"Twice as many people committed suicide in the 15 states with the highest levels of household gun ownership, compared with the six states with the lowest levels, even though the population in all the states was about the same, the researchers found.
"We found that where there are more guns, there are more suicides," said Matthew Miller of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the study...
..."Removing all firearms from one's home is one of the most effective and straightforward steps that household decision-makers can take to reduce the risk of
suicide," Miller said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070410/ts_nm/suicide_guns_dc
I think this study was entered into by people who knew the results of previous valid comparisons between gun ownership and suicide. That's why it's done on a state by state basis, even though better comparisons were possible and even available. Comparing states leaves even wider the opening for specious relationships- state A may have a lower than average rate of Y affecting both gun ownership AND suicide, etcetera. Also comparisons by state have less bearing on gun ownership because suicides in homes WITHOUT guns will be grouped into the "high gun ownership" group. Grouping the state populations together and dividing them among households with guns vs households without (especially when you're tying to claim your study supports a household suicide prevention tactic) would be much more accurate, but this study didn't do it. I think they didn't because they already knew what the result would be...
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html
"If we could magically make all guns disappear, would the number of suicides decrease? Probably not. Excerpted from Dr. Gary Kleck's, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (p 285, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997):
The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.
Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association between gun levels and rates of total suicides. The only study to find a measure of "gun availability" significantly associated with total suicide...used a measure of gun availability known to be invalid.
This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common, there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the number of people who die in suicides."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
All studies try to push their idea or information as cold hard fact. You’ll never see a study that said “Well, this isn’t the case if you look at it a different way..” That’s just never going to happen. But with this study, I think the main idea is that having a gun gives a person easy access to commit suicide. This is something people should know as a precaution. If someone understood the importance of locking up a gun, or keeping it in a safe place that might keep children, or other people from using it to harm themselves. Yes, there are other ways to kill yourself, but that doesn’t mean we should give someone access to them all. I think the point of this study is to aware people of the dangers of having guns in their homes. Study or not, guns can be dangerous.
It's true that you shouldn't leave guns around in an unsafe manner, but usually when I hear that I think of preventing *accidents*... preventing suicides is much more complicated, you can't just lock up your gun and say "well, now my 16 year old is less likely to commit suicide"... suicide prevention should be about communication and counseling or therapy... not pushing an agenda about an inanimate object.
"If someone understood the importance of locking up a gun, or keeping it in a safe place that might keep children, or other people from using it to harm themselves."
For accidents, sure that helps, but for suicides that assumption is not backed by the evidence. I think the studies suggest that anyone who's REALLY serious about suicide, really serious enough to put a loaded gun to their head and pull the trigger, would, without access to a gun, kill themselves in a similarly effective (hence guns not increasing the rate just based on lethality) manner, with whatever WAS available.
"Yes, there are other ways to kill yourself, but that doesn’t mean we should give someone access to them all."
That's just it, we DO have access to the other methods, at least most of them, and the most simple and effective ones. Motor vehicles, rope, knives, needles, bath tubs, electricity, plastic bags... sure, someone in an institution can be prevented from having these things, but prohibiting these items from one's family/children who happen to be depressed would and should be the last thing someone would think of for a permanent suicide prevention plan.
Dan, you do a good job of raising questions about some concerns with the methodology of the study, and then you go and cite an organization and an author that clearly have a biased agenda and do the same, if not worse, when it comes to scientific accuracy.
>I think this study was entered into by people who knew the results of previous valid comparisons between gun ownership and suicide.
All of the valid ones I've seen agree with this one.
>That's why it's done on a state by state basis, even though better comparisons were possible and even available.
This is not true. State by state comparisons are standard, because they increase the sample size. Instead of one national sample, you have 50 state samples, this increases the validity of a study, not decreases it, and is widely used in sceintific research.
>Comparing states leaves even wider the opening for specious relationships- state A may have a lower than average rate of Y affecting both gun ownership AND suicide, etcetera.
Only if it is done poorly, this study clearly takes into account specious factors -- the article explicitly states this.
