Skip to comments.Suicide Risk Linked to Rates of Gun Ownership, Political Conservatism
Posted on 04/06/2013 3:51:16 AM PDT by Lowell1775
snip---------------- With few exceptions, states with the highest rates of gun ownership -- for example, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alabama, and West Virginia -- also tended to have the highest suicide rates. These states were also carried overwhelmingly by George Bush in the 2000 presidential election.
snip-------------------- "In states with a higher percentage of the population that belong to a church, it is plausible that religious views and doctrine about suicide are well-known through sacred texts, theology or sermons, and adherents may be less likely to commit suicide."
snip--------------------- The sociologist said that although policies aimed at seriously regulating firearm ownership would reduce individual suicides, such policies are likely to fail not because they do not work, but because many Americans remain opposed to meaningful gun control, arguing that they have a constitutional right to bear arms. "Even modest efforts to reform gun laws are typically met with vehement opposition. There are also millions of Americans who continue to believe that keeping a gun at home protects them against intruders, even though research shows that when a gun is used in the home, it is often against household members in the commission of homicides or suicides," Kposowa said. "Adding to the widespread misinformation about guns is that powerful pro-gun lobby groups, especially the National Rifle Association, seem to have a stranglehold on legislators and U.S. policy, and a politician who calls for gun control may be targeted for removal from office in a future election by a gun lobby," he added. Although total suicide rates in the U.S. are not much higher than in other Western countries, without changes in gun-ownership policies "the United States is poised to remain a very armed and potentially dangerous nation for its inhabitants for years to come."
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
I won't even take the easy shots from you.
What flaws do you see in his study and conclusions?
Remember, he is a professional and highly trained in his art. He is obviously discerning things far beyond what you and I are capable of.
Website has a map that adds even more "duh!" to the obvious he is missing.
I was forced to excerpt it due to size.
The entire article will start your weekend with a laugh and confidence in ultimate victory......because the educated elite in the opposition are morons.
The PhD may not be stupid, but he is blind.
Whatever they pay this guy....they shouldn't.
It's not a matter of if but when.
IOW, Americans (actually mostly American men) commit suicide using a gun because one is available. If it were not available, the suicide method would change but probably not the result.
What has everyone got against suicide?
What’s all this I hear about Sue Inside? If Sue wants to stay inside , let her and leave her alone...oh...never mind...
I’d Fisk that article all the way down, but it would use up the Internet. Would make an excellent case study for a Logic 101 class though. “science Daily” indeed!
Any beginning Sociology textbook will debunk this.
The earliest Sociologist who studied suicide, Emile Durckheim, recognized that suicide is higher is sparsely populated areas, where people have fewer opportunities to bond with their neighbors. Sparsely populated areas are usually rural, and have more conservative tendencies.
It has nothing to do with church membership, or gun ownership. In fact, church membership inhibits social deviance.
The counties where Obama won have had the most mass shootings; Pima Co, Arapahoe and Adams counties, Fairfield County, and Milwaukee County
Whew! I thought this researcher had found us out, but i don’t see it in Augustine’s study.
Y’all KNOW it’s only a matter of time before they find about all the Russian Roulette parties we conservatives are so fond of having, don’t you? So try extra hard to keep it on the downlow, aight?!
“The PhD may not be stupid, but he is blind.”
The first question you ask your customer is “What are you trying to prove?” Then, you craft your work to answer that question to the customer’s satisfaction. That way you get repeat business. If you tell the truth not only won’t it get published, but you’ll never got his business again.
Bering a PhD. is a business proposition, not for science.
Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it’s too late, and...
The game of life is hard to play
I’m gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I’ll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.
The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I’m beat
and to another give my seat
for that’s the only painless feat.
The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn’t hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...
A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
‘is it to be or not to be’
and I replied ‘oh why ask me?’
‘Cause suicide is painless
it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you choose.
I find this conclusion very interesting. I grew up in one of the more rural parts of this country, and never knew what suicide was. The first suicide I encountered was in my mid 20s, in a urban setting. And I know of more suicides living near the Denver area than I ever knew. If anything, I find urban living much more isolating that rural living.
