6 ms·

Not really a discussion I particularly want to get into, but many people think “an increase in suicides” should be counted as a negative consequence of firearms

Not really a discussion I particularly want to get into, but many people think “an increase in suicides” should be counted as a negative consequence of firearms.

refurb 4y ago
But the US has a lower suicide rate than countries with fewer guns?
- godelski 4y ago
  The US has a pretty high suicide rate, especially for developed countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Does shooting up some place count on the suicide figures, almost always it's going to be a decision to die (you might not die, but surely death of an 'active shooter' is the expected outcome).
  - google234123 4y ago
    No but it wouldn’t matter if it was
- jayd16 4y ago
  US isn't the highest but there are certainly countries with lower rates.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Right, other countries with higher rates have fewer guns. My point entirely.
    - jayd16 4y ago
      Other countries with fewer guns have lower rates as well. Its a nonsensical argument.
      - refurb 4y ago
        Not sure why you're confused. Claim: "More guns means more suicides" Fact A: "Countries with far fewer guns have more suicides" Fact B: "Other countries with fewer guns have less suicides" Fact A disproves the Claim. Fact B does not, at most it shows guns aren't a factor either way. Is that what you're claiming? Guns have no impact on suicides?
        jayd16 4y ago
        All we can know is it's not the only factor.
godelski 4y ago
I think we can be more nuanced and discuss casual relationships for suicide and those for homicide and recognize that there are many differences. If we aggregate the two we will likely have bad policy and be inefficient at fixing either.
concordDance 4y ago
Depends if those lives were genuinely a net negative due to suffering. How many people suffer longer than they should due to lack of access to suicide? I suspect the answer is "fewer than commit suicide due to temporary and fixable chemical imbalances and an easily available gun" but the question should be asked and evidence gathered.
- noduerme 4y ago
  As it happens, a large scale experiment is underway.. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor- https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...
teakettle42 4y ago
There’s no evidence of correlation or a causal link between guns and suicides. In countries with guns available, men use guns for suicide. In countries without, men use hanging. Either way, it’s intentionally misleading to lump suicide in with murder and accidents.
- taeric 4y ago
  This somewhat begs the question that there are the same rates of suicides in the two areas you are mentioning. So, no, it is not intentionally misleading, but it does need more data to show it is meaningful.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > This somewhat begs the question that there are the same rates of suicides in the two areas you are mentioning. It’s not hard to find examples; Japan has a much higher rate of suicide. No guns. Almost universally, men use guns or hanging, depending on what’s locally available. > So, no, it is not intentionally misleading They’re juking the stats to be able to make proclamations like “guns are the leading cause of death for children”. When most people hear that, panic bells start ringing. They assume this means school shootings are killing an incredible number of children each year. This is a crisis! People don’t realize that to manufacture that number, activists had to extend “children” to 19 years old, and include “suicide”. It’s intentionally misleading. If only they’d dedicate the same energy to exploring why our educational and cultural institutions are failing teenagers so spectacularly that they’re suiciding at unprecedented rates.
    - taeric 4y ago
      I'll grant it can be misleading. I don't think it necessarily is. I say this as someone that has had gun suicides in the family. I also have Saturday Night Special running through my head, now... I don't understand the fixation that counting kids as up to 19 and including suicide is somehow a concern. Seems generally alarming that people under 21 is that high for this statistic, period. Edit: Per https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime/Suicide-rates https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/Unit...; no, Japan is not much higher than the US. It isn't even higher. (I'm confused, do you have a better source?) Edit2: Ok, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... has it higher, but doesn't look "much" higher. Though, I grant that is a subjective term. Edit3: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide is an interesting source on this. I find it amusing that they are able to have articles that mention limiting access to pesticides as an effective way to reduce suicides, but don't look at limiting access to guns. It is listed in the top three methods. (Sadly, I'm stepping away from computer for a while now. Will be delighted to engage more on this later, but will probably be a day or so before I remember to check back here.)
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Regardless, from the POV of day to day risky things, none of this crap matters. All of these "average risks" people are slinging back and fourth like idiots are dominated by outliers who are engaged in specific behaviors that have a strong causal link to that means of death. Said outliers drag up the average making it completely unrepresentative of the typical person's risk. Don't drive drunk, don't pedestrian while drunk, don't get involved in drug industry business disputes and don't let mental illness go untreated and you will almost certainly not get killed by a car or bullet.

