5 ms·

> You can't compare suicide rates between countries. Too many confounding factors. You can just as easily compare suicide rates as you can compare murder rates

> You can't compare suicide rates between countries. Too many confounding factors. You can just as easily compare suicide rates as you can compare murder rates (which gun control advocates are inclined to do). Of course, you are right about confounding factors, which is why we should be careful about the conclusions we draw. However, I think we can safely conclude that the presence or absence of guns may not be the only factor in determining the suicide rate. > But you can compare suicide rates between people in the same state who are gun owners and not. They did and it turned out that gun owners have 4 times higher risk of suicide (by any method) than others. Not really much better than comparing across countries. There is more in common between these two groups, but it still isn't some randomized control trial. CCW holders have a much lower crime rate than those without. Does that mean that if we take away their permits (and their guns) those same individuals will commit more crime? Probably not. Likewise, while taking away guns probably will have some influence on the suicide rate, I doubt very much (or not as much as people think). Not a scientific study, but having known gun owners who were either suicidal or successfully committed suicide, they tend to be the kind of people (men, typically) who carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. The suicidal tendencies come on strong when they feel either like they have failed the people who depend upon them, or that people don't need them anymore. Taking away their guns might keep them from committing suicide long enough for them to get help (or for the feeling to pass) but that is by no means a guarantee. We also cannot ignore the consequences of taking the guns: a psychological loss of agency, and potentially physical loss of security, etc. It's not a simple problem to solve.

scotty79 4y ago
> You can just as easily compare suicide rates as you can compare murder rates (which gun control advocates are inclined to do). You can just as easily compare mass of the moon to temperature of the Sun or any two numbers really. By "can't" I meant that there's barely any reason to do it especially when pondering the influence of a single factor. > However, I think we can safely conclude that the presence or absence of guns may not be the only factor in determining the suicide rate. Yes. I hope nobody thinks it's the only factor determining suicide rates difference between the countries. Because I don't think there's a single observation that could indicate that it's the only factor. > Not really much better than comparing across countries. There is more in common between these two groups, but it still isn't some randomized control trial. Vastly better than comparing across countries. Especially if one of those countries is USA that is very different from other countries. And it's randomized in a sense that there was no additional criterion other than gun ownership to separate two groups. The only other factors worth looking at would be the ones that correlate with gun ownership. Like being conservative for example. It might be that being conservative makes you more prone to suicide even if you don't own a gun. Further research is needed. > Likewise, while taking away guns probably will have some influence on the suicide rate, I doubt very much (or not as much as people think). If there's a 4 fold increase of the probability of suicide for people owning a gun then if you take the guns away, number of suicides in this group will drop by some significant amount (depending on how much of this increase comes from guns, and how much comes from factors that correlate with gun ownership). To keep the suicide rates roughly the same overall people who currently don't own a gun would have to start suicinding more because now there's nobody owning a gun and I can't imagine any possible mechanism that might cause it. > We also cannot ignore the consequences of taking the guns: a psychological loss of agency, and potentially physical loss of security, etc. It's not a simple problem to solve. I agree it's a thing that needs to be considered. However part of this sense of agency is agency to take their own lives in quick and simple fashion. I think that in some cases stripping someone of sense of agency might be beneficial. For the suicide to be attempted you don't only need to be depressed but also you need to feel enough agency to take your life. Part of the problem with some of antidepressants is that they don't change your outlook on life but they give you energy. So the world still looks horrible but now you feel empowered to finally do something about it and you kill yourself. But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down from slaugtering dozen other people each.
- lliamander 4y ago
  > But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down from slaugtering dozen other people each. True enough. So while I could carry on with the debate about suicide, I think it would be more productive to respond to this argument. By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. There are (conservatively) 80 million gun owners, and hundreds of millions of guns in the US. It would be completely impossible to take all of those guns, or to ban the sale of new ones, and even if you could that would still be depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own. You might argue it is worth depriving citizens of this right if it improves public safety. The evidence is not in favor of this position. This right is not simply some mere hypothetical right to overthrow tyrants, but the right to self defense (including the effective means of that defense). Reasonable estimates (produced by the CDC) put the number of defensive gun uses per year in the hundreds of thousands. If you look at the rates of homicide by state, and compare that with the rates of gun ownership in that state, you find that the correlations are (weakly) negative. The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. There are no doubt many factors that contribute to the occurrence of mass shootings. However, one of the biggest factors that contributes to the deadliness of mass shootings is the presence of gun free zones. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and the evidence suggests that the average number of deaths in mass shootings is arguably much lower if there is an armed citizen putting up a defense. If you want an evidence-based piece of legislation that would curb mass shootings, the elimination of gun free zones should be at the top of your list. It would certainly reduce the average body count of these events. It also stands to reason that if you don't have as many people dying from such events, the appeal of committing a mass shooting (to someone who is seeking fame and a sense of control by killing lots of people) is going to go down considerably.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    > By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. > depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. It was not about citizens owning guns. It was about states owning sufficient army to counter federal governemnt if it descended into tyranny. > Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. > The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border.