>Also comparisons by state have less bearing on gun ownership because suicides in homes WITHOUT guns will be grouped into the "high gun ownership" group.
No, they specifically said that they "calculated the relationship of gun ownership to suicide." This means that they are not looking simply at states with more guns and coming to a conclusion based on that, they are actually connecting actual guns to actual suicides.
>Grouping the state populations together and dividing them among households with guns vs households without (especially when you're tying to claim your study supports a household suicide prevention tactic) would be much more accurate, but this study didn't do it.
It appears to me that they did.
>"If we could magically make all guns disappear, would the number of suicides decrease? Probably not.
Except if you look at the countries with fewer guns, they almost all have lower suicide rates.
>The full body of relevant studies indicates that firearm availability measures are significantly and positively associated with rates of firearm suicide, but have no significant association with rates of total suicide.
This is a straw man. The argument isn't that getting rid of guns of will end suicide, it's that getting rid of guns will lower gun homicides and will have some effect on overall rates of suicide. And if you read the full article, it clearly shows the data that more than half of American suicides are done with firearms, which have a 90% success rate.
>Of thirteen studies, nine found a significant association between gun levels and rates of gun suicide, but only one found a significant association between gun levels and rates of total suicides.
But how big were the variations in "gun levels." To be effective, they would have to be quite significant, and I don't think they are.
>The only study to find a measure of "gun availability" significantly associated with total suicide...used a measure of gun availability known to be invalid.
So says someone whose work has been widely criticized in the scientific community as invalid.
>This pattern of results supports the view that where guns are less common, there is complete substitution of other methods of suicide, and that, while gun levels influence the choice of suicide method, they have no effect on the number of people who die in suicides."
No, it doesn't support that at all. A gun is one of the easiest ways to commit suicide and by far the most effective way that is widely available. Lowering gun levels would certainly have an effect. Look at the other countries as mentioned above. And, pay attention to the fact that states with fewer guns have lower overall suicide rates.
Addison,
>All studies try to push their idea or information as cold hard fact.
No they don't. Valid scientific studies never do this.
>You’ll never see a study that said “Well, this isn’t the case if you look at it a different way..”
Actually, you see this all the time. Valid science always pokes holes in itself to see where weaknesses may lie and to point the way for future study.
>you can't just lock up your gun and say "well, now my 16 year old is less likely to commit suicide"
Sure you can. Does that mean you will eliminate the possibility? No, but it will certainly lessen the chances.
>... suicide prevention should be about communication and counseling or therapy... not pushing an agenda about an inanimate object.
A valid solution approaches all potential avenues for improvement, it doesn't reject some of them because of ideology.
>I think the studies suggest that anyone who's REALLY serious about suicide, really serious enough to put a loaded gun to their head and pull the trigger, would, without access to a gun, kill themselves in a similarly effective (hence guns not increasing the rate just based on lethality) manner, with whatever WAS available.
If someone is REALLY serious, then yes, they'll find another way. But how many people is that? And, again, the evidence is quite clear that less guns = less gun suicide and that other methods are a lot less effective. Guns are easy to use, most of the other methods you use are much more difficult.
>That's just it, we DO have access to the other methods, at least most of them, and the most simple and effective ones.
Again, reading the article, it is clear that the most simple and effective way is with a gun.
>Motor vehicles, rope, knives, needles, bath tubs, electricity, plastic bags... sure, someone in an institution can be prevented from having these things, but prohibiting these items from one's family/children who happen to be depressed would and should be the last thing someone would think of for a permanent suicide prevention plan.
But all of these things combined are used in fewer suicide deaths than guns. And most of these things are negligible in suicide anyway. There are anecdotal examples of these things, but few of them are widespread in their use and none of them stacks up to gun usage.
>and then you go and cite an organization and an author that clearly have a biased agenda and do the same, if not worse, when it comes to scientific accuracy.
>So says someone whose work has been widely criticized in the scientific community as invalid.
1) You pre-approved Kleck's book as a source.
