New research has found that suicide rates are significantly higher in states with high rates of household gun ownership. The study's results appear in the April issue of the Journal of Trauma.
Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health examined nationwide statistics on suicide rates and gun ownership. They found that in the 15 states with the highest numbers of household gun owners, the suicide rate was double that of the 6 states with the lowest numbers of household gun owners. Population sizes among the states were similar.
The study authors stated that while only 5 percent of all suicide attempts involve guns, over 90 percent of all suicide attempts involving guns are fatal. By contrast, 75 percent of suicide attempts involve drug overdoses, but only 3 percent of these are fatal.
Only the gun-rights fanatics will find this surprising, and I'm sure they'll have some verbose ways to explain it away.
"new research"? It's old research for me. Remember when I showed you the correlation with gun ownership and suicide rates? I wonder how much those Harvard guys got paid to do what I did for free..
ReplyDeleteOf course what you can't seem to explain away is how the exact same research for murder rates instead of suicide rates shows no correlation. If guns are so effective at suicide, don't you think it would be true for murder as well? All those things you hate about semi-automatic "high capacity" magazines bears no significance in suicide, so murder should be even more correlated, don't you think? I'm sure you have some verbose way to explain that away.
I went to the data I have collected to show you a valuable point. I am sure I am not looking at identical data of suicide rates and gun ownership rates, but I'll make the same calculations Harvard did as a control. When I compared the bottom 6 states in ownership to the top 15 I show an 83% difference. Not quite "double" but close enough to say our data is comparable. My first point would be to ask why are they comparing 6 to 15? That screams of bias by trying to cut out data that makes their objective weaker. In my dataset, the bottom 6 convieniently included NY and leaves out every state after which weakens thier point. It was the perfect place to cut it off for them (and probably the only way they could use the word "double"). When i include 15 data points on both sides, the 83% difference is nearly cut in half at 44%. Don't you think that is dishonest?
ReplyDeleteContinuing with my point above, if we look at the same data they highlighted (bottom 6 vs top 15), but substitute suicide with murder, the difference is only 19%. So why the big drop? Don't guns aide in the completion of murders? Shouldn't it be a bigger difference because of "rapid fire bullet hoses" (which is obviously insignificant for suicides)? And before you tell me, "but TS, 19% is still proof that guns kill", remember that when you don't arbitrarily cut off data, and include all data in a proper Pearson calculation, we see that the difference is 0%. You still haven't refuted this data or calculation. No one has. Your only answer was to also cut off data that doesn't help you by comparing top 10 vs bottom 10 Brady scores to murder rates. You did that last month, and if I recall your statement of "proof" only had a 5% difference, which statistically speaking proves my point better than yours.
So why the difference?
What happens if you use 6 states on each side?
DeleteOn my data that actually better for you: 108%. They did not use the same source so they may have been drawing their boundaries to include something else favorable to them. My point is why draw boundaries? Just include all the data!
DeleteYou really only have two viable answers: correlation does not equal causation, so maybe guns are not driving suicide rates, OR guns cause suicide and murder- but also have a positive effect in preventing murder, whereas they don't have a positive effect in preventing suicide. Ok, maybe there are a few gun lovers who are contemplating suicide, but are worried about who will take care of their collection if they are gone. But I'll call that negligible and say guns don't prevent suicide.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, Mike, I would call my explanation "verbose", but also thorough and accurate. Can you tell me what's wrong with it?
ReplyDeleteWell, one thing I find compelling is the claim that attempted suicides with a gun are so much more likely to be successful than with pills or razor blades.
DeleteBut not ropes, trains, and bridges.
DeleteAlso, what about attempted murder with a firearm? Is that more likely to be successful than with a different weapon? Of course you say "yes", but if you are hanging your hat on the suicide data being because of guns you have some explaining to do as to why it is not there for murder. Is it because guns also prevent murder because they are also used for good?
Since the source article doesn't name any of the states in the study, I don't see how to assess this. Suicide cannot be studied without reference to many factors, including culture, the economy, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, Canada and Ireland have suicide rates at the same level as ours, while they have much lower rates of firearms ownership and much stricter laws.
And as always, we belong only to ourselves. Choice means choice.
1. TS didn't seem to be hampered by that.
Delete2. comparisons with other countries are inadmissable - new rule.
You mean no more references to how Europe and Britain in particular are so much better than we are? Or will you only make comparisons when they're good for your side?
Delete1. Yes I am hampered by that. They didn't provide their complete data. It is just that I happened to have complied my own set from last year and used that.
DeleteAny nary a peep about Japan's suicide rate which dwarfs ours on a per 100k basis, and their access to firearms is virtually non-existent.
DeleteWho gives a shit?
ReplyDeleteYou calling that "verbose"?
No, that was an eloquent and brief comment deriving from your admirable persona. You and your buddy Mike V., tough guys who don't give a shit about anybody else. Princes you are.
DeleteIt's not that I (and presumably Mr. Vanderboegh, but I'll not presume to speak for him) "don't give a shit about anybody else."
DeleteIt's just that I refuse to strip my home of defensive weaponry, just because other people are supposedly (but not at all provably) more likely to exercise their right to shuffle off this mortal coil when they choose to do so.
Just as I will not tolerate the denial of my right to effective defense of my life, I will not make any attempt to deny others the right to end their own.