New Harvard Published Study Re: Guns and Suicides

[LittleCalm]

Harvard study finds a gun in the home increases risk of suicide - Science - Boston.com

"In the new study, published in August in the American Journal of Epidemiology, he and colleagues point out a striking statistic. In 2010, 22,000 people attempted suicide with a gun, and all but 2,000 were successful. If one out of every 10 of those people used something other than a gun, about 1,900 additional people would have lived."

“This is not about legislating our way out of it,” Miller said. “If I have a kid who is moody and having problems or a husband or wife who just lost a job and is being issued divorce papers, or just going through a rough time, the best thing I can do to reduce that person’s immediate risk of death from suicide” is to take guns out of the house."

Btw, the picture shows a bunch of airsoft guns! Go Globe!

 

[Business]

“If I have a kid who is moody and having problems or a husband or wife who just lost a job and is being issued divorce papers, or just going through a rough time, the best thing I can do to reduce that person’s immediate risk of death from suicide” is to take guns out of the house."

If somebody wants to kill themselves there going to do it with whatever they have available. if you truley want to die you will find a way.

You going to ban rooftops? yea guns make it easy but stepping off a ledge/bridge/overpass requires nothing but gravity

- - - Updated - - -

better ban gravity... wheres the petition for that?

 

[cekim]

If only we were all imprisoned, think of all the lives we could save?

 

[Sniper (+)]

If I was going to off myself, a gun would be the last choice. That just leaves a mess, very inconsiderate.

There is plenty of ways to do it quietly and painlessly and if you feel the need to go out with a bang plow your car into a tree at highway speeds.

 

[Moderator]

If somebody wants to kill themselves there going to do it with whatever they have available. if you truley want to die you will find a way.

You going to ban rooftops? yea guns make it easy but stepping off a ledge/bridge/overpass requires nothing but gravity

- - - Updated - - -

better ban gravity... wheres the petition for that?

Damn right! I've had two family members take their own lives and neither time a gun was used. One of them was unsuccessful on her first attempt, but managed to get it right on her second.

- - - Updated - - -

If I was going to off myself, a gun would be the last choice. That just leaves a mess, very inconsiderate.

There is plenty of ways to do it quietly and painlessly and if you feel the need to go out with a bang plow your car into a tree at highway speeds.

One of my family members tried that unsuccessfully. So the second time she used exhaust fumes.


Moral of the story, if you are serious about killing yourself, you will get the job done no matter what obstacles are in your way.

 

[groundscrapers]

I Survived Helium Suicide | VICE United Kingdom

ban the internet.

 

[LittleCalm]

This is just the beginning. If direct attacks on 2A do not work, they are laying the building blocks for calling it a health crisis and looking to legislate from that angle. Make no mistake about it, it's about the agenda and not saving lives. If it were about saving just one more life, we would get rid of swimming pools, for which there truly is no societal utility.

 

[gunclinger]

And when you live in a cant-just-go-out-and-buy-a-gun state like MA, this happens:

http://www.salemnews.com/local/x312414762/Beverly-man-kills-self-inside-Salisbury-gun-store


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[cekim]

Whats funny is they don't actually link to the paper...

Which finds there are no links between increased suicide rates and guns in the home...

Or that gun control actually lower crime rates.

Harvard Study: No Correlation Between Gun Control and Less Violent Crime

Frankly, I assumed they were referencing a different study.

I have read that one. They really claiming THAT study said that guns in the home increased suicide? Seriously?

 

[LittleCalm]

I assume they are referencing a new study, but best case for them is that it contradicts recent prior studies. Not only that but 1,900 potential lives saved (which is just a number they picked out of the air) out of a population of 300 million.

 

[cekim]

I assume they are referencing a new study, but best case for them is that it contradicts recent prior studies. Not only that but 1,900 potential lives saved (which is just a number they picked out of the air) out of a population of 300 million.

and two little words they don't want to hear that destroy their argument: "free will".

 

[TOM1960]

Harvard study finds a gun in the home increases risk of suicide - Science - Boston.com

"In the new study, published in August in the American Journal of Epidemiology, he and colleagues point out a striking statistic. In 2010, 22,000 people attempted suicide with a gun, and all but 2,000 were successful. If one out of every 10 of those people used something other than a gun, about 1,900 additional people would have lived."