2) Kleck is acknowledged as liberal by peers, is a lifelong registered democrat, is a contributor to liberal democratic candidates and liberal organizations, and believed pre-research theories about a LACK of defensive gun usage in America, until his own research actually came out the other way. (source is Larry Hensel, Program Chair, TCC Criminal Justice and Legal Studies [Kleck is an FSU criminologist], as well as the above link)
3) Banter can be seen on the journal search engines between Kleck and a pair of researchers Kleck talks about in his book (regarding faulty and biased methods), but the only other thing I saw from the scientific community were third parties who DON'T agree with Kleck's views, writing an entire journal article just to mention that his reasoning and methods are sound. (See Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,"-- excerpt in the previous link)
4) On this issue, Kleck not even responsible for the bulk of the actual research- he analyzed previous studies. Also an entire segment of Kleck's book is about a gun control debate fallacy regarding merely 'counting' studies; he claims "not all studies are created equal" and goes into detail about weighing and analyzing them, so I'm confident that very same book wouldn't break his own rules. He also doesn't omit studies because they are bad (i.e. the 'faulty' one he still included in his count), he simply counts them differently- so those 13 are likely a representative or complete sample as of 1997.
>All of the valid ones I've seen agree with this one.
Sorry, but if I'm going to trust someone's interpretation of the body of previous studies here, it will be the one whose (award-winning) research is closer to the field in question.
>This is not true. State by state comparisons are standard, because they increase the sample size. Instead of one national sample, you have 50 state samples, this increases the validity of a study, not decreases it, and is widely used in sceintific research.
>No, they specifically said that they "calculated the relationship of gun ownership to suicide." This means that they are not looking simply at states with more guns and coming to a conclusion based on that, they are actually connecting actual guns to actual suicides.
Please elaborate how "calculated the relationship of gun ownership to suicide" can't mean a state-wide, and not individual, comparison between gun ownership and suicide.
Generally, it's safe to say that a news article, lacking the capacity to be as complete and thorough as the actual research, will pick out the one most sensational and/or 'damning' fact and use that. In this case it's that 15 STATES with higher gun ownership had more suicide (not suicide RATES! just total SUICIDES!) than 6 STATES with less gun ownership (notice 15v6, I'm gonna have to assume it's not divided half and half or among all 50 states for a reason, most likely stacks the evidence in their favor), and tried to justify it by saying 'all the states have ABOUT the same population' (how close can 21 states be in population, anyway?).
"Miller and colleagues used survey data to estimate the percentage of people who kept guns in their homes in each of the 50 states. They looked at a survey of 200,000 people done by the
CDC in 2001, which found that about a third of U.S. households reported having a gun."
This proves my point, they ascertained their gun ownership figures from a 2001 CDC study, so in fact they did NOT research individual gun-owner suicides or gun-household suicides.
>Only if it is done poorly, this study clearly takes into account specious factors -- the article explicitly states this.
"They took into account poverty, urbanization, unemployment, drug and alcohol dependence and abuse, and mental illness"
Hmm, I count 5 factors... suicide is not completely dependent on just 5 factors, there is still a large possibility of one effect increasing both suicide and gun ownership... like domestic abuse, youth violence, or rape? These are all pretty straightforward, but as your icecream to rape analogy shows there can be not-so-obvious hidden speciousness everwhere... maybe the amount of TV watched impacts suicide and gun ownership in the same direction. Not that I expect them to find and exclude all variables that could do this (as the list is endless), just acknowledging that looking at a state's gun ownership is not nearly as concrete as a family's gun ownership, so this study doesn't even come close to countering the more accurate ones that came before it.
>Look at the other countries as mentioned above.
>Except if you look at the countries with fewer guns, they almost all have lower suicide rates.
Not true at all.
international violent death rate table--
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html
(from my first link)
"As further evidence that gun ownership is not correlated with total suicide rates see international violent death rate table. For example, Japan, where gun ownership is extremely low (less than 1% of households), total suicide is higher than in a high-gun ownership country like the United States.
