Risk, of a gun in the home, is greater than benefit.

[russ1943]

American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine (a peer-reviewed bi-monthly publication)
Abstract:

This current article summarizes the scientific literature on the health
risks and benefits of having a gun in the home for the gun owner and his/
her family.

Conclusion
There are real and imaginary situations when it might be beneficial to have
a gun in the home. For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors
of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns. However, for most contemporary
Americans, the scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is
greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. The
evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide
and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders. On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. That said, for the large majority of
households, having a gun in the home will not provide either health benefits or costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits. The benefit–cost ratio is especially adverse for women and children in the household. Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do
not belong in households with children: The AAP recommends that pediatricians
incorporate questions about guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess guns to remove them, especially
handguns, from the home.101 AJLM
The first link is to the full article
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.full.pdf+html
The following link is to some of the referenced studies
http://ajl.sagepub.com/content/5/6/502.refs.html

[DonP]

1. Oh, it's the David Hemenway study ... again

You know, the guy the Joyce Foundation pays off every year to conduct more "studies" to prove the point about how dangerous guns are.

Please be sure and give it all the serious "scientific" consideration it deserves, every bit as much credibility as Lombroso's theories on criminal behavior.

[Fresh_Start]

2. I've always wondered if the homocide/suicide rate is elevated

because of the recent acquisition of the guns (that is, the gun is purchased for the homocide/suicide) or whether gun significantly predated the death

[iverglas]

16. then you will want to actually read the study

At p. 504:

These and other studies 34,35 indicate that individuals have especially high risks of suicide if they live in homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns. Having any gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide for everyone in the home—the gun owner, the gun owner’s spouse, and the gun owner’s chil-dren. Although most suicide decedents have some history of mental illness or substance abuse, a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide even for household members without these problems. Guns increase the risk for everyone but especially for adolescents and young adults. Although a small minority of suicidal individuals purchase firearms with the immediate intention of killing themselves,36 excluding such cases does not change these findings.

A national time series study (1981-2002) also found a strong association between gun prevalence and suicide rates for men, women, youth, and the entire population, even accounting for unemployment, alcohol consumption, poverty, and region. Household gun ownership levels were largely constant in the 1980s and fell in the 1990s. Firearm suicide rates and overall suicide rates followed suit. There were no significant changes in nonfirearm suicide rates.46 During the period when firearm and overall suicides were decreasing, the percentage of Americans thinking about suicide, planning suicide, or attempting suicide did not change.47

[We_Have_A_Problem]

66. Nope it isn't.

Firearms ownership has zero effect on the overall suicide rate.

The homicide rate has been steadily dropping while gun ownership has been steadily increasing.

[obxhead]

3. Always the guns fault,

never the gun holders fault.

That's the biggest problem with all of these "studies"

[Union Scribe]

4. I've never seen a "peer-reviewed" article cite Mad Max.

What a quality study, lol. I look forward to their conclusion that because of Jason, parents of teenagers should not permit camping outings.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: citing Mad Max

While the Mad Max citing is a bit amusing I get a real charge out of "...gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns...". I assume several PHDs had to spend a bit of time researching that one. ;)

:rofl:

I mean what is the corollary here; you could have a gun accident in a home with no guns if you have a magic wand???

[spin]

22. I also noticed the "...gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns..." bit ...

That's like making the startling conclusion that table saw accidents are most likely to occur in buildings that contain a table saw.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. At first, I wondered...

..."Who can possibly be paying these guys?"

Then it hit me! Probably, WE ALL ARE. :mad:

[iverglas]

31. you guys really don't get the concept of academic research, do yous?

While the Mad Max citing is a bit amusing I get a real charge out of "...gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns...". I assume several PHDs had to spend a bit of time researching that one.

It's actually a rather essential bit of the study.

If the finding had been that gun accidents were NOT more likely to occur in homes with guns, the study would have concluded that there was no elevated risk of gun accidents associated with having a gun in the home vs. not having a gun in the home. Possibly even that there was a lower risk associated with having a gun in the home.

Guns enter homes in ways other than being kept there by the householders. And gun accidents can happen in homes where no gun is kept. Duh.