“This is not about legislating our way out of it,” Miller said. “If I have a kid who is moody and having problems or a husband or wife who just lost a job and is being issued divorce papers, or just going through a rough time, the best thing I can do to reduce that person’s immediate risk of death from suicide” is to take guns out of the house."

Btw, the picture shows a bunch of airsoft guns! Go Globe!

Maybe Harvard should put some action where its mouth is. Maybe it could start by removing the Glock handguns from the holsters of its private university police department and replace them with pepper spray and Tazers. After all, it is safer for everyone. Especially the children! Why do they need armed guards with police powers? Isn't the Cambridge and Boston Police Departments good enough for them? It is OK to have their own armed protection but not OK for the rest of us to own firearms for protection? About as hypocritical as it gets!

 

[LittleCalm]

and two little words they don't want to hear that destroy their argument: "free will".

Not really. They will argue its a health issue like cigarettes. Difference is that cigs cause far more deaths (certainly in terms of suicide!) and result in far more cost to the healthcare system. But more importantly, smoking cigs is not a constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

 

[cekim]

Not really. They will argue its a health issue like cigarettes. Difference is that cigs cause far more deaths (certainly in terms of suicide!) and result in far more cost to the healthcare system. But more importantly, smoking cigs is not a constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

The right to life, liberty and property (including the ownership of one's "self") is fundamental as the right to destroy your own property.

 

[JohnZ]

So they are arguing that guns are the more efficient suicide method? Maybe it's time to do a study about the costs of those botched attempts where people are patched up only to try again.

 

[MaverickNH]

"In 2010, 22,000 people attempted suicide with a gun, and all but 2,000 were successful. If one out of every 10 of those people used something other than a gun, about 1,900 additional people would have lived."

Forget for a moment, that RKBA is indeed a right secured by the US Constitution. Make it a purely cost/benefit assessment. How to prevent 1 in 10 of 22,000 people attempting suicide from using a gun? By addressing mental health/behavior and/or gun restrictions/bans?

While Obama's Executive Orders appeared to intend to address "gun violence" by addressing both mental health/behavior and CDC-sponsored research, the task-force the author of this study, Harvard's Dr. Miller, serves on is charged with looking at guns, to the exclusion of mental health/behavior. The other task-force has completely disowned any focus on guns, stating that very, very few of the mentally ill are violent.

Psychopathic mass killers are, then NOT of concern to any body convened by Obama's Executive Orders.

Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" hypothesis is not accepted by the vast majority of academic medical researchers - and certainly not by the author Miller, or most members of the Institute of Medicine's task-force charged with addressing Obama's Executive Order on CDC funding of gun violence research. We can then assume that they assume restricting or banning gun ownership has no negative impact on society, and can only have positive outcomes, like reducing suicide rates.

So how do we prevent disturbed people from killing themselves and others? Restrict and ban gun ownership, of course. That was always the answer. It is only the matter of fabricating the proper questions and methods to reach that answer that has been the challenge for the gun control proponents.

 

[LittleCalm]

Maverick is spot on. 1,900 as an argument makes no sense. The "if it saves just one more life" is an argument only made against 2A. I wish folks like Miller would just be honest --they don't like guns, wants guns banned, and want 2A repealed. They should just say it rather than making all of these other tortured arguments.

 

[cekim]

Even taking their BS at face value, 1900 suicides vs 500k or more saved in self defense scenarios.

- - - Updated - - -

Maverick is spot on. 1,900 as an argument makes no sense. The "if it saves just one more life" is an argument only made against 2A. I wish folks like Miller would just be honest --they don't like guns, wants guns banned, and want 2A repealed. They should just say it rather than making all of these other tortured arguments.

Profoundly unethical science. Should call into question their entire body of work and professional qualifications/licensing where any exists.

 

[MaverickNH]

In the '80s, there were academic Institute of Aging centers popping up everywhere when the government had a funding initiative. When nothing got sorted out over a decade, government funding dried up. The AARP didn't take up the slack and these research centers closed down.

When the law banning CDC funding of research flagrantly advocating gun control was enacted, private funding stepped in from the liberal causes foundations like Joyce, Anne E, Casey, etc. Most of these academic Violence Research institutes and centers have been well funded by them for years since. But they only get money when their research is "successful" - that is, when it supports gun control. I have yet to read a paper that finds gun control is ineffective - only those that find need for more data (that comes from universal gun registration).

