Anti's New Scare Tactic in the Face of Heller Decision.

USAFNoDak

New member
I must have read five articles already that have focused on the use of guns and why the decision in Heller will ultimately endanger more lives, outside of any criminal misuse of firearms. What is the new bogeyman? Suicides!

The anti's are quickly jumping on the bandwagon to trumpet how the Heller decision will put more people at risk. For you see, according to the anti's, the presence of a firearm will increase your risk for suicide. In addition, other members of your family will have an increased risk of suicide. According to the anti's, the firearm is the most "successful" means of committing suicide. Having a gun in the home, especially one which is stored in such a way as to make it readily available for self defense, is a huge risk to the owner and his, or her, family.

Here's an example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html

Packing Protection or Packing Suicide Risk?

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, July 7, 2008; Page A02


Seventeen years ago, a couple of criminologists at the University of Maryland published an interesting paper about the 1976 District ban on handguns -- a ban that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court on the grounds it was inimical to the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms to protect themselves.

The researchers employed a simple procedure: They tabulated all the suicides that had taken place in Washington between 1968 and 1987. Colin Loftin and David McDowall found that the gun ban correlated with an abrupt 25 percent decline in suicides in the city.

Loftin and McDowall, who now work at the University at Albany, part of the State University of New York, also tabulated suicide rates in Maryland and Virginia over the same period, to test whether suicide rates just happened to be declining in the entire region. There was no difference in the suicide rate in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs before and after the D.C. gun ban. The researchers also tabulated the kinds of suicide that declined in Washington: The 25 percent decline was entirely driven by a decline in firearm-related suicide.

There are many ways to read the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, but all the versions point to one core idea: Americans have the right to own guns to protect themselves against outside threats, whether the danger comes from a school shooter, a vicious mugger, a robber breaking into a house, a lawless neighborhood -- even the government itself.


What the authors of the Second Amendment did not foresee, however, is that when people own a gun, they unwittingly raise their risk of getting hurt and killed -- because the odds that they will one day use their gun to commit suicide are much larger than the odds they will use their gun to defend themselves against intruders, muggers and killers.

States with high rates of gun ownership -- Alabama, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico -- have suicide rates that are more than double the suicide rate in states with low rates of gun ownership, such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and New York, said Matthew Miller, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health. The difference is not because people in gun-owning states are more suicidal than people in states where fewer people own guns, but that suicide attempts in states with lots of guns produce many more completed suicides.

"The evidence is overwhelming," said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard. "There are a dozen case-controlled studies, all of which show the gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide for the gun owner, for the spouse, for the gun owner's children."

Turning a gun on ourselves, or having a family member turn a gun on someone in the household, doesn't intuitively feel as real a risk as muggers, robbers and murderers. Given the choice between trusting our intuitions and trusting the evidence, most of us go with our gut.

If TV dramas about cops and violence were to actually depict the reality of how death and mayhem usually unfold in America, however, these are the scenarios that would stream into our homes each night: An elderly widower, lonely beyond words, shoots himself. A middle-aged executive, who has lost everything in an economic downturn, throws herself off a tall building. Two teenagers pull a Romeo-and-Juliet-style suicide as a protest against an uncaring world.

The reason we can be sure that suicide -- and not assaults, break-ins, muggings, school shootings and other fatal attacks by sinister strangers -- would account for most of the stories is that suicide dwarfs homicide as a killer in the United States. There were 32,637 suicides in the country in 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available. That year, the collective homicidal mayhem caused by domestic abusers, violent criminals, gang fights, drug wars, break-ins, shootouts with cops, accidental gun discharges and cold, premeditated murder produced 18,538 deaths.

Even the risk of terrorism doesn't begin to come close to the risk of suicide.

Only a tiny fraction of the 400,000 suicide attempts that bring Americans into emergency rooms each year involve guns. But because guns are so lethal, 17,002 of all suicides in 2005 -- 52 percent -- involved people shooting themselves.

The grimness of these statistics repeats itself endlessly, year after year, but makes no difference to our collective fantasies and fears about violence -- and the reasons millions of people buy handguns for "protection." Muggers, robbers and gangs feel scary. Most people don't think of themselves as potential threats -- after all, doesn't suicide happen only to the insane?

Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide is usually an act of impulsive desperation -- an impulse that passes. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not go on to kill themselves later on. Gun owners are no more likely than non-gun-owners to be suicidal. But within the window of a mad impulse, people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means.

"If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," Harvard's Miller said. "There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold."