I lived in Albuquerque, never knew my neighbors, and in a few larger towns here in CO, never really knew my neighbors. I moved recently to a very small town, I know all of my neighbors by name, we visit, neighborhood bbqs, etc.
For example, let's just take the first 3 states mentioned, who are obviously mentioned first because they have the most significance, right?
The "average" rate is 11.82 per 100,000 residents (top of 2nd, bottom of 3rd quartiles). The very highest must be the 20.08 mentioned.
So let's suppose that we calculate what it would take to move the very "worst" states into the "below average" group, or say from 20.08 to 11.81 (and in fact only one of the 3 could have that highest number anyway)
State / Population 2010 / suicides if 20.08 / suicides if 11.81 / Difference AK / 710,231 / 142 / 83 / 59 MT / 989,415 / 198 / 116 / 82 WY / 563,626 / 113 / 66 / 47 total of 3 / 2,262,000 / 453 / 265 / 188
And so, we can see that if a grand total of 188 fewer people in 3 states had committed suicide*, this study would be absolutely undercut and no left-wing conclusion would even be possible.
(*) and do we know that the years 2000-2006 that were used were NOT cherry-picked to match the predetermined conclusion? Sounds like global shooting to me.
The entire article is a publish or perish extrapolation imagination.
That was fun.
If true, why exactly would the libtards care?
Conservatives kill themselves. Only a few.
Liberals/Progressives kill others. By the thousands.
End of argument.
And you know what comes after that.
Imagine the bottom cartoon aimed against blacks or Hispanics. The "cartoonist" would be fired and exiled. But white conservative Christians are fair game for the liberal hate campaign, getting their base ready for pogroms or worse.
Seriously? I could have sworn that the mere presence of a firearm was all it took to make the final push. They have such hypnotic powers that it’s almost as if they really were alive and not inanimate objects. (sarc switch off) After doing a quick scan of the article, I found the old “you are at a higher risk with a gun in the house” crap in there. As well as blaming the NRA for all the social ills of the country so in the end, just your usual University of kalifornia Riverside researcher who spent a certain amount of tax dollars to tell us..........nothing.
The U.S. ranks 34th in the world in sucide rate per 100k. There’s quite a few socialist or severe gun restriction countries ahead of the U.S. Bogus study. Like if someone wanted to commit suicide, they’d only do it with a gun. Complete and utter bovine excrement.
An excellent reply Arliss. Until I read the article I thought Colorado was determined to be somewhere between California and New York as the least free States go and anything but conservative. Our new State Advertisement ought show two homosexuals dressed as they would for a formal church wedding with shackles on and rainblow baloons—and a lot of drugs —needles and pot.Colorful Colorado.
theme song for M A S H. Even though I have guns I have no intention of allowing the enemy claim I committed suicide with any of them. If I decide I am ready to check out early—there are plastic bags and duct tape— overpasses -and moderate traffic—a river— and that splendid place called Cold shivers point on the Colorado National Monument,not to forget kitchen knives, plenty of available gasoline and bic lighters to flick—one would have to bee pretty knee-jerk desperate or just plain brain-dead to choose suicide by firearm.
Damn straight! Give these pukes from "Science Daily" something to think about while they spew their propaganda.
“What has everyone got against suicide?”
Progressives have nothing against suicide, as long as it is government sanctioned and carried out under the supervision of a government licensed professional.
It is suicide outside of government control that they do not like.
One only has to look at the Soviet Union to understand that mindset completely.
You check out on THEIR schedule, not YOURS.
They OWN you, dontcha know...
They should ban carrots.
Every single person who has eaten a carrot has died.....eventually.
The left favors suicide last I checked.
They just don’t like the competition. Surprised they didn’t call them scabs.
The Colorado I knew in the 60’s/70’s was very conservative.
So sad. Let the liberals move in and they take over and destroy freedom wherever they find it.
