What can we do about the shootings?

[LeafByNiggle]

Some activists try to inflate shooting deaths by including suicides – as if a deeply depressed person would not commit suicide if he couldn’t get a gun.

But it’s true. A review and statistical analysis of 14 different scientific studies concluded that having access to a firearm triples one’s risk of death by suicide. This elevated risk applies not only to the gun owner, but to everyone in the household. - ( Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G. The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine . 2014;160:101–110.)

People who live in US states with high rates of household gun ownership are also almost four times more likely to die by gun suicide than those in states where fewer households have guns. This relationship remains strong even when controlling for other factors associated with suicide, like poverty, unemployment, serious mental illness, and substance abuse. - ( Miller M, Lippman SJ, Azrael D, and Hemenway D. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States. Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care . 2007;62(4):1029–35.)

There is a popular misconception that suicide is inevitable, that suicidal ideation is a permanent condition. But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, less than 5 percent will result in death. - ( Vyrostek SB, Annest JL, Ryan GW. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries - United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries. 2004;53(7):1–57. Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health . 2012;33:393–408.)

If you want to learn about how to prevent homicides, you might go here: https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/n...54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

It doesn’t say a word about how to prevent homicides.

Find out what’s wrong with those 2%!

For one thing, they are the counties with very high population density. So how could you use that knowledge to prevent murders? By ordering everyone to live on a 100 acre estate? Who is going to relocate them? And another factor is prosperity. Counties with high murder rates tend to be counties where people are not prosperous. Who is going to make them prosperous? You?

How will banning guns in the 54% that have NO homicides affect the 2% that have more than half?

In the first place reasonable people do not suggest banning guns. Secondly, restricting guns or controlling who gets them through expanded background checks (which 90% of the population supports) imposes minimal inconvenience on legal gun owners but does make it less likely that bad people will use guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

But it’s true. A review and statistical analysis of 14 different scientific studies concluded that having access to a firearm triples one’s risk of death by suicide.

No. Having access to a firearm if you are going to commit suicide makes it likely you will use a gun.

Remember, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than we do – and they have total gun control. How do these studies explain that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But it’s true. A review and statistical analysis of 14 different scientific studies concluded that having access to a firearm triples one’s risk of death by suicide.

No. Having access to a firearm if you are going to commit suicide makes it likely you will use a gun.

That’s not what the studies show.

Remember, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than we do – and they have total gun control. How do these studies explain that?

We are not Japan. Comparing us to Japan brings in an unknown set of variables that cannot be controlled for. Scientific studies only compare things that are comparable and control for the rest.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It doesn’t say a word about how to prevent homicides.

Really? You understand that if you want to prevent something from happening, you have to GO where it’s happening. This tells us WHERE homicides are happening. Further study of those areas can tell us a lot about WHY they are so deadly.

For one thing, they are the counties with very high population density. So how could you use that knowledge to prevent murders? By ordering everyone to live on a 100 acre estate?

Now, now – that’s not proper debate. You can’t dictate my argument to me.

In the first place reasonable people do not suggest banning guns. Secondly, restricting guns or controlling who gets them through expanded background checks (which 90% of the population supports) imposes minimal inconvenience on legal gun owners but does make it less likely that bad people will use guns.

How does it make it less likely? What evidence is there that current background checks make it less likely that bad people will use guns?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It doesn’t say a word about how to prevent homicides.

Really? You understand that if you want to prevent something from happening, you have to GO where it’s happening. This tells us WHERE homicides are happening. Further study of those areas can tell us a lot about WHY they are so deadly.

We have done that and we do know. I cited the biggest two reasons: population density and low prosperity.

For one thing, they are the counties with very high population density. So how could you use that knowledge to prevent murders? By ordering everyone to live on a 100 acre estate?

Now, now – that’s not proper debate. You can’t dictate my argument to me.

It is a rhetorical question that highlights the impossibility of reducing homicides by reducing population density.

In the first place reasonable people do not suggest banning guns. Secondly, restricting guns or controlling who gets them through expanded background checks (which 90% of the population supports) imposes minimal inconvenience on legal gun owners but does make it less likely that bad people will use guns.

How does it make it less likely? What evidence is there that current background checks make it less likely that bad people will use guns?

Missouri relaxed their background checks and immediately the gun homicide rate went up.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is a popular misconception that suicide is inevitable, that suicidal ideation is a permanent condition. But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun. Across all suicide attempts not involving a firearm, less than 5 percent will result in death. - ( Vyrostek SB, Annest JL, Ryan GW. Surveillance for fatal and nonfatal injuries - United States, 2001. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries. 2004;53(7):1–57. Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health . 2012;33:393–408.)

But for gun suicide, those statistics are flipped: Approximately 85 percent of gun suicide attempts end in death. - ( Miller M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. The epidemiology of case fatality rates for suicide in the northeast. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2004;43(6):723–30. Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annual Review of Public Health. 2012;33:393–408.)

And the vast majority of all those who survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide. - ( Owens D, Horrocks J, House A. Fatal and non-fatal repetition of self-harm. Systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry . 2002;181:193–199.)