In a nudge, nudge, wink, wink academic understanding, these researchers "disclose" their funding in publications, but do not disclose a conflict of interest. Would any research get published with direct funding from NRA? Not a chance. But research funded from sources that fund MAIG, VPC, Ceasefires, etc., gets published in top medical journals that look the other way. More than just looking the other way, they publish editorials lauding the gun control research and provide free access and press conferences to promote the studies.

The NRA waves the flag and the US Constitution and gets snubbed as "The Gun Lobby", while all of these Harvard boys sit on Obama's task-forces on gun violence, doing nothing but licking the hand that feeds them. And that hand is feeding them with my tax dollars as it tries to trample the 2nd Amendment.

 

[LittleCalm]

Well-stated and informative, Maverick.

 

[MaverickNH]

To beat the dead horse even more (as it keeps getting up and publishing):

"This work was funded by grants from the Joyce Foundation. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of any funding body or others whose support is acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Conflict of interest: none declared." [Quoted from the published paper; PM me with email for a copy]

I call BS on the above. I work in the medical industry. In industry, companies give "Unrestricted educational grants" to academics who can, in theory, do anything or nothing with the money, as they desire. But they all know they will never get a penny from anyone else if they don't deliver expected results. The journals publish work funded by industry with a wink, as the same companies pour millions of dollars into medical associations and meetings. If there were no "pay-back" there would be no money.

THE JOYCE FOUNDATION

"A growing body of research shows that strong gun laws correspond with lower rates of gun death and injury. The Joyce Foundation supports efforts to build awareness about the problem of gun violence in America, and to educate the public, policy makers and the media about common-sense policies that improve public health and safety." - See more at: Gun Violence Prevention | The Joyce Foundation

Funding the research and promoting to politicians and the media. The researchers publish "junk science" and then promote sound/word- bites in the media to sway public opinion and political support. Hmmm - looks a lot like a lobby to me...

Do the grantees below all look non-conflicted? Not in the least, they would have us believe.

"2012 Gun Violence Prevention Grantees

Find more information about grantees in our Annual Reports.

American College of Preventive Medicine
Washington, DC $233,398
To continue its comprehensive education and advocacy campaign aimed at strengthening support for the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) program. (1 yr)

Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund
Philadelphia, PA $325,000
To support public engagement projects for gun violence prevention policies in Pennsylvania. (1 yr)

Citizens for a Safer Minnesota Education Fund
St. Paul, MN $80,000
To support efforts to educate Minnesotans about gun violence prevention policy. (1 yr)

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Washington, DC $125,000
To support national and state coalition building and statebased policy development, education, and advocacy in ongoing campaigns to end gun violence. (1 yr)

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
Chicago, IL $375,000
To increase awareness about public policies that will improve community safety, build a grassroots movement, and expand the Student Voices program and other youth outreach (2 yrs.)

Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research
Baltimore, MD $222,424
For support of research to evaluate the impact of permit-to-purchase handgun licensing laws on violent crime.

Legal Community Against Violence
San Francisco, CA $186,000
For continued support to provide legal and technical assistance in support of state and local gun violence prevention policy reform efforts (1 yr)

Legal Community Against Violence
San Francisco, CA $34,000
For continued support to provide legal and technical assistance in support of state and local gun violence prevention policy reform efforts. (1 yr)

New Venture Fund
Washington, DC $100,000
For support of the national organizing director for gun violence prevention.

Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence
Toledo, OH $80,000
To support grassroots organizing and coalition building. (1 yr.)

PICO National Network
Oakland, CA $150,000
To engage religious congregations to advocate for state and national public policies to prevent gun violence in urban neighborhoods.

St. Sabina/The Faith Community of St. Sabina
Chicago, IL $77,633
To build Chicago and statewide coalitions of congregations, organizations, and institutions committed to preventing gun violence.

States United to Prevent Gun Violence
New York, NY $35,000
For web and technical support to state based gun violence prevention organizations.

The Police Foundation
Washington, DC $100,000
To support non-partisan educational activities of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence in Virginia and Wisconsin. (1 yr.)

United Against Illegal Guns Support Fund
New York, NY $200,000
To support the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition's work to expand and strengthen its strategic partnerships with law enforcement. (1 yr.)

University of Toledo
Toledo, OH $24,000
To support two studies of attitudes toward concealed weapons on college campuses.