What they ignore is how many times a gun is used to defend a victim when no one is killed or no shots are even fired. This is an apples to red herrings comparison on their part, but they obviously think it will sell to John Q. Public.
 

Yellowfin

New member
I've said it before and I'll say it as many time as necessary: arguing with them gets us nowhere. They'll keep spouting new drivel. We need to extinguish their organizations rather than keep contending with them, make our efforts not limited to negating their take on the issue at the time, but to end their efforts as their goal is similarly for us.
 

HowardCohodas

New member
So, let's follow their logic. It is clear that buildings containing hospitals have far more deaths than other buildings, therefore we should never go into a building containing a hospital.

When the anti's put this sign on their homes with this, I'll take them seriously.
gun-free.gif
 

USAFNoDak

New member
The researchers employed a simple procedure: They tabulated all the suicides that had taken place in Washington between 1968 and 1987. Colin Loftin and David McDowall found that the gun ban correlated with an abrupt 25 percent decline in suicides in the city.

OK, how did this happen? First of all, the gun ban did not "remove" any firearms which were already in the city and registered, prior to 1976 when the ban was imposed, did it? Also, people could still have long guns and shotguns, although they had to be disassembled. So, are they telling us that some people would have committed suicide, but then, slapped their forehead with the palm of their hand and said, "Crap, I have to keep my gun disassembled. I can't use it to off myself. I better call Jack Kervorkian instead". This really doesn't make any sense. I am suspect of the data set they used, but I don't really care to go look into the study. I'm already convinced it's biased towards an anti gun position.
 

Darren007

New member
When the anti's put this sign on their homes with this, I'll take them seriously.


Holy!!! HowardCohodas just gave me a wonderful idea. We should try to push for legislation requireing gun free homes to have that sticker displayed in their front window. Seems only fair, after all if they want to have the right to know whos packin then we should also have the right to know who isnt.:p

It would be awesome to see how many Anti gunners "slide" away from this idea out of fear of advertising they have a gun free home. Even though they love to institute gun free zones!!!!
 

TimRB

New member
""If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," Harvard's Miller said."

This statement alone confirms that the "researchers" don't know what they're talking about. Statistics of this sort can't be used to assess the risk of individuals.

Consider this hypothetical example: Suppose that 30 percent of all fatal traffic accidents took place at night. Our Harvard rocket scientist would say "You have a 30 percent chance of dying in an automobile accident at night." But further suppose that you don't ever go out at night, and especially don't drive at night. Your chances of being killed in a nighttime auto accident are exactly zero.

People make this mistake all the time, and unfortunately sometimes the mistakes end up in the news, where they may be remembered by voters who don't know any better.

Tim
 

Ledbetter

New member
Sorry, JMHO.

I concentrate my efforts on those who want to live. People who want to shut themselves off should do so before they procreate.
 

CGSteve8718

New member
"If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," Harvard's Miller said. "There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold."

Some of us have dozens, if not scores of guns. We all should have been killed hundreds of times over.

In fact, I am typing this from beyond the grave.
 

mountainclmbr

New member
With as many guns as I have these folks might calculate that I have no chance of seeing tomorrow. They will have to excuse me if laugh at their silly stories.
 

armoredman

New member
OK, Brady Bunch, riddle me this - Japan's rate of gun ownership is FAR less than America's, but according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports World Health Orgnization Suicide Prevention country reports 2002, as listed in GunFacts 4.1, says thier suicide rate, depsite this gun free utopia, is more than twice ours. Can't be the guns, now can it?
 

ronl

New member
They are grasping at straws. Give it a few years and we'll be able to throw that junk back in theit face, statistically. They are IDIOTS. It is sad to see so many who will eat this up as if it were gospel just because it is published in some newspaper. Think the gun-free sticker would be a good idea, then we could compile stats on how much more crime occurs in those homes. Would be interesting to see.
 

wuluf

New member
I used to think that newspapers were interested in the truth. I also used to believe in the tooth fairy, Hanukkah Harry and the essential fairness of the Universe. Then i grew up. Newspapers exist to sell newspapers, and they're even doing a poor job of that these days...
 

MeekAndMild

New member
turning this around for a minute

Hmm, a strict civil libertarian could argue the point that in a free society people should have the right to do away with themselves and should have the right to purchase efficient and painless suicide kits at the local drugstore. They could argue that by denying this option to the 400,000 unhappy people per year who want to do away with themselves society is failing to allow them even a modest level of personal dignity and freedom. They could argue that by preventing such people to carry out suicide they are creating an unneeded burden on families, friends and other innocent bystanders. (I'm not making this argument myself, just pointing out what I've heard on the street.)