It's funny that you all think it's funny.

Just think how funny you would have found it if the conclusion had not been stated. OMG they have no proof that gun accidents are more likely to happen in homes with guns!!1!1!!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Yes...

...you're very funny?? :wow:

[spin]

35. That reminds me of a government study on the breeding habits of woodchucks ...

that concluded that they like to breed with other woodchucks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Did they ever solve the mystery?

How many woodchucks does it take to breed?

Oh wait. This was a government study. There's probably a conspiracy among those woodchucks and, as we all know from the government, it only takes one to have a conspiracy...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. On second thought...

...what are the options here?

Option A (from the Canadian former attorney) "...gun accidents can happen in homes where no gun is kept. Duh."

...or...

Option B (from JOP, the Journal of Overpaid PhDs) "...gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns..."


In the immortal words of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, "I'm goin' wit' option B." ;)

[pipoman]

59. Oh, come on..

it's silliness. I can tell, without a study, that ATV accidents happen at homes with ATVs, football accidents happen to people who play football, residential swimming pool accidents happen at homes with swimming pools. While it probably should be noted in the study, it is the frequency it is cited as a reason to argue one shouldn't keep guns in the home, is amusing.

[iverglas]

11. manoman, the reading comprehension is on the blink today, eh?

For example, in the Australian film Mad Max, where survivors of the apocalypse seem to have been predominantly psychopathic male bikers, having a loaded gun would seem to be very helpful for survival, and public health experts would probably advise people in that world to obtain guns.

To which you respond (and we won't even remark on your apparent sense-of-humour amputation):

I look forward to their conclusion that because of Jason, parents of teenagers should not permit camping outings.

Did you somehow imagine you had read something that suggested that because of Mad Max, parents should not have guns in the household?

Yeesh.

You've pretty clearly said that the authors concluded from the existence of the film called Mad Max that parents should not have guns in their homes.

You know who looks like the idiot here, right?



html fixed

[Union Scribe]

26. No, that's not what I said.

In your foamy rush to plant your maple leaf and make yourself feel good, I guess, you didn't get the point: that if you're using hyper-unrealistic movies as part of your academic argument in re the real world, then they could also make the Jason argument or at least reference it to buttress some inane study of knife accidents. Yeah, I made it more direct for the sake of a fucking post on the internet and it wasn't technically on par with the original. Congratulations on figuring that out. How sad are you anyway, on a scale of 1 to 3 million?

And yes, I think everyone who's ever read your posts knows who sounds like what.

[Euromutt]

58. And cite it incorrectly at that

Because the situation the article refers to is that of Mad Max 2, initially released in the U.S. as The Road Warrior. In the first Mad Max film, the psycho bikers form a very small (but disproportionately influential) part of society. And if you've seen the first film, or at least the end of it, you know that the second film takes place in "the wasteland," an area that has been abandoned by (what little remains of) government. Moreover, the focal point of the second film is an oil well and refinery complex that draws the psycho bikers because they need fuel to operate their vehicles, so that kind of skews the sample of people you're going to encounter in that particular location.

Oh, and: anyone notice that while there are a few firearms in Mad Max 2, ammunition for them is extremely scarce? It's major thing when "Big Rebecca" gives Max a handful of shotgun shells for his sawn-off, and while The Humungus (the "Ayatollah of Rock 'n' Roll-ah") has a S&W Model 29 in .44 Mag, he has exactly five rounds for it, and he uses those sparingly. Having a gun in the Mad Max setting is a rarity; having a loaded gun even more so.

Of course, you wouldn't know that if you hadn't actually watched the movies, but instead formed your ideas of them on the publicity stills...

[AtheistCrusader]

5. Hahaha look at all that bullshit.

Sways me not in the slightest. My child will grow up just fine in our home, just as my brother and I did in my parent's home.

This study might be a good warning for ignorant motherfuckers who have children and guns in their homes, but not most normal parents.

Also, I reserve the right to terminate my own life under circumstances of my choosing.

[slackmaster]

6. "Unfortunately, data on self-defense gun use are not reliable."

:kick:

[frebrd]

7. Pure Crap! eom

[virginia mountainman]

yawn.....