From 1972 to 1995 the per capita gun stock in the U. S. increased by more than 50%. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (p 265) comments on this huge increase: "This change might be viewed as a sort of inadvertent natural experiment, in which Americans launched a massive and unprecedented civilian armaments program, probably the largest in world history. During this same period, the U.S. suicide rate was virtually constant, fluctuating only slightly within the narrow range from 11.8 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 population...At most...this huge increase in the gun stock might have caused a mild increase in the percentage of suicides committed with guns, which shifted from 53.3 in 1972 to 60.3 in 1994, and thus a mild corresponding increase in the gun suicide rate.""
>This is a straw man. The argument isn't that getting rid of guns of will end suicide, it's that getting rid of guns will lower gun homicides and will have some effect on overall rates of suicide.
Actually, that was his argument, at least for getting rid of guns on a household level. He said nothing about homicides. He said not only will getting rid of the gun in your home prevent suicide, it's the magic bullet, "straightforward" simple and effective solution... that's a mighty tall recommendation for someone who failed to support even his most basic original premise.
>But how big were the variations in "gun levels." To be effective, they would have to be quite significant, and I don't think they are.
Actually, that's exactly the problem with this new research, not the previous stuff. The previous ones aren't all simply about gun *ownership*, but availability. Being in a state where more people own guns doesn't automatically mean easier availability to a given person (which could be the problem with that one faulty study, however)... even if I'm wrong, and the studies are similar in that way, yet contradict in results, we have a choice of believing the one study we can pick apart for so many faults, or believing the entire body of previous research from the scientific community. Or lump them together, and count 12 that survived peer review, versus 1 regarded as faulty, and 1 TBD (at least by professionals).
>No, it doesn't support that at all. A gun is one of the easiest ways to commit suicide and by far the most effective way that is widely available. Lowering gun levels would certainly have an effect.
First of all, you're responding to Kleck and not me. Secondly, how does it not support what he said? The evidence shows guns take up a higher percentage of the suicides when available, but don't effect overall rates. Thus guns are chosen, but only by those that were so serious about suicide that their tool wouldn't matter.
You can't be 'certain' about any affect like that. In fact that 'certainly' is based on an assumption that people who "would have" committed suicide by gun, would, without access to guns, change their mind or fail in their suicide attempt. That assumption is not supported by the evidence.
>Sure you can. Does that mean you will eliminate the possibility? No, but it will certainly lessen the chances.
Again, not certainly at all. Unless you think you can prevent him from getting rope too, you're better of trying to remove his desire to, not his ability.
>If someone is REALLY serious, then yes, they'll find another way. But how many people is that?
According to evidence that shows no correlation, nearly everyone serious enough to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.
>Again, reading the article, it is clear that the most simple and effective way is with a gun.
Well then, the Japanese and French and Austrians must just be talented in the arts of suicide. The article didn't bring up any other type of suicide besides drugs, so in fact it is not clear that it's the most simple and effective, or that "most" other types are more "difficult". I'd bet good money that laying down on a high-speed area of the train/monorail tracks in Japan has an even higher success rate than guns.
>But all of these things combined are used in fewer suicide deaths than guns. And most of these things are negligible in suicide anyway. There are anecdotal examples of these things, but few of them are widespread in their use and none of them stacks up to gun usage.
In America perhaps, but the international table shows a completely different story, indicating suicide is easy even in societies with few guns, and often more common.
Read this first
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html
This is the missing "above link" from the first part.
I believe that this is a great post. If people want to kill themselves, they won't "only" do it with a gun. If people want to end their own life, they will do it by any means possible. Now obviously guns are one method of suicide, but it isn't the only. Because people jump off bridges, should we reduce the amount of bridges? The answer would be obviously no because of the ways that bridges help. Now I'm not saying that guns help out in the same way as bridges, but just because people kill themselves with guns, doesn't make them responsible for suicides.
>1) You pre-approved Kleck's book as a source.
That doesn't mean I endorsed it. It met the minimum requirements that I provided you, that doesn't mean it is valid.
>2) Kleck is acknowledged as liberal by peers, is a lifelong registered democrat, is a contributor to liberal democratic candidates and liberal organizations, and believed pre-research theories about a LACK of defensive gun usage in America, until his own research actually came out the other way.
