Suicide has never been criminalized in Japan. Japanese society's attitude toward suicide has been termed "tolerant", and on many occasions a suicide is seen as a morally responsible action. However, the rise of Internet suicide websites and increasing rate of suicide pacts (shinjū) has raised concern from the public and media, which consider the pacts "thoughtless"
Public discussion of the high rate of suicide focuses on blaming the economic hardship faced by middle-aged men. In addition, increase in Internet use (particularly the suicide websites) is partially blamed for the increase in suicide in recent yearsDuring Japan's imperial years, suicide was common within the military. This included kamikaze, kaiten and suicide when a battle is lost.
And this, also from Wiki about Seppuku, the formal name for hari kari.
Seppuku as judicial punishment was officially abolished in 1873, shortly after the Meiji Restoration, but voluntary seppuku did not completely die out. Dozens of people are known to have committed seppuku since then, including some military men who committed suicide in 1895 as a protest against the return of a conquered territory to China; by General Nogi and his wife on the death of Emperor Meiji in 1912; and by numerous soldiers and civilians who chose to die rather than surrender at the end of World War II.
In 1970, famed author Yukio Mishima and one of his followers committed public seppuku at the Japan Self-Defense Forces headquarters after an unsuccessful attempt to incite the armed forces to stage a coup d'état. Mishima committed seppuku in the office of General Kanetoshi Mashita. His second, a 25-year-old named Masakatsu Morita, tried three times to ritually behead Mishima but failed; his head was finally severed by Hiroyasu Koga. Morita then attempted to commit seppuku himself. Although his own cuts were too shallow to be fatal, he gave the signal and he too was beheaded by Koga.
All of this is in response to AztecRed's one word comment earlier today. Whenever we discuss gun suicides in the U.S., you can be sure the pro-gun crowd will bring up Japan.
It would be hard to find a worse comparison. Totally lacking in American culture is the honorable notion of suicide which has always been so prevalent in Japan. Completely missing are the samurai warriors and the kamakaze pilots, the centuries of art and literature that elevate the act of suicide to something absolutely foreign to Americans.
So, please, stop with the comparisons to Japan every time we mention suicide. I ask this out of respect for common sense and logical thinking, and in spite of what Sebastian explained, I have nothing to offer in return.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMikeB, you are making our point exactly with this post- that suicides are driving solely by the desire to kill yourself. A culture that sees it as an act of honor will naturally have far more suicides than a culture that sees it as a mortal sin. It has nothing to do with the methods available. Sugarmann likes to compare gun suicides to people who take some pills then call their best friend to say goodbye, or make superficial cuts on their wrist. These are cries for help. People who jump off bridges, step in front of trains, or put a gun in their mouth are serious. There are thousands of methods available to kill yourself, and short of locking someone in a padded cell on suicide watch, you can not take away the means to do it. What you can do it treat the desire. I am in a gun free zone right now. In about two minutes, I could walk down the street, hop a fence and grab onto an electrical transformer and fry myself if I wanted to. There is a lot easier access to high-voltage, speeding trains, speeding cars, tall building, tall bridges, toy guns to point at cops, etc… than easy access to guns.
ReplyDeleteHow about this; we will stop bringing up Japan, if you stop bringing up suicides. Keep your argument to how guns are the best tool for murder, and we’ll stick to how they are the best tool for self-defense and how gun control only disarms the self-defenders.
-TS
So if "being Japanese" is at least as big a suicide risk factor as gun possession is, maybe you should wage your jihad against the Japanese culture, rather than the gun culture, Mikeb.
ReplyDelete"So, please, stop with the comparisons to Japan every time we mention suicide."
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, Mikeb, that Japan views suicide as honorable, and in some cases, necessary. It is very much a cultural thing. And they do it without guns, with few exceptions.
So, if you bring up "guns and suicide," people are going to bring up Japan and "suicide despite little-to-no guns."
Any attempt to portray suicide as a gun/gun control issue falls apart when Japan is examined, by and large because there is almost no civilian ownership of guns, yet great numbers of suicides.
