Need Help ... QUICK!

FUD

Moderator
How do I reply to this with cold hard facts? <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>With the use of firearms responsible for 60% of all suicides in the US, just having a gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide, especially in the case of teenagers.

"There is a 30-fold increase in risk for suicide in adolescents if there is a gun in the home," the University of Pittsburgh's Dr. David A. Brent said at the Foundation for Suicide Prevention symposium held here this week. Dr. Brent is co-founder and director of services for Teens at Risk in Pennsylvania, a suicide prevention program. The risk exists for both male and female teens, he said.

Dr. Brent noted that the increases in the rates of youth suicide and suicide among young African-American men in recent years are primarily due to an increase in the rate of suicide by firearms. "In light of these findings, it would seem natural for clinicians to recommend that guns be removed from homes of all at-risk individuals, and that guns never be stored loaded, as they bestow an increased risk of suicide even to those without evidence of mental illness," he said.

In general, handguns seem to be associated with greater risk than long guns, and loaded guns present a higher risk than unloaded guns, but even locked guns convey a higher risk than no guns, Dr. Brent explained.

In one trial of depressed adolescents conducted by Dr. Brent and colleagues, only 26.9% of parents of teens who had guns in the home removed them, and 17.7% of those without guns in the home when the study began actually acquired them over a 2-year period.

"This means we need to think of better ways to talk to parents about this issue of removing guns from the home," Dr. Brent said. He thinks that addressing both parents on the issue is vital. Most often, a gun belongs to the father, but the physician is in touch only with the mother, who brings the teen in for treatment.

"Understanding the reason why people have guns, and negotiating about how to keep them in the home — in a less risky manner — may result in greater compliance and result in greater reduction in suicide risk," he added.

Changes in gun laws seem to bring lower rates of suicide by firearms, Dr. Brent said, although studies are not yet conclusive. A more restrictive firearms law enacted in Washington, DC, was followed by a 23% decline in suicide without a change in rates in the surrounding suburban counties, and without indication that other suicide methods were substituted for firearms. [/quote]
 
FUD,

1. This sounds like a load of cr@p invented by a guy in Pennsylvania who wants to obtain a bigger empire for himself through the discovery of a crisis. Where is Brent's documentation? Wouldn't this mean that NRA members' children have a thirty-fold greater risk of suicide than in homes where no guns are present? Is this born out by the facts?

2. "Dr. Brent noted that the increases in the rates of youth suicide and suicide among young African-American men in recent years are primarily due to an increase in the rate of suicide by firearms." This is not a true causal relationship--differences in statistical means of suicide do not "cause" additional suicides.

3. Even if it were possible to extrapolate from the suicide "data" gathered in Washington, D.C., the increase in violent crime there must be taken into account in evaluating whether removal of weapons from homes would result in a net increase or decrease in dead people (some of whom wanted to live).

Good luck.
 
Ledbetter leaves little to add, but I'll give it a try:

People who really want to off themselves will do it. I worked on a psych ward, and I remember a patient on suicide precautions shoving an orange down his own throat. There was no way to save him.

But the issue Dr. Brent raises goes beyond medicine. By extending his authority into the home, he's participating in the ever expanding psychiatrization of society, with the eventual effect of turning the nation into a hospital, run by shrinks and nurses, inhabited by sensitive neurotics able to relate to other humans only in a therapeutic setting.

Ugh!
 
If you want an example, give him Japan. They have as many, if not more suicides in a year than we have firearm fatalities total. Oh yeah, they also have some of the strictest gun control in the world. I'm sorry I can't give a solid source at this time, but there's bound to be a few out there.
 
Yeah but in japan they think that suicide is honorable. Funny hing was that these people commit suicide by jumping in front of trains. The people in the country were very upset, not because people were getting killed, but that when these accidents would occur, they would be late to work!