PS: My tag is Arlis with one “s”. I think “Arliss” was a TV show on some weird cable network - didn’t have it, didn’t watch it.....no relation....
You should check out this monograph by Jon J. Ray. I think you would find it interesting, given you tag line:
Jon J. Ray is a brilliant Australian academic and businessman, now retired.
Good point. Progressives fight to legalize "physician assisted suicide" but consider suicide without the assistance of a physician to be some kind of terrible problem. But they both end up with the exact same result.
First, many of the deaths described as due to guns are, in fact, suicides. Accidental deaths due to guns, in contrast, are rare. And, homicides appears not correlated with guns, meaning that as many homicides are deterred by guns as are facilitated by guns. So, at least the debate is getting focused on facts.
Second, the overall suicide rate in the U.S. is not bad compared to other advanced democratic countries. While we might be able to do something about lowering the rate, suicide prevention is as much a problem in western European countries that do not have guns as it is in this country. And, it could be that by taking away guns and in other ways becoming like western European countries, we have no impact on suicide.
Now, third, there is a correlation between the presence of guns and suicide within the U.S. The explanation for this correlation is that suicide, esp. among younger people, is impulsive; and, in a moment of weakness, easy access to a gun can result in a suicide. Further, if the suicide had not occurred, suicide might be avoided (as opposed to merely postponed), due to the individual seeking help, or being subject to an intervention.
If we can deal with the access to guns of the mentally ill, while preserving our freedom, we might be able to actually lower suicide rates (and also lower the number of mass murder events).
To a liberal, point #3 says take freedom away from everybody so that those among us who are vulnerable will not feel “singled out.”
To a conservative, point #3 says we - as parents, teachers, family physicians and mental health professionals - should be on guard for indications of mental illness, and willing and able to intervene upon probable cause.
As conservatives, we would have to balance 4th Amendment provisions for privacy and 5th Amendment provisions for due process. We could not just order drone strikes, or confiscate guns, or compile a “national data base.” Of course, this means we, as conservatives, wouldn’t claim that we could prevent every mentally ill mass murder event or every suicide.
On the other hand, we would have a society in which being free made life worth living. Not a society of slaves. And, few people would seek relief from slavery through alcoholism, drugs, suicide, and other socially-irresponiable and self-destructive behaviors.
The actual numbers are dramatic. Take Connecticut, for instance. The Washington Post lists 134 black homicide victims per million residents vs. 6 white homicide victims per million residents.
Trying to conflate suicides with homicides is a tactic that the left will use to claim that firearms are dangerous to everybody, even the people in rural areas who have lots of guns and very limited gun regulations but very low crime rates. They are already doing so, using statistics that include suicide rates to justify magazine restrictions and bans on semi-automatic weapons, as if either topic had anything to do with suicide rates.
This is just a typical study that really is more a study in the prevalence of bad studies. There are any number of factors that contribute to suicide. One big one is divorce. Children of divorced parents are several times over more likely to consider suicide. West Virginia has a fairly depressed economy which I’m sure contributes. I know of two suicides personally. One lady committed suicide right after being served divorce papers another overdosed on pills due to a complicated relationship I believe with a married man. Neither used guns.
Lets get real though the primary contributors to suicide are substance abuse and mental disorder. People use poisoning and hanging that when taken together are the preferred method of suicide for nearly as many as are guns and women are more likely to use those methods than guns. This whole study is really just a deflection from the individuals because suicide is something that doesn’t arise from the gun it is something that arises in an individual.
The number of suicides in 2012 were somewhere around 36k which is fairly small and historically the death rate due to suicide has decreased since 1950 though it has increased since 2000 and it jumped substantially in 2012. There are several surveys that suggest gun ownership is in a 30 year decline even though gun sales are up. I’m not sure I can trust surveys because I don’t know how readily people would be to answer honestly on the question of owning a gun.
The substance abuse angle should be particularly of interest with the push to legalize more recreational drugs. This has been shown to contribute to suicidal thoughts significantly. Also if we look at other countries where guns are not readily available the suicide rate is not markedly different. The rate for the UK in was 11.8 and the US 12.0 and Cuba was 12.3 and anti gun France a whopping 15.0. So this is clearly a stupid study trying to make a link that just isn’t there.