In other words, guns and suicide have nothing to do with each other, except that sometimes suicidal people will choose a gun because it is available/easier/a reliable option.
Here's a compromise (in the spirit of Sebastian's suggestion): Don't bring up suicide as a reason to increase gun control and nobody will bring up Japan to show you that suicides still happen despite not having guns available.
"It would be hard to find a worse comparison. Totally lacking in American culture is the honorable notion of suicide which has always been so prevalent in Japan. Completely missing are the samurai warriors and the kamakaze pilots, the centuries of art and literature that elevate the act of suicide to something absolutely foreign to Americans."
ReplyDeleteThree words: Dead is dead.
The kamikaze pilot isn't any less dead than the guy who blows his brains out over breaking up with his girlfriend.
Any attempt to portray suicide as a gun/gun control issue falls apart when Japan is examined, by and large because there is almost no civilian ownership of guns, yet great numbers of suicides.
ReplyDeleteBingo. In other words gun ownership does not cause suicide rates to increase.
Ruffridr again attempts to deflect the issue in some strange, weird direction. Part of this lies in in ignorance; part in deception.
ReplyDeleteIn the UK, suicide rates have been declining steadily over the past two decades. Compared to the US--he UK suicide rate is about 60% that of ours.
Of course, the gunloons love to bring up Japan because they love to pretend there is no difference between cultural attitudes fo suicide. A point missed by MikeB is that insurance companies in Japan will often pay off on suicides--while, in the US, that isn't the case.
The gunloons also don't like the fact there is a wealth of studies showing a strong correlation between suicide victims and gun ownership in the US.
Often, gunloons use Japan to try to make the case that if we didn't have guns, suicides would happen anyway because people would find alternative means of killing themselves. Yet, researchers have established that, too, isn't true. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide do so on impulse--in a moment of panic. Once that moment has passed, nearly all abandon the idea of suicide.
--JadeGold
"The gunloons also don't like the fact there is a wealth of studies showing a strong correlation between suicide victims and gun ownership in the US."
ReplyDeleteGun Free Zone on Edge after Wave of Suicides.
The funny part is none of the suicides involved a gun. It seems just having a really high place to jump off of will satisfy an impulse in a moment of panic.
So by your logic, Jade, there is a strong correlation between suicide victims and living near large drops.
JadeGold, Thanks for adding that point about the life insurance in Japan generally paying on a suicide.
ReplyDeleteWhat some of the others seem to be blind to is that when guns are not available and a suicidal person uses a different means, the chances of survival are higher.
Shrimp said, "Here's a compromise (in the spirit of Sebastian's suggestion): Don't bring up suicide as a reason to increase gun control and nobody will bring up Japan to show you that suicides still happen despite not having guns available."
ReplyDeleteNo deal.
You also said guns and suicides have nothing to do with each other. I disagree.
You seem to agree that the gun is the most efficient killing tool, so why do you resist the idea that gun availability increases the rate of successful suicide attempts? No one is saying a suicidal person won't seek another way to do it if there's no gun around. No one's saying you can't kill yourself by jumping or cutting. What we're saying is the success rate with a gun is higher and that most survivors are glad they survived and don't repeat the desperate gesture.
"Part of this lies in in ignorance; part in deception."
ReplyDeleteThere's no question that someone here is doing the deceiving, JG. But it ain't the pro-gun side.
"In the UK, suicide rates have been declining steadily over the past two decades. Compared to the US--he UK suicide rate is about 60% that of ours."
Really? And you have something to back up that assertion? See, the reason I ask is that in two minutes of looking, I found several articles (Guardian UK online) that completely blow that out of the water.
One article shows that suicides are actually up in the last few years, not down. And comparing the rate of males to males in the UK vs US, the ratio is exactly the same over the last few decades--17.7 per 100K. Females are slightly different, with US at 4.5, and the UK at 5.4 per 100K.