This suggests that a reduction in suicide attempts by firearm would result in an overall decline in the suicide rate. - ( Soffen K. To reduce suicides, look at guns. The Washington Post . July 13, 2016. https://wapo.st/2I7MCUx. Yip PS, Caine E, Yousuf S, Chang SS, Wu KC, Chen YY. Means restriction for suicide prevention. The Lancet . 2012;379(9834):2393–2399.)

 

[BlueMaxx]

Trust me, when someone want’s to off themselves they do it…it doesn’t take long on the street to recognize the ones who are crying for help or the ones who are mentally unstable and not truly understanding their actions.

I hated working them…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Trust me, when someone want’s to off themselves they do it…

I trust the systematic studies of that question over your anecdotal observations.

 

[BlueMaxx]

post deleted…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I didn’t insult you or your work or the significance of what it meant to you. I too have experienced the loss due to suicide of several people close to me. But when making statements of a statistical nature (“when someone wants to off themselves they do it…”) anecdotal reports or experiences or observations are not comparable to systematic studies. Those studies find many people attempt to off themselves and are talked out of it. Many people feel like offing themselves at one time and then come to a realization that they should not do it and find a way to live. And for those that do have a temporary bout of suicidal desire, the immediate availability of an efficient and seemingly painless way to do it can make the difference between succumbing to that temptation, or being delayed long enough so that the mood passes. Often the tendency is chemical. It is not always an inherent characteristic of the person trying to kill himself. So in many many ways it is wrong to dismiss attempts at interrupting or delaying suicide and just resign ourselves to “when someone wants to off themselves they do it.”

 

[BlueMaxx]

Just put the shovel down…

 

[Leo2014]

And can you not think of incidents of shootings in church?

You’re kidding?

Remember the Charleston church shooting were Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist, murdered nine African Americans (including the senior pastor, State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney). This event took place during service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The congregation welcomed the young man into their the church where he participated in a Bible study.

It was a tragic event that took place back in June of 2015. Yet, many of the relatives of the nine victims killed later offered their forgiveness to the shooter. I cannot think of better church members that we can admire…forgive us Lord for placing our faith in a weapon.

 

[po18guy]

Back in the 80s, this bumper sticker was a joke. Today, not so much.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The shootings and the overall rise in public violence are symptoms of a larger, more pervasive cultural and societal problem. The media is fueling (if not pandering to) many fringe personalities who desire their 15 minutes of fame and who have learned that others’ lives are simply a choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You’re kidding?

Remember the Charleston church shooting were Dylann Roof, a 21-year-old white supremacist, murdered nine African Americans (including the senior pastor, State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney). This event took place during service at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. The congregation welcomed the young man into their the church where he participated in a Bible study.

My point, exactly. These scum regularly seek out soft targets. If you visit soft targets, HARDEN them!

It was a tragic event that took place back in June of 2015. Yet, many of the relatives of the nine victims killed later offered their forgiveness to the shooter. I cannot think of better church members that we can admire…forgive us Lord for placing our faith in a weapon.

Have you ever read Josephus? He is our primary source for information about the Essenes (one of the three sects of Judaism in the time of Christ.) He tells us Essenes regarded each other as brothers – an Essene could walk into the house of another Essene he had never met and be assured of a warm welcome.

“It is for this reason Essenes carry nothing when traveling – except for weapons, for defense against bandits.”

The Essenes were not fools.

And you cannot accuse the Essenes of “placing their faith in a weapon” any more than you can accuse sailors of “placing their faith in a life jacket” or firemen of “placing their faith in a hose.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is a popular misconception that suicide is inevitable, that suicidal ideation is a permanent condition. But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun.

That’s incorrect – more Japanese die of suicide than Americans, and the Japanese have no guns.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We have done that and we do know. I cited the biggest two reasons: population density and low prosperity.

The reason is culture. There is a culture of violence in these areas. Some years ago, after the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, there was a gang in Los Angeles who pledged to set a new homicide record in protest.

You say, "Missouri reduced their gun background checks.’ The gun background checks are Federal, not state law.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is a popular misconception that suicide is inevitable, that suicidal ideation is a permanent condition. But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun.

That’s incorrect – more Japanese die of suicide than Americans, and the Japanese have no guns.

You are not controlling for other differences. (There are many.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

We have done that and we do know. I cited the biggest two reasons: population density and low prosperity.

The reason is culture. There is a culture of violence in these areas. Some years ago, after the shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, there was a gang in Los Angeles who pledged to set a new homicide record in protest.

You say, "Missouri reduced their gun background checks.’ The gun background checks are Federal, not state law.

In addition there are state laws.

And your staremant about culture is subjective, not objective.

 

[vz71]

Unless the difference has to do with them actually having firearms, the difference is irrelevant.
You established the rule with your statement:
“But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun.”

All that is necessary is to show a single group that runs contrary to the rule established by you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Unless the difference has to do with them actually having firearms, the difference is irrelevant.

No, the claim made by vern_humphrey was than Japan’s high suicide rate proves that guns are not a factor. That is false unless all factors relating to suicide are controlled for. For example, societal pressure to succeed, societal view of shame. These definitely can and do affect the suicide rate in Japan. So any comparison with US suicide rate with respect to guns is meaningless.

You established the rule with your statement:
“But most people who attempt suicide do not die—unless they use a gun.”

It’s not a rule. It is an assertion backed up by the systematic studies I cited. The studies were specifically about the US. No claim was made about their applying to Japan.