Not only that, it shows the absurdity that strict guns laws would have a substantive effect on suicide rates. Someone can just suck down a bottle of pills instead, a lot less messy.
None of the gun laws proposed would make the slightest difference in Suicide rates.
More background checks? No effect.
Magazine bans? Suicides do not require more than one shot.
Modern Sporting Rifle bans? See above.
The only thing that might actually have an effect on *gun suicides* not the overall rate, is massive gun confiscations, which is what the “progressives” all claim is something they would never do...
So, either they are lying, stupid, or ignorant, or some combination of all three. The left is very good at deceiving itself.
Well thank God he left GA off the list. We are now free to bitterly cling to our guns, religion and Lithium. :-)
Thanks for that link...I will check it out.
The Obamnation Journalists are pulling out THEIR “big guns.”
Documentation File on the harmful impact of the Counterculture of Obamanation on America.
Barry Soetoro, aka B. Hussein Obama, first Inaugural quote: I want to FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA!
being highly educated does not equate to being highly intelligent. and being highly educated in one area does not mean knowing everything about evry other area. highly educated people tend to be so stupid outside of their area of expertise thay don’t even know they are stupid.
This passage stuck out at me: "...So what is conservatism? Basically it is caution based on a perception that the world is an unpredictable, dangerous and often hostile place. So change is not rejected. It is in fact, as just said, usually desired. But it is approached in a skeptical, step by step way to ensure that its effects are beneficial or at least benign..."
I wrote this a few years back:
This is the weakness of liberalism.
Notice that when Conservatives enter office, there is far less likely to be an attitude of "We are going to completely stop doing things the way our predecessor did them, and we are going to do them our way from now on." It is usually a very measured approach, letting things go the way they did for a period of time before making changes, and those changes are usually incremental, not radical.
This is because conservatives understand that you do not need to re-invent the wheel. The problem with reinventing wheels, policies or anything else is that you often make the same mistakes the first inventor did, unless you take extra care to see why those mistakes occurred.
Liberals do not have the humility to understand this. It is why liberals are all socialists to a greater or lesser degree and believe in big, centralized government.
I use the analogy of a jumbo jet flying through the sky on auto-pilot, with no flight crew present, and a passenger opens the cockpit door and enters.
Conservatives would enter the cockpit, look around and take stock of the situation. They might look at the fuel gauge, look at the attitude and get a general feel of the situation. They probably wouldn't touch anything right away, realizing that there are circumstances where doing something for the sake of doing something can be far more harmful. They might decide to put the headphones on, see if they can communicate with anyone, see if they can hear anything, and so on. They would probably try to find someone who could talk them down, and failing that, might try to figure out if there was anyone onboard with piloting experience.
Liberals would enter the cockpit, look around and scream out "Nobody is flying the plane!" They would jump in the pilot seat, grab the control stick and shout "We have to get this plane on the ground or we're all going to die!" They might dive the plane towards the earth, looking frantically for an airport, making the assumption that of course, you could fly a plane from the sky "just by looking around, there is the airport over there, let's get to it!" without realizing that is one of the most difficult things even for veteran pilots who might have the advantage of at least being familiar with the area and comfortable with trying to pick up landmarks from the air. They would dive the plane, then suddenly realize they don't know how to turn the plane, how to apply rudder or lower the flaps and landing gear (probably wouldn't even realize those were needed) and would simultaneously realize they had no idea how to stabilize the plane in level flight or re-engage the autopilot. The passengers, feeling the gyrations of the aircraft and knowing something was wrong, would begin to panic, and before you know it, there would be a huge flaming hole in the ground.
It is the same thing with a military campaign, an economic crisis, an environmental issue, solving an education or social problem, or just about anything else you can think of.