Overall, their rate in the UK has been fairly static, with an average of nearly 6K per year. Some years higher, and some lower, but always around 6K. As for what the rates were like prior to the 1997 gun ban, guess what the average number per year was--anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
That's right class, right around 6K per year. In other words, the banning of guns in the UK has not changed the number of people committing suicide. It would appear that each year, in the UK, about six thousand people will kill themselves, guns or not.
"Yet, researchers have established that, too, isn't true. Most people who seriously contemplate suicide do so on impulse--in a moment of panic. Once that moment has passed, nearly all abandon the idea of suicide."
And you have something to back that up, right JG? Something you can point to?
"What we're saying is the success rate with a gun is higher and that most survivors are glad they survived and don't repeat the desperate gesture."
ReplyDeleteEvidence?? My understanding of the subject is that most "survivors" will do it again, until they are successful.
The only ones that are glad they failed are the ones that weren't really serious about it in the first place, and were only doing it to get attention.
"...so why do you resist the idea that gun availability increases the rate of successful suicide attempts?"
We don't argue that. What we're arguing is that it makes no difference if they use a gun, or a sword, or a tall building. They end up just as dead, and if they don't have one sure method, they'll choose another sure method.
In other words, the rate of successful attempts will remain fairly static. A gun is just one more method, and a good one if one intends to commit suicide. A tall building is a good one, and absent the choice of a gun, would likely become the next choice, or perhaps wandering onto the freeway, or the nearest train tracks, or a bathtub and a toaster cocktail, or gasoline and a match. There are endless ways that someone can end their life, if they are so determined. Removing one possible tool will not change anything, nor will it change someone's mind if they are set on offing themselves.
As for unsuccessful attempts, well, like I said. My understanding on the subject is that they will try again, or they weren't seriously attempting suicide, but looking for attention.
My cousin, with whom I was pretty close (we grew up together), suffers from Bipolar disorder, and one time, when not taking his medications, he put a .45 in his mouth and fired.
ReplyDeleteAmazingly, he survived (must have had the gun angled with the muzzle very much toward the front), but his face is, well, a wreck, even after a seemingly endless parade of surgeries (and he had been a very good-looking guy). His speech is also nearly unintelligible.
This is a tragedy in my family, but the tragedy was not the fault of "gun availability," and to make acquisition of lifesaving firepower more difficult, in order to prevent this sort of thing, is evil.
Jadegold: “Of course, the gunloons love to bring up Japan because they love to pretend there is no difference between cultural attitudes fo suicide.”
ReplyDeleteNo. You have it exactly backwards. We are saying it IS a cultural difference. Read what we just said above and stop being so obtuse. We are NOT trying to make the claim that Japanese want to kill themselves because they are denied access to guns? We’re gun nuts, but not like that!
What is clear to me is that gun control advocates are using suicide as a means to an end, not because preventing suicide is their goal. They see that the majority of people who die by firearms are suicides, so that use those numbers to come up with Kellerman like stats to try and scare people away from gun ownership. They don’t apply the same logic to other means of suicide. If you disagree, prove me wrong. Tell me what your plan is to prevent suicide by drowning, electrocution, falling, trains, hangings, etc… We all care about people not killing themselves, but the effort is best spent in treatment rather than trying to take away means.
An example I can think of other than guns is the Golden Gate Bridge. There is a proposal to spend $50 million to build a net under the bridge. Most people even in bleeding heart liberal anti-gun San Francisco strongly oppose this idea. This is because smart people realize that it won’t prevent suicides, it will only prevent (or rather reduce) suicides on the golden gate bridge. And that could lead to more suicides by BART train which will make them late for work. Where do you stand on this MikeB? I am pretty sure the mortality rate is above that of firearms so don’t pull that “but guns are successful” logic here. Keep in mind the state is bankrupt and $50 million can go a long way towards treatment and health care.
Additionally, I can use Kellerman logic to come up with a stat that would say I am something like 60 times more likely to commit suicide by National Landmark because I live in the bay area. Oh the horrors.
