From what I've heard, Canadian gun-ownership rates are just as high as those in the US... their guns just aren't as good as ours.
Why can't you get pass the spurious relationship? Why can't you embrace the empirical evidence? Now if you do want to try serious comment, try something like Ajdacic-Gross et al. (2006, Changing Times: A Longitudinal Analysis of International Firearm Suicide Data, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96, p1752-1755): We investigated changes in the proportion of firearm suicides in Western countries since the 1980s and the relation of these changes to the change in the proportion of households owning firearms. Several countries had an obvious decline in firearm suicides: Norway, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Multilevel modeling of longitudinal data confirmed the effect of the proportion of households owning firearms. Legislation and regulatory measures reducing the availability of firearms in private households can distinctly strengthen the prevention of firearm suicides
The impact of firearm control legislation on suicide in Queensland: preliminary findings. Author: CH Cantor; PJ Slater Edition/Format: Article Article : English Publication: The Medical journal of Australia, 1995 Jun 5; 162(11): 583-5 Emphasis mine. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1998 Feb;32(1):8-14. Access to methods of suicide: what impact? Cantor CH, Baume PJ. Source Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, Griffith University, Belmont Hospital Campus, Carina, Queensland. Hmm. Sounds like firearms aren't the issue. Sounds like the issue is the preferred method of suicide. Of course, after the gun legislation in Australia firearm suicide went down, but overall suicide went up. That does not sound like evidence that firearms increase the risk of suicide.
First, you're out-of-date somewhat. For a more recent publication see Rodriguez and Hempstead (2011, Gun control and suicide: The impact of state firearm regulations in the United States, 19952004; Health Policy, Vol. 101 Issue 1, pp. 95-103). Using a negative binomial regression model, this notes "our empirical analysis suggest that firearms regulations which function to reduce overall gun availability have a significant deterrent effect on male suicide, while regulations that seek to prohibit high risk individuals from owning firearms have a lesser effect". Second, you are completely misrepresenting the studies' findings. The clue was in the conclusions that you forgot to present: These results provide preliminary evidence that firearm control legislation, including a 28-day 'cooling off' period before firearm purchase, reduces suicide rates, especially among younger adult men.
Which is exactly why so many countries with gun control have higher suicide rates than the US, because guns obviously impact suicide rates.
We have a simple result: the international analysis, as shown by the reference presented, supports the 'more guns=more suicide' hypothesis. This is of course also supported by numerous country specific studies (helped by Fangbeer!) that, through the use of control variables, isolates the gun effects. Faced with these facts, you offer nothing but churlishness
I didn't represent their conclusions at all, let alone misrepresent them. I posted their results. I would say that their conclusions misrepresent their results. In fact, their results completely refute their hypothesis.
You obviously didn't understand the paper. You're referring to a paper that supports the gun/suicide link. Catch up! We can all make mistakes of course! Love to see such jolly mistakes though
I can't see it. Given you're making crass errors deliberately, you don't seem to be too interested in the evidence. Shame really, but unfortunately its a common result
You read it and still used it, even though its conclusions doesn't support your dogma? Golly! How entertaining The paper tests the hypothesis by looking at how suicide rates change by age, sex and method across metropolitan, provincial cities and rural areas. Adopting a '2 year before' and '2 year after' breakdown across the legislation period, its the statistically significant decline in the metropolitan and provincial areas that is of interest. Its driven by young male suicide reductions and derives the conclusion over the successful impact of gun control. You've made an error. Admit it and move on. Its the clever thing to do!