Liberals see the levers, dials and controls of something powerful and complicated, and instead of figuring out how they work or even if they work, they make the assumption that no matter what, they can control this better than anyone or anything that controlled it before. They don't even think that sometimes putting your hands on the levers of something powerful is much, much more damaging than keeping your bloody damned hands OFF of them.
If it is a military campaign, they get in their armchairs and begin looking at the maps, targets and forces involved, pick up the phones and begin issuing orders and edicts to generals. You end up with the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Desert One and Mogadishu.
On environmental issues you end up with some kind of foreign species of fish that you brought in from South America to control some other kind of issue, and it ends up destroying the native ecosystem, or on a global scale, you destroy the ability to obtain energy for an energy dependent world because you need to save the existence of the Alaskan Spotted Lugwort. They determined through their "science" that DDT made the egg shells of predatory birds thin causing their populations to decrease, and viewing it as a canary in a coal mine, outlawed DDT, thereby condemning tens of millions of people (or over the years, perhaps even hundreds of millions) to misery and death from insect borne diseases such as malaria. Even worse, you end up with liberals trying to deliberately destroy industry and economies, an attempt to plunge the entire western world into a depression, and they base their desire to do this on "Global Warming". To sum up this particular angle and encapsulate the liberal mindset on all these issues, but most importantly environmental ones, remember this quote from a feminist wall mural I see in Cambridge, MA: "INDICATION OF HARM, NOT PROOF OF HARM IS OUR CALL TO ACTION". Look well upon that quote...it sums up liberalism in one compact line.
If it is a economic or social issue, they begin to make policy and throw money at it without even considering for a single damned second if what they are doing is really going to produce the expected result. If it doesn't help or makes things worse, they simply throw more money and legislation at the issue, without bothering to dismantle the agencies or defund what they did before that failed miserably. In this, you end up with Rent Control (a liberal invention which destroys the availability of affordable housing), Social Security (a liberal invention, a Ponzi scheme on a grand scale that gave people the false security they didn't have to save for themselves) the Great Society, Welfare, School Busing, declining ability of students and failing schools, disintegration of the family and soon, socialism and Third World Squalor.
And folks, this new President, is steeped up to his oversized jug-handled ears in the arrogance and ignorance of Liberalism. He is a racist, socialist and marxist. He believes it to the core, and he is now the most powerful man in the world.
We have a problem.
Very well said. Jon J. Ray is brilliant, and virtually unknown.
Your aircraft analogy is superb.
I was VERY impressed with that link...thanks again for posting it.
I am sure your will help spread his work around. He deserves much more exposure.
Yes we do. And it is a problem that will only get worse. It is a problem that the Nation, as it was envisioned, will not survive.
The problem is not obama. obama is only the symptom of the problem. He is the evidence that there is a problem. The problem is the people who put the obamas in positions of power. It is a problem that the Founding Fathers understood all too well. That problem is stupid people voting. People who have no "skin" in the game, or issue voting on said issue. To illustrate: Non property owners voting to increase property taxes.
Over the years, the Court decisions and leglative actions have so destroyed the protections and checks and balances the Founding Fathers had given us. One example is the Direct Election of Senators. They Amended the Constitution for this one. In time this gave us the Ted Kennedys, the Robert Byrds, etal. Prior to this, the State Governors appointed their Senators. This ensured that no one individual built a dynasty.
To make a long story short we have degenerated to the point where we have become a Nation of these who work for a living and those who vote for a living. And at this point in time and for the forseeable future , there are more here who vote for a living than those who work for a living. no company, no organization, no Nation can survive after its makeup consists of more takers than contributors. And that, My FRiend, is where we are now.
Well said. If anything fills me with foreboding for the future of this republic, it is not that Obama is President, but that the electorate of this country would elect a man who is a Marxist, a socialist, a racist and a radical, and not just once, but twice.
Amazing, really. In our lifetime.
And, I agree with you on the direct election of senators. It is just another weakening of states rights. Before the 17th amendments, senators were expected to be advocates for their states. After the 17th amendment, they just became beholden to the Federal government.
So the only good studies are the ones that support your preconceptions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.