scotty79 4y ago

> You can just as easily compare suicide rates as you can compare murder rates (which gun control advocates are inclined to do). You can just as easily compare mass of the moon to temperature of the Sun or any two numbers really. By "can't" I meant that there's barely any reason to do it especially when pondering the influence of a single factor. > However, I think we can safely conclude that the presence or absence of guns may not be the only factor in determining the suicide rate. Yes. I hope nobody thinks it's the only factor determining suicide rates difference between the countries. Because I don't think there's a single observation that could indicate that it's the only factor. > Not really much better than comparing across countries. There is more in common between these two groups, but it still isn't some randomized control trial. Vastly better than comparing across countries. Especially if one of those countries is USA that is very different from other countries. And it's randomized in a sense that there was no additional criterion other than gun ownership to separate two groups. The only other factors worth looking at would be the ones that correlate with gun ownership. Like being conservative for example. It might be that being conservative makes you more prone to suicide even if you don't own a gun. Further research is needed. > Likewise, while taking away guns probably will have some influence on the suicide rate, I doubt very much (or not as much as people think). If there's a 4 fold increase of the probability of suicide for people owning a gun then if you take the guns away, number of suicides in this group will drop by some significant amount (depending on how much of this increase comes from guns, and how much comes from factors that correlate with gun ownership). To keep the suicide rates roughly the same overall people who currently don't own a gun would have to start suicinding more because now there's nobody owning a gun and I can't imagine any possible mechanism that might cause it. > We also cannot ignore the consequences of taking the guns: a psychological loss of agency, and potentially physical loss of security, etc. It's not a simple problem to solve. I agree it's a thing that needs to be considered. However part of this sense of agency is agency to take their own lives in quick and simple fashion. I think that in some cases stripping someone of sense of agency might be beneficial. For the suicide to be attempted you don't only need to be depressed but also you need to feel enough agency to take your life. Part of the problem with some of antidepressants is that they don't change your outlook on life but they give you energy. So the world still looks horrible but now you feel empowered to finally do something about it and you kill yourself. But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down from slaugtering dozen other people each.

lliamander 4y ago
> But the argument about guns is not really about, let's ban guns to lower suicide rates. It's way more about, let's ban guns to prevent people who broke down from slaugtering dozen other people each. True enough. So while I could carry on with the debate about suicide, I think it would be more productive to respond to this argument. By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. There are (conservatively) 80 million gun owners, and hundreds of millions of guns in the US. It would be completely impossible to take all of those guns, or to ban the sale of new ones, and even if you could that would still be depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own. You might argue it is worth depriving citizens of this right if it improves public safety. The evidence is not in favor of this position. This right is not simply some mere hypothetical right to overthrow tyrants, but the right to self defense (including the effective means of that defense). Reasonable estimates (produced by the CDC) put the number of defensive gun uses per year in the hundreds of thousands. If you look at the rates of homicide by state, and compare that with the rates of gun ownership in that state, you find that the correlations are (weakly) negative. The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. There are no doubt many factors that contribute to the occurrence of mass shootings. However, one of the biggest factors that contributes to the deadliness of mass shootings is the presence of gun free zones. The vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones, and the evidence suggests that the average number of deaths in mass shootings is arguably much lower if there is an armed citizen putting up a defense. If you want an evidence-based piece of legislation that would curb mass shootings, the elimination of gun free zones should be at the top of your list. It would certainly reduce the average body count of these events. It also stands to reason that if you don't have as many people dying from such events, the appeal of committing a mass shooting (to someone who is seeking fame and a sense of control by killing lots of people) is going to go down considerably.
- scotty79 4y ago
  > By virtually every measure banning guns to prevent mass shootings is a terrible idea. Except the single most important one. That it worked in every country that did this in response to mass shootings. > depriving tens of millions of citizens a right guaranteed to them by the constitution for no fault of their own If you actually cared about the constitution itself not the fairly modern interpretation reinforced by lobbying group paid with money from gun manufacturing industry, you'd be strongly advocating for the state governents to have right to equip and maintain armed forces independent of federal goverment. Bacause that was the letter and the intention of the second amendment while it was written. It was not about citizens owning guns. It was about states owning sufficient army to counter federal governemnt if it descended into tyranny. > Mass shootings, while horrific, are a tiny fraction of the total number of homicides in this country. We definitely must address mass shootings, but our plans must be both realistic and not compromise the safety of many thousands more. However mass shooting are a thing that very large percentage of people is not willing to accept as the cost of increased security. Especially since any security benefits of having country drowning in guns and ammo are very hard to prove conclusively. > The places in this country that have the worst homicide rates also have the strictest gun laws. It doesn't really matter if a person can cross state border with a gun that is easily and cheaply available with zero hassle on the other side of the border.