And almost none of this has anything to do with anything. Liberals are more likely to support gun control, but many don't. And you're using the word "believed" here, something that you or Hensel or anyone else can't possibly know. It sounds good to say that, but it isn't valid evidence.
>(source is Larry Hensel, Program Chair, TCC Criminal Justice and Legal Studies [Kleck is an FSU criminologist], as well as the above link)
If I penalized you for the number of times you use the "argument from authority" fallacy, you'd probably drop a letter grade.
>3) Banter can be seen on the journal search engines between Kleck and a pair of researchers Kleck talks about in his book (regarding faulty and biased methods), but the only other thing I saw from the scientific community were third parties who DON'T agree with Kleck's views, writing an entire journal article just to mention that his reasoning and methods are sound.
You can certainly find more criticism than this if you actually look for it. Here are a few articles that criticize Kleck's methodology (Keep in mind the book you used was simply an update of "Point Blank"):
Review: [untitled]
Author(s) of Review: Joseph F. Sheley
Reviewed Work(s): Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck
Political Psychology > Vol. 17, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 375-377
Review: [untitled]
Author(s) of Review: Alan Lizotte
Reviewed Work(s): Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. by Gary Kleck
Contemporary Sociology > Vol. 22, No. 3 (May, 1993), pp. 339-340
Review: [untitled]
Author(s) of Review: Raymond G. Kessler
Reviewed Work(s): Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America by Gary Kleck
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) > Vol. 82, No. 4 (Winter, 1992), pp. 1187-1189
Review: [untitled]
Author(s) of Review: H. Laurence Ross
Reviewed Work(s): Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. by Gary Kleck
The American Journal of Sociology > Vol. 98, No. 3 (Nov., 1992), pp. 661-662
In addition, his other work has been widely criticized and almost every response notes -- even those that agree with him -- that he has an obvious bias.
>(See Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,"-- excerpt in the previous link)
Keep in mind this article doesn't deal with the book you used at all (it was written before that book), it deals with a previous article by Kleck, which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue talked about in this post, it deals with defensive gun use, not suicide.
>4) On this issue, Kleck not even responsible for the bulk of the actual research- he analyzed previous studies. Also an entire segment of Kleck's book is about a gun control debate fallacy regarding merely 'counting' studies; he claims "not all studies are created equal" and goes into detail about weighing and analyzing them, so I'm confident that very same book wouldn't break his own rules. He also doesn't omit studies because they are bad (i.e. the 'faulty' one he still included in his count), he simply counts them differently- so those 13 are likely a representative or complete sample as of 1997.
You have to, of course, reject studies that are bad, if the "badness" brings into question the results.
>Sorry, but if I'm going to trust someone's interpretation of the body of previous studies here, it will be the one whose (award-winning) research is closer to the field in question.
A double argument from authority.
>Please elaborate how "calculated the relationship of gun ownership to suicide" can't mean a state-wide, and not individual, comparison between gun ownership and suicide.
Theoretically, it could mean that, but you have to establish that with evidence, not just guess it.
>Generally, it's safe to say that a news article, lacking the capacity to be as complete and thorough as the actual research, will pick out the one most sensational and/or 'damning' fact and use that. In this case it's that 15 STATES with higher gun ownership had more suicide (not suicide RATES! just total SUICIDES!) than 6 STATES with less gun ownership (notice 15v6, I'm gonna have to assume it's not divided half and half or among all 50 states for a reason, most likely stacks the evidence in their favor), and tried to justify it by saying 'all the states have ABOUT the same population' (how close can 21 states be in population, anyway?).
This is why you shouldn't be responding to the newspaper article about the study, but instead should deal with the study itself. A quote taken out of context leads you to a straw man argument. If you read even the abstract of the article, it clearly refers to suicide rates.
http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-200704000-00031.htm;jsessionid=GrtLr2bm6W7zVyvqtHw0xsQg2h2Jd2QhGPT2Vbz7lTWMVjf7HpgT!95098694!-949856144!8091!-1
There would be no real statistical basis for dividing the states in half on this measure (or any other for that matter). A dividing line like that would be arbitrary. A legitimate dividing line would be based on real differences, like different levels of gun ownership. Based on this it appears that there are 15 states with a high level of gun ownership, six states with low levels and the rest are in between. It's quite likely that states have similar populations, particularly within a statistically significant margin of error. These criticisms show a clear lack of knowledge about how scientific experiments are conducted. A trained scientist wouldn't have any concerns with what you're saying here.