Not really a discussion I particularly want to get into, but many people think “an increase in suicides” should be counted as a negative consequence of firearms.

refurb 4y ago

But the US has a lower suicide rate than countries with fewer guns?

godelski 4y ago
The US has a pretty high suicide rate, especially for developed countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-r...
pbhjpbhj 4y ago
Does shooting up some place count on the suicide figures, almost always it's going to be a decision to die (you might not die, but surely death of an 'active shooter' is the expected outcome).
- google234123 4y ago
  No but it wouldn’t matter if it was
jayd16 4y ago
US isn't the highest but there are certainly countries with lower rates.
- refurb 4y ago
  Right, other countries with higher rates have fewer guns. My point entirely.
  - jayd16 4y ago
    Other countries with fewer guns have lower rates as well. Its a nonsensical argument.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Not sure why you're confused. Claim: "More guns means more suicides" Fact A: "Countries with far fewer guns have more suicides" Fact B: "Other countries with fewer guns have less suicides" Fact A disproves the Claim. Fact B does not, at most it shows guns aren't a factor either way. Is that what you're claiming? Guns have no impact on suicides?
      - jayd16 4y ago
        All we can know is it's not the only factor.

godelski 4y ago

I think we can be more nuanced and discuss casual relationships for suicide and those for homicide and recognize that there are many differences. If we aggregate the two we will likely have bad policy and be inefficient at fixing either.

concordDance 4y ago

Depends if those lives were genuinely a net negative due to suffering. How many people suffer longer than they should due to lack of access to suicide? I suspect the answer is "fewer than commit suicide due to temporary and fixable chemical imbalances and an easily available gun" but the question should be asked and evidence gathered.

noduerme 4y ago
As it happens, a large scale experiment is underway.. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanising-the-poor- https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-canada-euthanisin...

teakettle42 4y ago

There’s no evidence of correlation or a causal link between guns and suicides. In countries with guns available, men use guns for suicide. In countries without, men use hanging. Either way, it’s intentionally misleading to lump suicide in with murder and accidents.

taeric 4y ago
This somewhat begs the question that there are the same rates of suicides in the two areas you are mentioning. So, no, it is not intentionally misleading, but it does need more data to show it is meaningful.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > This somewhat begs the question that there are the same rates of suicides in the two areas you are mentioning. It’s not hard to find examples; Japan has a much higher rate of suicide. No guns. Almost universally, men use guns or hanging, depending on what’s locally available. > So, no, it is not intentionally misleading They’re juking the stats to be able to make proclamations like “guns are the leading cause of death for children”. When most people hear that, panic bells start ringing. They assume this means school shootings are killing an incredible number of children each year. This is a crisis! People don’t realize that to manufacture that number, activists had to extend “children” to 19 years old, and include “suicide”. It’s intentionally misleading. If only they’d dedicate the same energy to exploring why our educational and cultural institutions are failing teenagers so spectacularly that they’re suiciding at unprecedented rates.
  - taeric 4y ago
    I'll grant it can be misleading. I don't think it necessarily is. I say this as someone that has had gun suicides in the family. I also have Saturday Night Special running through my head, now... I don't understand the fixation that counting kids as up to 19 and including suicide is somehow a concern. Seems generally alarming that people under 21 is that high for this statistic, period. Edit: Per https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/United-States/Crime/Suicide-rates https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Japan/Unit...; no, Japan is not much higher than the US. It isn't even higher. (I'm confused, do you have a better source?) Edit2: Ok, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r... has it higher, but doesn't look "much" higher. Though, I grant that is a subjective term. Edit3: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide is an interesting source on this. I find it amusing that they are able to have articles that mention limiting access to pesticides as an effective way to reduce suicides, but don't look at limiting access to guns. It is listed in the top three methods. (Sadly, I'm stepping away from computer for a while now. Will be delighted to engage more on this later, but will probably be a day or so before I remember to check back here.)

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

Regardless, from the POV of day to day risky things, none of this crap matters. All of these "average risks" people are slinging back and fourth like idiots are dominated by outliers who are engaged in specific behaviors that have a strong causal link to that means of death. Said outliers drag up the average making it completely unrepresentative of the typical person's risk. Don't drive drunk, don't pedestrian while drunk, don't get involved in drug industry business disputes and don't let mental illness go untreated and you will almost certainly not get killed by a car or bullet.