You do entertain. I've seen some 'sights' on here before, but trying to use a paper that is directly opposed to your argument takes the biscuit. I'll use the author's words: a preliminary analysis of the impact of a 28-day cooling off period (between applying for a firearm licence and receiving it) in Queensland produced encouraging results in young urban males. There was no impact in the most rural regions where ownership rates are already high and where people may live some distance from gun shops, making impulsive buying of weapons for immediate self-destruction less relevant even prior to the introduction of licensing
Now that I have you in a corner, Reiver, it's time for the final blow. First, I do not dispute that reducing access to firearms will reduce firearm related suicide. It's only logical for method specific suicide rates to drop when method availability is decreased. What I dispute is that reducing availability of guns reduced overall suicide rate. This study does not find this to be true. In fact, its results conflict with that finding. Not only that, I notice that you had no comment at all on the paper produced by the same author just 2 years later that finds that "suicide methods employed by young Australians are changing, with a disturbing rise in frequency of hanging and car exhaust suicides slightly offset by a decline in firearm suicides"
So far you've presented a paper that supports my argument. I'd love to see where you're going to go next! Method availability isn't significantly reduced. It just happens that guns, as a type of suicide method, stand out. Completely wrong! This paper looks at a very specific gun control measure, a cooling off period. By using differences in gun ownership rates across areas (and therefore the expected impact of this specific measure), it finds that the measure does indeed reduce suicide rates (particularly amongst young males) The study is considered in the review by Miller and Hemenway (1999, The relationship between firearms and suicide: A review of the literature, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol 4, pp 5975). Perhaps not surprising, the paper concludes: All case-control studies indicate that a gun in the home is significantly associated with a higher risk of suicide, especially among youth. A higher risk to teens is consistent with the notion that they are more likely to act impulsively and therefore more likely to be affected by availability of the means at hand Didn't look at it. I was too busy laughing at you referencing a paper that agreed completely with what I said! But I don't mind referring to it: There is absolutely nothing in it that you can use to dispute my argument. It refers to 'societal fashions', with the need to consider how acceptability of suicide methods will be a dynamic phenomenon. Nowhere within it does it dispute that reducing gun availability also reduces, ceteris paribus, suicide rates. On the bright side, at least this paper doesn't openly attack your argument! There's a joy in that I suppose!
No? You have previously used terms such as "mental defect" and "gun haters" to describe those such as myself who support stricter gun laws. You now have progressed to a manufactured term, "hoplophobes" to describe me and others as having an unnatural fear of guns. Like it or not, these are ad hominem fallacies, friend. I suspect you already knew this. Somehow I doubt that you would use the same standard of proof to say that the Brady Law accounts for the lower crime rates since its inception and yet there we are, you have taken two disparate pieces of data and drawn a spurious conclusion from them. How convenient for you! Is that the best evidence you have that the NRA's Eddie Eagle program is effective? If so, your evidence is a big fail. If you cannot show that the program will actually translate into saved lives, then why bother? Isn't that the anti-control mantra? Your arguments don't appear to be very consistent.
Well I commend your vigilance, and I appreciate your argument as to the numbers, but once again you seem to have missed my point. When a gun is used by a family member to kill oneself or another family member, then the irony of this I believe, is quite ironic and noteworthy. The unique properties of a gun, in that it is most often used as self protection, automatically make the incidence of its fatal misuse by a fellow family member (you know, the ones you're trying to protect) a significant event. There is no way around this, and yet you and others appear to be trying to sweep this pesky little detail under the rug.
Unfortunately, this inane comment at the beginning of your post did not allow me to get any farther into what might very well have been a rational argument on your part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate Nope! No correlation that I can see - especially since Australia comes in behind the USA.................. I think this is another one of the NRA born myths Does a little digging - finds "gun cite" and yep I guessed it "Spin courtesy of NRA and the firearms industry" So, what does the CDC say? [/QUOTE]
I am not sweeping it under the rug, I guess I am not taking it as seriously as you are. I do not see this is an argument making or breaking detail.