Ok so much for the side note. Fud, you could tell them its the parents fault for not keeping the guns out of these kids hands. Don't get me wrong I am as pro gun as they come, but some parents are so careless. These bs trigger locks are a false sense of security. I have a safe and the gun I have on me is with me at all times and before i go to sleep I put it next to my bed. I don't have kids, but I believe in always being prepared. Isn't that the reason why we all carry isn't it?



------------------
MEMBER NRA, GOA, JPFO.
 
This insightful commentary and came to me a breath of fresh air amongst the rhetoric, mostly moans and groans from the firearms owners interspersed with facts and figures to
complicated for the air-head antis:

Federal Study Refutes Anti-Gun Arguments

Authoritarians of all stripes are using the recent school shooting tragedies to justify depriving Americans of essential and ndamental liberties.Anti-gun forces are calling for more restrictions on the right to
keep and bear arms. Enemies of free expression are calling for censorship of the
Internet, movies, video games, and other media. Many are demanding that
government schools be made even more like prisons than they already are. All
this, of course, is in the name of protecting children and preventing future
violence. Which makes this excerpt from a recent syndicated column by libertarian
writer Vin Suprynowicz especially timely:
".isn't it too bad the government has never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a child's likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun?

"Um, actually ... they have.

*****
"The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their indings? >"Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0
percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do
so (21 >"Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of
street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in the house (24 >percent) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.) >"Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned drugs
(13>percent) than children who get llegal guns (41 percent.) >"Most strikingly, the study found: 'Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns)
and are even slightly less d elinquent than non-owners of guns.' "This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern welfare state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids
to act 'responsibly' was precisely to give them some 'responsibility.' Why would we
assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn't also be more responsible in his other behaviors?"
 
Don't know if this is what you are looking for but I am sure it will help as your Suicide info is imbedded in there, http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm

The 43: 1 Fallacy
by Dave Kopel
You should not own a gun for home protection! Don't you realize that you are 43 times as likely to shoot someone in your family as to shoot a criminal? This "43 times" figure is all-time favorite factoid of gun prohibition lobby. Is it true? Of course not. But the "43 times" figure is still worth examining carefully, because it is a perfect example of how the gun prohibitionists create seemingly-authoritative but worthless numbers to support their agenda.

The source of the "43 to 1" is a study of firearms deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur Kellerman and Donald Reay. Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared the number to the number of firearms deaths which were classified as justifiable homicide. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.

So have the two doctors, both of whom are strong supporters of the anti-gun movement, proven that the perils of having a gun in the home far exceed the protection offered by a gun. Well, not exactly.

Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In fact, in the "43 to 1" figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths. (For gun deaths in all places, not just the home, suicides account for about 2/3 of the total.)

Counting a gun suicide as part of the increased risk of having a gun in the home is appropriate only if the presence of a gun facilitates a "successful" suicide that would not otherwise occur. But most research suggests that guns do not cause suicide.

In the book Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck analyzed suicide data for every America city with a population over 100,000, and found no evidence that any form of gun control (including handgun prohibition) had an effect on the total suicide rate. Gun control did sometimes reduce gun suicide, but not overall suicide.

Notably, Japan, which prohibits handguns and rifles entirely, and regulates long guns very severely, has a suicide rate over twice the U.S. level. Many of the northern and central European nations also have very high suicide rates to accompany their strict gun laws. (Of course if you have any suspicion that anybody in your home might be suicidal, it would hardly be a mistake for you to ensure that they do not have ready access to guns, tranquilizers, or other potentially lethal items.)

Putting aside the suicides, the Kellerman/Reay figures show 2.39 accidental or criminal firearms deaths in the home for every justifiable fatal shooting. Now "2 to 1" is a lot less dramatic than "43 to 1," but we still have more unjustifiable gun deaths than justifiable gun deaths in the home.