-TS
Assuming that the figure of 6k suicides/year in England is correct and that it is, in fact, static over the last 13 years does not support the contention that lack of available guns doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteThe population of England has increased something like 4% since 1997 (rough estimate, based on this: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/rpe0203.pdf.
Also, there were never, afaia, anything like the number of guns, particularly handguns, in the average british household. False equivalency.
TS, the mind reader, said, "What is clear to me is that gun control advocates are using suicide as a means to an end, not because preventing suicide is their goal."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you pretend to know what's really behind the Brady and Bloomberg movements, too. How about me? Am I like them too?
Let me ask you this, is there any gun control advocate or group who is telling it just like he thinks and not hiding some sinister agenda?
Zorro, Thanks for the personal story. I'm glad you're cousin survived. But, don't you think he perfectly illustrates what I've been saying? He was among the very small percentage who survive a suicide attempt with gun. He was glad to have survived and didn't try it again (I'm hoping).
ReplyDeleteIf some of the other less-fortunate folks had not enjoyed such gun availability, they would be alive today too. It's not evil to strive for that.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteHe was glad to have survived and didn't try it again (I'm hoping).
If some of the other less-fortunate folks had not enjoyed such gun availability, they would be alive today too. It's not evil to strive for that.
Thanks, Mikeb, and no, he hasn't tried again, and that attempt was over a decade ago. His life is very messed up, though.
Trying to prevent suicides is not evil, but using suicide as a club with which to bludgeon gun ownership is. My right to firearms isn't subject to what other people do with theirs. Hell, even a compelling reason to believe that I would commit suicide with a gun is not a legitimate reason to disarm me. My life is, after all, mine to discard if and when I choose.
I wouldn't use a gun to do it, though--no sense giving the VPC and the Brady Bunch another statistic to gloat over.
"Assuming that the figure of 6k suicides/year in England is correct and that it is, in fact, static over the last 13 years does not support the contention that lack of available guns doesn't matter."
ReplyDeleteSure it does. Compare the numbers prior to the 1997 ban, and the numbers after the 1997 ban. Guns were available, and were used to commit suicide prior to the ban. The number of guns available after the ban went down, but the number of suicides did not change significantly, or even much at all.
"The population of England has increased something like 4% since 1997 ..."
Completely irrelevant, since suicide rates are compared to groups of 100K. Also, the number of people offing themselves each year remains largely the same, so it would only change the overall percentage in a slightly downward trend (as the denominator grows, but the numerator stays the same). In fact, if your number is correct, it alone could account for the downward trend that JG has postulated.
"Also, there were never, afaia, anything like the number of guns, particularly handguns, in the average british household. False equivalency."
Further proving the point that guns and the availability of guns will not affect the number of suicides. If anything, it creates yet another "Japan" example.
Nope, not a mind reader. That is why I specifically said you can prove me wrong by telling me your position on removing other means of suicide. I even threw you a softball with the $50 million GGB net. Naturally someone who is for reducing suicide options would support this, right?
ReplyDeleteThere are some fundamental problems with “suicide success rate stats” that you keep mentioning. Namely, how do you define an attempt? Hell, even defining a successful suicide is up to interpretation. When those things are up to interpretation it allows groups like the VPC to come up with “reports” comparing a teenage girl wanting to get her ex-boyfriend’s attention after getting dumped to someone who really wanted to die. All statistics aside, and just using common sense, do you really think someone is more likely to survive stepping in front of bus going 50 MPH than using a gun? Now which one is more available? You’re a smart guy; do you honestly think you couldn’t come up with a surefire way to off yourself with what is available to you (assuming you don’t have a gun)? Even using flawed success rate stats; can you “prove” that Japan as a significantly lower suicide success rate than the US? Not having guns and all…
MikeB: “Let me ask you this, is there any gun control advocate or group who is telling it just like he thinks and not hiding some sinister agenda?”
Well, they all have the agenda of reducing gun ownership [for everyone], and I consider that sinister.
-TS