minds about committing suicide, then please present some research data to support this assertion, along with data to show that the suicide wasn't carried out by another means. That is, that the suicide was prevented by absence of, specifically, a handgun. Honestly, I have to wonder if you're not making this up.

(which already have much higher suicide rates than the US)

As I have tried so repeatedly to tell you, that does not matter. It is irrelevant. This debate is about guns, and it is the impact of gun availability, and especially hand gun availability that counts. In Japan, suicide is culturally acceptable as a means of atoning for failure, which is absolutely not the case in the west. Japanese will kill themselves when they lose a job, which westerners do not. This accounts for the high suicide rate. So gun availability is not an issue with high Japanese suicide rates. But it most definitely is a major issue in the USA.

It doesn't matter to you because it's an effective and accurate refutation of your claim(s). Percentage-wise, more people succeed at suicide (by hanging, mostly) in your own country than in the US, and you guys don't have guns. Yet you want to blame the presence of handguns in the US for the suicide rate being what it is. While you have made an occasional strong point, none have substantiated your ultimate claim that removing handguns from Americans would significantly reduce the number of successful suicides.

And you continue to ignore the fact that more lives would be lost than saved in the attempt to disarm Americans. It's (sort-of) a democracy, remember?

[Gallstones]

FBM

I am not worried about what is 'the most lethal means'. I am worried about what actually kills the most people, and that is hand guns. Sure, a shotgun to the head might be even more lethal than the 90% killing rate of hand guns. But relatively rarely is a shotgun used, whereas hand guns are the most used successful form of suicide. Shotguns are not even in the same ball park.

Roughly 12,000 of the approximately 20,000 successful suicides each year are with hand guns. Shotguns are hardly mentioned.

Compared to hanging.
Yes, hanging is quite lethal also, although nowhere near as much. However, it takes a lot more effort to set up a hanging. Remember, suicides are mostly a matter of impulse. In the USA, jumping from a high building, which is just as lethal as hand guns, accounts for only 2% of suicides. Why should it not be as common as hand gun suicide? Mainly because it is too difficult to find a suitable jump point. By the time it is all set up for the jump, the impulse has weakened or passed.

Hanging suffers the same "drawback". It requires effort and determination. A lot of people, of course, have that determination. But twice as many suicides are by hand gun anyway, because it is so much quicker and easier to hold a hand gun to your head and pull the trigger.

ey are most We are talking here of killing yourself. Not making a cup of tea. That act requires a lot of mental gumption, and much of the time the impulse is simply not strong enough. making it easy and effortless to kill yourself increases the chances of actually doing it. ie. the hand gun is the biggest killer. It is too damn easy.

Why do you think most attempts are by drugs, in spite of the well known fact that they are lousy in terms of success? It is because it is easy to consume drugs, and a weak and passing impulse is sufficient to induce that action. A more lethal but more difficult system like hanging requires a lot of determination, meaning a weak impulse is not enough.

The idea that someone who does not have a hand gun will kill him/herself anyway is a fallacy. Thlikely statistically to try drugs instead which normally fails. And most attempts are not repeated.

Chest. To the chest.
The heart is broken, put it out of it's misery.