More of the "Same ol same ol"....

It's all they have now...

[jmg257]

8. I wonder how they calculate the benefits of owning guns compared

to say - the benefits of owning guitars? What if a person gets similiar enjoyment from owning both?

What if someone likes shooting guns, and finds that doing so is a fun way to spend some time outdoors?
What if someone finds enjoyment and pride and self-confidence in themselves as their skills improve?
What if a family finds that shooting is a good way to spend quality time with spouses, parents, kids, and/or friends?
What if someone likes hunting and enjoys/depends on the benefits?
What if someone likes collecting guns?
What if someone enjoys the history and appreciates the workmanship & engineering involved?
What if someone has a few guns in which the value has grown significantly over the years?
What if someone can afford to purchase guns where the costs involved are not an issue?
What if someone depends on guns as component of making their living?
What if someone feels safer or just plain better having a gun for various reasons?

I wonder if sometimes science really can't be used to determine all the value that comes from doing something.

I accept that there are risks involved with owning guns - there are. As there are in doing quite a few of life's activities.
My family likes to swim in pools and the ocean - even without lifeguards. My kids are on swim teams. We like to drive in cars. My wife likes to ski. We like to build a fire once in a while, and use matches quite often. I use ladders when I need to. I use weed killer, draino and other poisons when I have to.

Maybe its that we aren't all what they like to think as 'contemporary Americans'...Maybe we all don't abuse our spouse. Maybe we all don't have thoughts of suicide. Maybe we don't all don't think psychopathic male bikers will invade.

Hmm...for that matter maybe we all don't drink to access or do drugs. Maybe we got past the stupid notion that guns are only good for killing. I bet many of us even have a decent sized penis (but will only speak of myself - I do!). Maybe we all don't have an overwhelming fear of going out without our guns. Maybe we all don't have fantasies about saving the day or plastering the bad guy, and/or think guns make us invincible.

Sometimes all the studies in the world make no difference, because people will always have to make up their own minds on the benefits THEY get from doing certain things, and whether they are worth the risk. We have the choice, use it wisely.

[Hoyt]

13. What if someone enjoys training to shoot people, accessorizing to kill more people, etc.

Shouldn't someone (or some organization) intervene?

Could do without reading your opinion of organ size, but other gunners might find it interesting as they attempt to grow up.

[jmg257]

17. Depends on the type of killing...this type of behavioir is a good idea in numerous proffessions.

For would-be murderers and the like...intervention would be a good thing.

Not surte how that relates to studying/weighing the benefits of guns in the home though.

[ileus]

30. Is killing all you think of hoyt?

[Hoyt]

41. What else is there when we are talking about guns. And, I don't grab one when venturing out.

Nor, do I have them close by at home.

[ileus]

43. hunting, target shooting, self defense...

For the most part I'm sure most of us here aren't criminals who go out killing or have killed anyone. (we need a poll I suppose to verify)

Most gun owners are only interested in maintaining life and the life of our loved ones. Some of us also hunt, and many I'm sure target shoot and compete.

Guns aren't for killing, if they do they've been misused.

[Hoyt]

44. Do you use silhouette targets? Self-defense -- if you don't want to kill, pepper spray, etc.

Most criminals don't kill either -- well unless they think citizens are armed and it is best to just put a bullet in their head from behind before taking their wallet, watch . . . . . . and gun.

[ileus]

46. nope I only shoot dots and circles...even with my SD weapons.

I also carry a Kimber pepper blaster at times. Light, legal, no worries about leaving it unattended in a vehicle if I have to.

My wife is out of town on business this week and she's carrying her pepper blaster.

[PavePusher]

75. This obsession you have with the shape of self-defense training targets...

it is unhealthy for you, and contradictory to many of your other claims.

But it is well evident that being self-consistent is not your... raison d'etre.

[iverglas]

14. you certainly went off into the stratosphere there ...

So let's just stick to your first bit.

The question that the authors are suggesting parents ask themselves is: Do the risks of firearms in the household outweigh the benefits?

You've raised some potential benefits they apparently did not consider; they were evidently considering the keeping of firearms in the home for "defensive" purposes.