Violence Policy Center
Washington, DC, $500,000
For research, public education, communication, advocacy, and coalition efforts in support of effective gun violence prevention policies (1 yr)
- See more at: Gun Violence Prevention Grantees - Gun Violence Prevention | The Joyce Foundation

 

[ridleyman]

suicide article

if you check out this and other lists of country's suicide rates, you'll conclude, or at least I do, that the whole gun=suicide argument fails miserably. many, if not all, of these countries have nowhere near the freedom we have to own guns, nor overall numbers of guns, yet have higher rates of suicide. also, do these folks (having not read the study) include such huge factors as joblessness, number of hero soldiers coming back from traumatic battlefields, etc. in other words, it's a bullcrap study/argument!!!!!

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- - - Updated - - -

if you check out this and other lists of country's suicide rates, you'll conclude, or at least I do, that the whole gun=suicide argument fails miserably. many, if not all, of these countries have nowhere near the freedom we have to own guns, nor overall numbers of guns, yet have higher rates of suicide. also, do these folks (having not read the study) include such huge factors as joblessness, number of hero soldiers coming back from traumatic battlefields, etc. in other words, it's a bullcrap study/argument!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

[MaverickNH]

Let's look at Miller's cherry-picked data: 16 states with the most and 6 states with the least guns.

“To illustrate our main findings more concretely, we compared suicide deaths and suicide attempts during our study period in states that are the most extreme in their firearm prevalence. The group of high-prevalence states and the group of low-prevalence states are matched so that the numbers of person-years in the 2 groupings are approximately equal (i.e., the 16 states with the highest firearm prevalence are compared with the 6 states with the lowest firearm prevalence).”
a High–gun ownership states are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
b In high–gun ownership states, 51% of adults live in households with firearms.
c Low–gun ownership states are Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
d In low–gun ownership states, 15% of adults live in households with firearms.

Doing the math from FBI's Crime Statistics, I find total numbers of Violent Crimes in the 16 states with highest gun ownership to be 1.14 times that of the 6 states with lowest gun ownership, despite having 3.41 times greater gun ownership. A 341% difference in guns with only a 14% difference in Violent Crime? Find me a cause-effect relationship between more guns and more violent crime for me there!

And those are just raw numbers for states, not major metropolitan areas or population centers. Only one of a dozen or so peer-reviewed papers finds opposite of Lott's "More Gun, Less Crime" proper statistical analysis.

As always, the problem is social science is not to say something that is true, but is to say something of much importance. But hey, it's all they've got...

 

[gws1063]

". . . In 2010, 22,000 people attempted suicide with a gun, and all but 2,000 were successful. If one out of every 10 of those people used something other than a gun, about 1,900 additional people would have lived."

This struck me. If I'm reading this right, Miller's saying that 1,900 of 2,200 of non-firearm suicide attempts are unsuccessful, giving a 13.6% "success" rate.

I believe that in order for the success rate to be this low, you have to leave suicide "gestures" in the count of attempted suicides. I don't intend to offend anyone, but a suicide gesture is more a call for help rather than a serious attempt at killing yourself. The point is that suicide gestures with a firearm are very rare. If you could control for gestures vs. serious attempts then I would bet that the statistical differences noted in the study would virtually evaporate.

Moral of the story, if you are serious about killing yourself, you will get the job done no matter what obstacles are in your way.

Exactly.

-Gary

 

[7OGlock]

This struck me. If I'm reading this right, Miller's saying that 1,900 of 2,200 of non-firearm suicide attempts are unsuccessful, giving a 13.6% "success" rate.

I believe that in order for the success rate to be this low, you have to leave suicide "gestures" in the count of attempted suicides. I don't intend to offend anyone, but a suicide gesture is more a call for help rather than a serious attempt at killing yourself. The point is that suicide gestures with a firearm are very rare. If you could control for gestures vs. serious attempts then I would bet that the statistical differences noted in the study would virtually evaporate.



Exactly.

-Gary

Did the authors consider suicide attempts that are cries for attention, rather than legitimate attempts. It's probably not something that is easy to identify, but likely people looking for attention arn't going to use a gun. This sort of thing should be discussed as a limitation in the discussion section of the paper.

 

[Spanz]

I did my own study. I found that 100% of all gun suicides could have been prevented, and converted into a standard suicide, if all guns in this nation were confiscated.