Hmm #2 I noticed Shankar Vedantam didn't mention the Toronto suicide study which found that banning pistols was just associated with an increase in suicide jumping. Tsk, Tsk.
 

Socrates

Moderator
I can totally see gun assisted suicides going up. In the pressure cooker that some of us live now, with 5 dollar a gallon tax, the government taking your 20 year old econo car that gets 35 miles to a gallon because it won't pass an ex post facto law, making smog emissions tougher. Couple that with excess tax, lower wages, I get 100-125 bucks a day as a sub teacher, rent that's going up 10-15% a year, energy costs that have just doubled in one year, well, it's not pretty. How about student loans you can't ever pay off, and, everytime someone 'helps' you, they add 25% to the total?

Can we even imagine what it's like living day to day in Washington D.C. having to go through a gauntlet of gang territories to get to work, school, or the store, and, the risk of coming back, unarmed, in a land with many, well armed gangs, waiting to prey on you? That would certainly make suicide an option, or make you incredibly strong.

My kids in San Francisco coming from the projects ran through a number of other gangs territory, and, making it to school was an Indiana Jones adventure for them. It was REAL hard to give them a bad time when they came in, put their heads down, and went to sleep, knowing the stuff they go through.

In San Francisco, I had one of the kids diagram on the front board all the gangs for me. About 60, with associations, and everything. He knew it all, and, it took the entire front board. The OC police officer came in, and started copying like mad...

Cancer or a shotgun? My uncle, a former pro bicycle racer, chose the shotgun, when they told him they were going to cut off his other leg...

Suicide numbers are very small, and, the gun suicides are just the ones that are easy to detect...
 

Well Regulated

New member
How many of those people who committed suicide were subscribers to the Washington Post? I believe it's 80% in D.C. so the real cause and affect is subscribing to the Washington Post. People who subscribe to the Washington Post are 4 times more likely to commit suicide than those who subscribe to the Washington Times.
 

Socrates

Moderator
I think it's related to having a job in the congressional arena.

Anyone that believes in the Constitution and watches what our current Congress has done to it SHOULD want to commit suicide...

That, or there is probably a solid connection between the majority of the suicides and the Clinton administration. The last statistics I checked showed that if you knew, or where employed by the Clinton's your chance of suicide was 984 times more likely then the average resident in Washington D.C.

http://www.etherzone.com/body.html
 

DaveBeal

New member
According to the anti's, the firearm is the most "successful" means of committing suicide.

Do you disagree? Please name a more effective means.

I have three kids ranging in age from 14 to 21. All of them are too smart to hurt themselves accidently with my guns, but I still keep them locked up. In my mind, it's a legitimate concern.
 

hogdogs

Staff In Memoriam
So lemme take a STAB at this....
We need to ban the following as well due to suicide risk...
Knives... slit throat or wrists (femoral artery is far better to cut than wrists)
Ladders as folks use them too.
Rope sheets straps or anything that can be fastened to the neck.
Extension cords.
Super glue... Used to glue the circuit breaker into the closed/hot position for above.
Any building over 2 story.
Cars.
Motorcycles
Big rigs
Trains.
LEO firearms (suicide by cop?)
Cold weather (hypotermia is a way as well?)
I guess that is enuff for now... add to the list if you wish...:eek::D
Brent
 

jrfoxx

New member
While I certainly dont like people dying, and am more than happy to help people I know who are feeling suicidal in any way I can, I just dont see how someone shooting themselves in the head, in the privacy of thier own home, is the governments business at all, or why that persons desire to kill themself should infringe on my right to have firearms to try to ensure that myself, and my family, DONT die at the hands of some criminal.

If someone wants to die, they will find a way to do it, and personally, I think they have a right to kill themselves if they so choose.No one has the right to force someone to live, any more than they have a right to murder someone, IMHO.

Thus, the guns and suicide thing is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned, regardless of wether that "facts" in the article are true (which I dont beleive for a second, at leats not tin the way they are presented.)
 

Kreyzhorse

New member
I heard last night that this election will be decided by the "uneducated voters" and I really believe it. Most people won't take the time to really understand the issues and the candidates but will vote blindly for the person they like the most. Same thing with anti-gun ownership messages. It's very easy to twist stats, throw them out to the Oprah, Million Mom and Brady Bunch and have them digested as fact. This article is case in point.

With a little research, any one could see that suicides can be linked to gun ownership but can just as easily be linked to rope ownership and or household cleaner ownership. The gun is just a tool, it is not an evil device that causes people to commit suicide.

This article is truely a prime example of sheeple and "global dimming."
 
Top