But look at your list. Does "a good way to spend quality time with spouses, parents, kids, and/or friends" outweigh the risk of a kid committing suicide, or injuring a friend, or terrorizing a classroom?

Are there no substitutes for guns in the home that would provide a means of spending quality time with friends and family, without the risks associated with guns in the home?

You raise the risks involved in swimming; in fact, there are risks involved in any sport children participate in. None of them involve the risk of a child doing something, or having something done to it, outside the context of that sport. A gun in the home does. (A swimming pool at the home does too, obviously, and yes, parents should very seriously consider those risks and take every possible step to minimize them if they decide to accept them for their children -- and there should be laws requiring safeguards.)

You raise the risks associated with toxic substances in the home. A parent averted to those risks might simply decide not to have them in their home. If they decide to have them, they would hopefully decide to keep them very secure from children. Would you not want parents to be averted to the risks?

You raise the risks associated with driving in cars. Do many people have an alternative to doing that, other than never going anywhere? Public transit is non-existent in many places in the US, I believe. But should parents not be averted to those risks, and urged to take every possible step to minimize them?

So what's the difference with guns?

If there are risks associated with guns in the home, should parents not be given every opportunity to know and understand those risks? And urged to take every possible step to avoid them, if they do decide to keep guns in the home?


"Most contemporary Americans" -- the expression has nothing to do with all the strange things you have tried to throw into the brew. It has to do with the risks facing ordinary people for which they need to have firearms at hand. Most contemporary Americans do not live in Mad Max world.

[jmg257]

27. I know - got a bit carried away!

Carried away with weighing actual reasons/benefits with some often portrayed as reasons/negatives.

Anyway, in order to keep it shorter this time (though I do once again appreciate your t & e, but I have chicken cooking!)..

If the study was concerned mainly with weighing the defensive benefits of guns in the home, then OK, they have a stronger...'case', stronger then I would consider, as I also appreciate many of the other benefits (such as I listed) as good reasons to own guns.

I think the rest can be summarized:

You said "If there are risks associated with guns in the home, should parents not be given every opportunity to know and understand those risks? And urged to take every possible step to avoid them, if they do decide to keep guns in the home?"

Yes. No problem with this at all. If the study can educate gun owners, help show the risks involved against realistic expectations, identify potential problem spots, I also have no problem with it.

[ileus]

29. I love playing my guitar...but my 45 plays a favorite tune.

[tularetom]

10. Nonsense

[montanto]

12. I keep guns for just such a post-apocalyptic scenario. Thanks for the support!!

Until then I keep 'em locked up.

[spin]

19. Hopefully your firearms will prove to be a very poor investment ...

as no one wants to live in a post-apocalyptic world.



I personally hope that I never have to use any of the firearms that I own for self defense. But if I have too, I'll most likely be damn glad I had them.

[spin]

15. Having a firearm in my home may not provide a good benefit-cost ratio this year ...

It didn't last year or the year before or even the year before that.

However 20 years ago, my daughter used a large caliber revolver to stop an intruder who was forcing the sliding glass door of our kitchen open to gain entry. She pointed a S&W Model 25-2 .45 acp revolver at him and he wisely decided to run.

Having a firearm in my home paid big dividends that year. It may not be an exaggeration that I owe the fact that my only child survived that night and that I now have two grandchildren is because of that big old S%W revolver.

From the conclusion in the OP:

"...On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. That said, for the large majority of
households, having a gun in the home will not provide either health benefits or costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that the costs will widely outweigh the benefits."

Having a fire extinguisher in my room has proved to have a poor cost-benefit ratio for the five years that I have lived in this home. Hopefully it will continue to never be needed. The same goes for the loaded handgun I have in a locked gun box ten feet from where I am typing. I hope and pray that the 9mm S%W Model 940 will just quietly lay safely in the box until I take it to the range for a workout. I recently paid home insurance and on the big old house, it cost a small fortune. I've never filed a single claim and I hope that I never do. What would the cost-benefit ratio of my home insurance policy be?

The report ignores that fact that for many people target shooting is a enjoyable hobby and this alters the cost-benefit analysis. People in the area of Florida also hunt deer and wild hog to provide food for their table. Considering that I live in a very poor county, people who successfully hunt find the cost-benefit ratio of having a firearm in their home very positive.