>"Miller and colleagues used survey data to estimate the percentage of people who kept guns in their homes in each of the 50 states. They looked at a survey of 200,000 people done by the CDC in 2001, which found that about a third of U.S. households reported having a gun." This proves my point, they ascertained their gun ownership figures from a 2001 CDC study, so in fact they did NOT research individual gun-owner suicides or gun-household suicides.
Not it doesn't. "Proves" is the truth by declaration fallacy. Saying that they took the data from a CDC study says absolutely nothing about the methods the CDC used.
>"They took into account poverty, urbanization, unemployment, drug and alcohol dependence and abuse, and mental illness" Hmm, I count 5 factors... suicide is not completely dependent on just 5 factors, there is still a large possibility of one effect increasing both suicide and gun ownership... like domestic abuse, youth violence, or rape?
You seem to think that they just arbitrarily picked these five. That's not the way scientific research works (at least not if it's done well). Any valid research article, which I'll assume this is since it passed peer-review, would examine other research to determine which factors are the most important and have a statistically-significant impact and then control for those. One would not control for things that research shows have an insignificant effect.
>These are all pretty straightforward, but as your icecream to rape analogy shows there can be not-so-obvious hidden speciousness everwhere...
Right, but you don't guess at that speciousness, you test for it.
>just acknowledging that looking at a state's gun ownership is not nearly as concrete as a family's gun ownership,
One, you haven't established that this is what they did. Two, even if you had, you would then have to establish that these different things actually produce different numbers. You made a theoretical argument for how they are different, but without testing a theory, you can't use it to support another claim. You may be right that these data produce different results, but you may not.
>so this study doesn't even come close to countering the more accurate ones that came before it.
Like Kleck, who didn't study it, or Guncite, a completely biased source? What other studies?
>Look at the other countries as mentioned above. Except if you look at the countries with fewer guns, they almost all have lower suicide rates. Not true at all.
Sorry, typo on my part. Should've read "gun suicide rates." By the way, do these suicide rates you mention control for anything or are the absolute rates? They appear to be absolute, making them less than useful.
>From 1972 to 1995 the per capita gun stock in the U. S. increased by more than 50%. Gary Kleck in Targeting Guns (p 265) comments on this huge increase: "This change might be viewed as a sort of inadvertent natural experiment, in which Americans launched a massive and unprecedented civilian armaments program, probably the largest in world history. During this same period, the U.S. suicide rate was virtually constant, fluctuating only slightly within the narrow range from 11.8 to 13.0 suicides per 100,000 population...At most...this huge increase in the gun stock might have caused a mild increase in the percentage of suicides committed with guns, which shifted from 53.3 in 1972 to 60.3 in 1994, and thus a mild corresponding increase in the gun suicide rate.""
So, then, guns increase the likelihood of gun suicide.
>This is a straw man. The argument isn't that getting rid of guns of will end suicide, it's that getting rid of guns will lower gun homicides and will have some effect on overall rates of suicide. >Actually, that was his argument, at least for getting rid of guns on a household level. He said nothing about homicides. He said not only will getting rid of the gun in your home prevent suicide, it's the magic bullet, "straightforward" simple and effective solution... that's a mighty tall recommendation for someone who failed to support even his most basic original premise.
Sorry, another typo on my part. I typed homicide when I meant to type sucide. And I read the argument quite different than you did, apparently. I read it to mean that on an individual household basis, removal of all firearms will reduce the chances of a successful suicide in that home.
>even if I'm wrong, and the studies are similar in that way, yet contradict in results, we have a choice of believing the one study we can pick apart for so many faults, or believing the entire body of previous research from the scientific community. Or lump them together, and count 12 that survived peer review, versus 1 regarded as faulty, and 1 TBD (at least by professionals).