Wow, a difference of a whole 2.1. How...... unimpressive. [/QUOTE] Meh, I used Nation Master. Hardly an arm of the NRA. Suicide rates in ages 15-24 (most recent) by country # 1 New Zealand: 26.7 per 100,000 people # 2 Finland: 22.8 per 100,000 people # 3 Switzerland: 17.9 per 100,000 people = 4 Austria: 15 per 100,000 people = 4 Canada: 15 per 100,000 people # 6 Australia: 14.6 per 100,000 people # 7 United States: 13.7 per 100,000 people # 8 Belgium: 10.7 per 100,000 people # 9 France: 10.3 per 100,000 people # 10 Sweden: 9.4 per 100,000 people # 11 Denmark: 9.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_15_24-suicide-rates-ages-15-24 Suicide rates in ages 25-34 (most recent) by country # 1 Finland: 33 per 100,000 people # 2 New Zealand: 25.1 per 100,000 people # 3 France: 21.3 per 100,000 people # 4 Austria: 20.8 per 100,000 people # 5 Belgium: 19 per 100,000 people # 6 Switzerland: 18.8 per 100,000 people # 7 Australia: 18.7 per 100,000 people # 8 Canada: 18 per 100,000 people # 9 Denmark: 16.9 per 100,000 people # 10 United States: 15.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_25_34-suicide-rates-ages-25-34 Suicide rates in ages 35-44 (most recent) by country # 1 Finland: 44 per 100,000 people # 2 France: 28.5 per 100,000 people # 3 Austria: 25.2 per 100,000 people # 4 Denmark: 23.9 per 100,000 people # 5 Belgium: 23 per 100,000 people # 6 Switzerland: 21.8 per 100,000 people # 7 Sweden: 21 per 100,000 people # 8 Canada: 19.2 per 100,000 people # 9 Japan: 16.2 per 100,000 people # 10 Australia: 15.9 per 100,000 people # 11 Germany: 15.8 per 100,000 people # 12 United States: 15.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_35_44-suicide-rates-ages-35-44 Suicide rates in ages 45-54 (most recent) by country # 1 Finland: 43.4 per 100,000 people # 2 Denmark: 35.9 per 100,000 people # 3 Germany: 28.8 per 100,000 people # 4 France: 28.4 per 100,000 people # 5 Austria: 27.9 per 100,000 people # 6 Switzerland: 27.8 per 100,000 people # 7 Belgium: 24.5 per 100,000 people # 8 Japan: 23.7 per 100,000 people # 9 Sweden: 23 per 100,000 people # 10 Canada: 18.5 per 100,000 people = 11 New Zealand: 14.7 per 100,000 people = 11 Australia: 14.7 per 100,000 people # 13 United States: 14.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_45_54-suicide-rates-ages-45-54 Suicide rates in ages 55-64 (most recent) by country # 1 Finland: 43.8 per 100,000 people # 2 Germany: 32.6 per 100,000 people # 3 Denmark: 32.1 per 100,000 people # 4 Austria: 28.9 per 100,000 people # 5 Switzerland: 27.4 per 100,000 people # 6 France: 26.8 per 100,000 people # 7 Japan: 26.7 per 100,000 people # 8 Belgium: 23.8 per 100,000 people # 9 Sweden: 20.9 per 100,000 people # 10 Ireland: 15.7 per 100,000 people # 11 Canada: 15.1 per 100,000 people # 12 Australia: 13.7 per 100,000 people = 13 United States: 13.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_55_64-suicide-rates-ages-55-64 Suicide rates in ages 65-74 (most recent) by country # 1 Denmark: 43.9 per 100,000 people # 2 Germany: 34.4 per 100,000 people # 3 Austria: 33.2 per 100,000 people # 4 France: 31.2 per 100,000 people # 5 Switzerland: 30.7 per 100,000 people # 6 Belgium: 29.7 per 100,000 people # 7 Finland: 28.1 per 100,000 people # 8 Japan: 23.7 per 100,000 people # 9 Sweden: 19.4 per 100,000 people # 10 New Zealand: 17 per 100,000 people # 11 United States: 15.3 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_65_74-suicide-rates-ages-65-74 Suicide rates in ages above 75 (most recent) by country # 1 Austria: 57.1 per 100,000 people # 2 Switzerland: 50.6 per 100,000 people # 3 France: 48 per 100,000 people # 4 Denmark: 46.3 per 100,000 people # 5 Germany: 45.9 per 100,000 people = 6 Belgium: 42.3 per 100,000 people = 6 Japan: 42.3 per 100,000 people # 8 Sweden: 27 per 100,000 people # 9 Finland: 23.3 per 100,000 people # 10 United States: 22 per 100,000 people http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sui_rat_in_age_abo_75-suicide-rates-ages-above-75 The US should be at the top of all of those rankings, Gun ownership > Guns per 100 residents > 2007 (most recent) by country # 1 United States: 88.8 # 2 Yemen: 54.8 # 3 Switzerland: 45.7 # 4 Cyprus: 36.4 # 5 Saudi Arabia: 35 # 6 Iraq: 34.2 # 7 Finland: 32 # 8 Uruguay: 31.8 # 9 Sweden: 31.6 # 10 Norway: 31.3 # 11 France: 31.2 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_own_gun_per_100_res_2007-guns-per-100-residents-2007 Do you have anything else to add? Why do those other countries demonstrate such high suicide rates in the absence of US like firearms proliferation?
