Who is we? You have a mouse in your pocket. You simply want to believe what you assume to be authority because it fits your world view. The problem again with the study is that it would discount my relative in the short period of time, when she would actually apply as the percentage of people that commit suicide the first time she tried. When you start out to look at guns as the reason, that is what you will find. That is the folly of using statistics to prove your initial assumption.
Per capita income is related to suicide rates in men but not in women Abstract Background Suicide is an important medical and social problem. It has been suggested that socioeconomic factors play a more important role in suicide for men than for women. This study examined the relation between per capita income and suicide rates in men and women in European countries. Methods Correlations were computed to examine relations between per capita income and suicide rates in men and women in 34 European countries. Using median split, countries were divided into two groups according to per capita income. Suicide rates in countries with higher per capita income were compared with suicide rates in countries with lower per capita income. Results There was a trend towards a negative correlation between per capita income and suicide rates in men. Men in countries with lower per capita income commit suicide more frequently than men in countries with higher per capita income. Conclusion Socioeconomic improvements are needed to reduce suicide rates. Division of Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, USA
You've made a statement that you cannot support. You've made a statement that has been easily rejected by referring to an empirical study that has tested firearm suicide effects. You've reacted by coming out with false comments, demonstrating only that you're not interested in the evidence (if it doesn't support your bias) Suicidology will obviously refer to multiple factors that impact on suicide rates. However, it is merely factual to note that empirical studies have found firearms to be one. Your statement "Gun control leads to statistically significant reduction in suicide by guns, but not in the percentage of suicide overall" has been shown to be wrong. Sorry and all that, but you'll have to change your stance if you want to be consistent with the evidence
In other words, you will take the word of one study as the authority in the subject, when other studies have shown otherwise. What you have done is cherry pick your authority to fit your world view. Nothing more. On the other hand, I can give an example that would have been mislabeled in the study you show proving it is in error. You choose to hold what you wish to believe closer to the vest than truth.
That was one study of many, chosen at random. These effects are confirmed elsewhere (e.g. Ajdacic-Gross et al, 2006, Changing Times: A Longitudinal Analysis of International Firearm Suicide Data, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 Issue 10, pp1752-1755). You've made a statement that is simply wrong. There is nothing you can do to discount that the paper destroys the statement "Gun control leads to statistically significant reduction in suicide by guns, but not in the percentage of suicide overall" as nonsense
You're not being consistent. In a previous post you accused me of having a closed mind and followed this by asking me if I was a "Liberal". Your false indignation attempts to conceal the fact that you are holding me to a different standard than you expect from yourself. Your choice. I myself, certainly haven't sunk to any name-calling. You thought the topic important enough to raise some suspect positions that I addressed in response. You then chose to cherry pick one of my responses to the exclusion of the others. I don't recall you complaining of the time required for that. No, you're only now complaining of valuable time when your positions have been exposed to be contradictions, concoctions, and misrepresentations. At least I had the honor to admit to MY one error. I have found YOUR responses to be convenient and disingenuous.
Without even realizing it, you have confirmed Reiver's position. Guns do NOT have perfect substitutes which makes their availability and use uniquely significant.
Baloney....if I jump off a 30 story building I'd be just as dead as if I put a gun in my mouth..THAT is a perfect substitute
For perfect substituion we'd have to show that, as gun prevalence falls, suicide rates are constant. The evidence doesn't show that!
If what you are saying is true, then why do we not see a direct correlation between suicide rates and ease of gun availability (e.g. the more lax the gun control laws, the higher the suicide rate)?
We do see a direct relationshop. One just needs to control for other variables that impact on suicide risks
Suicide rates aren't dependent on Gun control....,look at Japan,a country with strict gun control laws,their suicide rate topped over 32,000 in 2009japan's suicide rate ROSE steadily as more gun control was implemented,and suicide rates were dependent on the economy,not the availability of guns Any 'evidence' you have is wrong, as you are
Show me where such controls were made on a state-by-state comparison, because by looking at the raw data, there appears to be absolutely no correlation between gun availability and increased suicide rate (http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA
Ayuh,... Reliever only uses the Best studies that a Liberal Progressive grant can buy, don'tcha know..... None others are relevant in her book....
Ayuh,... Are you sayin' yer Not a Progressive Liberal who spouts the Progressive Liberal talkin' points,..?? 'cause if that's what yer implyin', yer Lyin'....
We've already referred to the available international evidence which indeed shows that trends in suicide rates are dependent on gun prevalence. You've replied with the standard error: ramble based on spurious relationship. You fellows seem desperate to advertise your inability to refer to the empirical analysis. Strange tactic!
You are strangely devoted to one study that supports your bias and you ignore other studies that don't support your bias. The one thing in common is your bias.
This is nonsense. I reference numerous studies, including encouragement for the NRA zombies to read the likes of Kleck. I haven't seen you refer to one study. Forgive me if I've missed it of course. Happy for you to reference one and for us to discuss it. That would be splendid!
Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. You were wrong, the Japanese suicide rate isn't dependent upon gun control, as none are elswhere
I haven't insulted you. I've summarised your stance. If you find your own stance insulting then that would be interesting. Suicide rates are dependent on numerous variables. The evidence shows that gun prevalence is one. You might find the evidence disagreeable. I would say "so what?". I can only refer to it objectively
So, in other words, since the gun ownership rate has increased in the US and the suicide rate is about the same, you have to "control" for other variables to make the numbers look the way you want. By golly, now I have it!
You're only showing an innocence of the need to avoid spurious relationship and a disregard for the hypothesis testing process. Scientific evidence is deliberately avoided by the NRA zombies, but there's no reason for you to follow that thought limitation
Yeah, it's only "NRA zombies" that avoid scientific evidence. This is coming from someone who relies on cross-sectional studies that utilize proxy data to come to conclusions that can only be fairly reached with a prospective cohort study with proper controls. It's also coming from someone who has yet to condemn dishonest studies from the Joyce Group that redefine the age of a "child" as less than TWENTY YEARS OLD (and fail to control for gang members) for the sole purpose of grossly inflating the number of "child" deaths due to firearm-related causes.
It does seem that way! This is someone that reads all of the scientific evidence, which includes time series, cross sectional and panel. The use of proxy variables, if you did the same, is quite valid and actually about ensuring more micro level analysis that enables greater tests of robustness. Another red herring. The paper in question produced valid results that you cannot challenge. It was repackaged for a specific issue, but certainly produced results inconsistent with your dogma. Of course that is why you avoid the evidence: your bias is repeatedly challenged by the empirical process
You are obviously full of yourself. Have I quoted anything by the NRA? No, but since you are a typical true believer, when confronted by any evidence that is not within your world view, you resort to name calling which is obvious evidence that you have already lost the argument.