You can't pick apart a study you haven't seen, you've simply picked apart an article about it. And if by "12" you are referring to something in Kleck, keep in mind that book is 10 years old and didn't include every study ever done, you there is a sample size problem.
>First of all, you're responding to Kleck and not me.
I'm responding to the post, it doesn't matter whose words they are.
>The evidence shows guns take up a higher percentage of the suicides when available, but don't effect overall rates. Thus guns are chosen, but only by those that were so serious about suicide that their tool wouldn't matter.
No, the "evidence" doesn't show this. There is a correlation that shows this, but what other things were controlled for in Kleck's natural "experiment"? The relationship could easily be spurious.
>In fact that 'certainly' is based on an assumption that people who "would have" committed suicide by gun, would, without access to guns, change their mind or fail in their suicide attempt. That assumption is not supported by the evidence.
But considering that everything else fails at a higher rate, then fewer people successfully commit suicide.
>Sure you can. Does that mean you will eliminate the possibility? No, but it will certainly lessen the chances. >Again, not certainly at all. Unless you think you can prevent him from getting rope too, you're better of trying to remove his desire to, not his ability.
There is a 10% difference in the rate of success with a gun (90%) and a rope (80%) according to research by J.J. Card (Kleck cites this in his book, too).
>If someone is REALLY serious, then yes, they'll find another way. But how many people is that? >According to evidence that shows no correlation, nearly everyone serious enough to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.
Because a gun is easier to use than other methods. What percentage of those people would be willing to do one of the other methods that is more difficult?
>Again, reading the article, it is clear that the most simple and effective way is with a gun. >Well then, the Japanese and French and Austrians must just be talented in the arts of suicide.
No, the data you linked to says nothing about the number of successful vs. unsuccessful attempts. Obviously, if a country had many more attempts, they would have more successes, even if the success rate were lower.
>The article didn't bring up any other type of suicide besides drugs, so in fact it is not clear that it's the most simple and effective, or that "most" other types are more "difficult".
Other research does, like Card, mentioned above and cited in Kleck. The numbers are 90% from guns, 80% for hanging, 77% from CO2 (car exhaust), 70% from drowning and 23% from poisoning. Other methods are either much less successful or so rarely done as to nto be notable.
>I'd bet good money that laying down on a high-speed area of the train/monorail tracks in Japan has an even higher success rate than guns.
Sure, but the incidence is so low as to make this a spurious argument.
>In America perhaps, but the international table shows a completely different story, indicating suicide is easy even in societies with few guns, and often more common.
Maybe, but I'm specifically talking about America -- many other factors could influence this in other countries, such as more widespread knowledge about other suicide methods -- and gun suicide.
John, nobody is arguing that guns cause suicide, just that they increase the chances of success.
Also keep in mind that after conducting his research, Kleck came to the conclusion that gun control was warranted, just not the specific measures others claimed.
>you're using the word "believed" here, something that you or Hensel or anyone else can't possibly know. It sounds good to say that, but it isn't valid evidence.
I used "believed" based on the quote from Kleck on that page about him, in which he recounts what he used to think/subscribe to/believe/whatever.
>If I penalized you for the number of times you use the "argument from authority" fallacy, you'd probably drop a letter grade.
LOL, how is that argument from authority? Hensel is basically a peer of yours, as he teaches at TCC too (I doubt you'd ever see him as an authoritative figure). I included this because if you wanted to check and see if Kleck's peers really think he's liberal, you could.
>it deals with defensive gun use, not suicide.
I knew that, but you didn't attack Klecks suicide studies, you attacked him and his studies in general. (Oh yeah, ad hominem.) As such, 'entering into evidence' opinions that favor gun control but can't see fault in his methodology, is apt.
>A double argument from authority.
Not so. I don't see any huge and hierarchal difference between an FSU and TCC teacher. But all you gave me was your interpretation of the previous studies, and I already had Kleck's interpretation, which I believe is based on a much more comprehensive review of the material. (Not that you gave the material a lax review or anything, it's just that it's his field- for example, he teaches a class called gun control.)