But just as many other people who commit suicide with a gun would use an equally lethal method if guns are unavailable, many of the people who kill themselves in firearms accidents may also be bent on destruction, regardless of the means. One study of gun accident victims found that they were "disproportionately involved in other accidents, violent crime and heavy drinking." (Philip Cook, The Role of Firearms in Violent Crime: An Interpretative Review of the Literature, in Criminal Violence.)

Or as another researcher put it, "the psychological profile of the accident-prone suggests the same kind of aggressiveness shown by most murderers." (Roger Lane, "On the Social Meaning of Homicide Trends in America," in Violence in America, vol. I, 1989.)

Without guns, many accident victims would find some other way to kill themselves "accidentally," such as by reckless driving.

So by counting accidents and suicides, the anti-gun doctors end up including a very large number of fatalities that would have occurred anyway, even if there were no gun in the home.

Now how about the self-defense homicides, which Kellerman and Reay found to be so rare? Well, the reason that they found such a low total was that they excluded many cases of lawful self-defense. Kellerman and Reay did not count in the self-defense total any of the cases where a person who had shot an attacker was acquitted on grounds of self-defense, or cases where a conviction was reversed on appeal on grounds related to self-defense. Yet forty percent of women who appeal their murder convictions have the conviction reversed on appeal. ("Fighting Back," Time, Jan. 18, 1993.)

In short, the "43 to 1" figure is based on the totally implausible assumption that all the people who die in gun suicides and gun accidents would not kill themselves with something else if guns were unavailable. And the figure is also based on drastically undercounting the number of lawful self-defense homicides.

Moreover, counting dead criminals to measure the efficacy of civilian handgun ownership is ridiculous. Do we measure the efficacy of our police forces by counting how many people the police lawfully kill every year? The benefits of the police -- and of home handgun ownership -- are not measured by the number of dead criminals, but by the number of crimes prevented. Kellerman and Reay's simplistic counting of corpses tells us nothing about the real safety value of gun ownership for protection.

Finally, Kellerman and Reay ignore the most important factor of all in assessing the risks of gun ownership: whose home the gun is in. You don't need a medical researcher to tell you that guns can be misused when in the homes of persons with mental illness related to violence; or the homes of persons prone to self-destructive, reckless behavior; or the homes of persons with arrest records for violent felonies; or the homes where the police have had to intervene to deal with domestic violence. These are the homes from which the vast majority of handgun fatalities come.

To study these high-risk homes and to jump to conclusions about the general population is totally illogical. We know that possession of an automobile by an alcoholic who is prone to drunk driving may pose a serious health risk. But proof that autos in the hands of alcoholics may be risky doesn't prove that autos in the hands of non-alcoholics are risky. Yet the famous Seattle "43 to 1" figure is based on lumping the homes of violent felons, alcoholics, and other disturbed people in with the population as a whole. The study fails to distinguish between the large risks of guns in the hands of dangerous people, with the tiny risks (and large benefits) of guns in the hands of ordinary people.

But then again, treating ordinary people according to standards that would be appropriate for criminals and the violently insane is what the gun control movement is all about




------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
Thanks to all that replied. I'm taking everything offered (including the data on the links) and putting together a response.
 
FUD here is yet another that may be a bit more insightful
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsuic.html

Discussion
Gun suicides outnumber gun homicides. In 1995, there were 18,503 gun suicides compared to 13,790 firearm homicides (Dept. of Health and Human Services, July 1997 and FBI Uniform Crime Report, 1995). In the United States, guns are the most common method of suicide (61%). (See also U.S. Injury Mortality Statistics)

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.

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." (See gun supply chart).

In 1972 the suicide rate was 11.9 per 100,000. After this "arms build-up" the total suicide rate remained unchanged at 11.9 in 1995




------------------
...“ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” --Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

Take care and God Bless, El Jefe

The ANTI-HCI Site!
 
Concise response:

Some 20,000 people commit suicide in Japan annually. There are no guns at all, yet they still manage to kill themselves at a rate exceeding the US suicide rate. Go figure.
 
Back
Top