>f you read even the abstract of the article, it clearly refers to suicide rates.
Hmm, well a journalist should get fired then, because the article cleary refers to total suicides as far as that claim is concerned, and states that's a justified comparison because somehow all 21 state populations are close enough. IMHO an abstract is just as bad as an article, especially when considering the tremendous amount of bias coming from the gun researchers on the medical side.
>A legitimate dividing line would be based on real differences, like different levels of gun ownership.
Which they didn't state; for all I know there are huge discrepencies between the "more" group and little between the lowest "more" and the highest "less".
>It's quite likely that states have similar populations
100% false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population
The populations of the highest and lowest of 21 states differ by about 700% on the highest 21, about 700% on the lowest 21, and about 650% in the middle. So because they're using total suicides, if a high ownership/low ownership state matches with high population/low population, they have a 7:1 ratio to use to pump up the total, obtained purely by skewing statistics.
>Not it doesn't. "Proves" is the truth by declaration fallacy. Saying that they took the data from a CDC study says absolutely nothing about the methods the CDC used.
They took the gun ownership values from the CDC, and conducted new research on suicides in the states the CDC said had higher gun ownership. That is proof that they did NOT analyze individual households with guns and suicides with those guns, and proof that suicides, or even gun suicides, committed by persons who don't even have guns in their house, would still count against the "high ownership" states.
>You seem to think that they just arbitrarily picked these five. That's not the way scientific research works (at least not if it's done well). Any valid research article, which I'll assume this is since it passed peer-review, would examine other research to determine which factors are the most important and have a statistically-significant impact and then control for those. One would not control for things that research shows have an insignificant effect.
So you're claiming that those five things accurately describe every variable that has a significant effect on suicide? I'm sure chapter one of my sociology book includes MANY more statistically-sound influences. And isn't it argument from authority to claim that everything that makes it into a journal did everything like that right? Wouldn't that contradict everything bad anyone's said about Kleck's peer reviewed studies that made it into his books?
>Like Kleck, who didn't study it, or Guncite, a completely biased source? What other studies?
Firstly, I'd say Kleck didn't create a new primary source of research, but he did study it. Secondly, at this point I was referring to the 13 other studies that Kleck refers to as the body of previous peer-reviewed and related studies.
>Sorry, typo on my part. Should've read "gun suicide rates."
I'm still clueless as to why anyone would care. Bullet + dead body, rope + dead body, equally as bad in my book. Pulling violence with guns out of the groups of violence that had the same exact end is a meaningless smear-tactic. If country A has more gun suicide but country B has more total suicide, should A really be striving to be like B?
>And I read the argument quite different than you did, apparently. I read it to mean that on an individual household basis, removal of all firearms will reduce the chances of a successful suicide in that home.
They don't even know which of the suicide victims lived in households with guns, so they can't make that claim.
>But considering that everything else fails at a higher rate, then fewer people successfully commit suicide.
>There is a 10% difference in the rate of success with a gun (90%) and a rope (80%) according to research by J.J. Card (Kleck cites this in his book, too).
Perhaps there are more failures and also more successful second attempts, or perhaps those that failed were also those less likely to use a firearm... but the fact still remains, that even when higher gun availability can be correlated with higher gun suicide rates (and a higher percentage of suicides committed with gun), the total suicide rates remained constant.
>What percentage of those people would be willing to do one of the other methods that is more difficult?
Nearly all of them, considering the lack of change in overall rates when the percentage that include gun use rises.
>Sure, but the incidence is so low as to make this a spurious argument.
Actually before "traffic delay" fines were imposed on the surviving family members of suicide-by-train victims, it was common enough to be coined "Chuocide" (for the Chuo Train line), and for companies to renovate their buildings to give less access to the exposed tracks.
>Maybe, but I'm specifically talking about America
Now that it suits you to not bring up other countries, sure- I surely didn't bring up the international comparisons. I never think they are the most credible, but in this case they merely back up what the U.S. only studies have shown: higher gun availability, and even higher percentage of gun suicides, do not correlate with total suicides.
Post a Comment