[ObamaFTW2012]

18. I don't ask doctors for advice about guns

and I don't go to the NRA for medical consultations. Either one will result in bad advice based on lack of knowledge and expertise.

[spin]

20. My doctors know that I have firearms ...

we often discuss shooting.

It's a tactic I use to avoid those damned prostate exams.

[Hoyt]

25. Not so sure. From family experience, many elderly reach point where keys/guns have to be removed.

And pediatricians should talk to parents about the dangers of guns around children.

The NRA in recent years has become a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers/dealers and those who covet their products.

[ileus]

32. That's true we took my fathers guns from him this summer.

he's 80 and after a stint in the nursing home after rehab from a surgery we removed all his firearms from his home. He's still mad and still wants his guns back but we refuse.

[Hoyt]

37. Good man. Sorry that happened, but same here -- my FIL was quite sick and seeing ghosts, etc.

He had a lot of guns -- retired Air Force and police with over 50 years total. A good man, but when they can't distinguish their daughter or SIL from a North Korean or criminal, it's way past trying to reason with them.

My dad -- who was an accomplished target competitor -- died before 60. But, it would have been a real fight with him -- not sure I would have prevailed.

Take care.

[ileus]

45. thanks...

It was tough...you gotta do what you have to do. Taking his keys was easy, he isn't able to walk that well and can't operate the brakes and gas properly anymore driving rights went away 3 years ago. Of the day time dad's perfectly normal to talk to except he claims people are out to get him at night...the aging brain is an odd thing.

With some people there does come a time that going without a gun or two is in the public's best interest.

My father like your FIL was also in the Korean War (Navy) BTW..


have a good evening

[iverglas]

47. "Of the day time dad's perfectly normal to talk to"

Sundown (sunset) syndrome. You're probably aware of the phenomenon, but it could be useful to read around a bit about it.

http://www.caring.com/articles/sundown-syndrome

Coupled with the fact that the elderly often sleep much less than younger adults, and so are awake when carers would like to be asleep, it can be more than difficult to deal with.

http://www.alzheimers-disease.net/2010/02/15/sundown-syndrome-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease/

[ileus]

48. thanks for the links...

[gejohnston]

52. Being an orphan

I was spared all of that. I do know that when my MIL passed (married for about 60 years, high school sweethearts all of that), my FIL surrendered his CCW and sold the Beretta .32 he carried. Never said why. Him being Catholic, I have my own theory.

[Hoyt]

64. If your doc prescribes Aricept, it's definitely time for you give em up.

Should be a question on permit applications.

[gejohnston]

73. Thanks, I'll remember that.

If it gets to that point I will give them away or sell them except for one pistol and one round. There are fates worse than physical death. Mental death being one of them. I'm not Catholic.

[Simo 1939_1940]

74. +100 on that, cowboy. NT

[oneshooter]

65. Sounds to me like he had Alzheimer's. Nasty stuff. Lost my Dad

a year before he died. And yes, Mom gave me his firearms a year before that.

Moms firearms are also residing in my safes, she will never recover the ability to use them after her stroke. They will be given to my sons according to her wishes, when she dies.

Alzheimer's is a nasty disease that steals the mind and spirit, and leaves only a shell to wither away.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. "The NRA..."

"...in recent years has become a lobbying organization for gun manufacturers/dealers and those who covet their products."

I get it that you're not partial to the NRA.
I get it that you need to be more careful with firearms around those of reduced responsibility.

But stop fighting a losing battle trying to ban what is here to stay. By dropping such broad endorsement of gun control, the democratic party will short out reasons for the NRA to blanket endorse the GOP. Maybe the NRA would focus more on encouraging safety, marksmanship, etc.

Ya think?

[Hoyt]

39. That's right. Let's do nothing and in a decade or so we'll have 100 M more of the dang things

to deal with when we come to our senses.

[ObamaFTW2012]

60. And in a decade

those "dang things" will be just as safe as they are today. Remember, when you remove from the equation the 13,000+/- drug and/or gang-related murders-by-firearm per annum, committed mostly by 16-24yo black males against mostly 16-24yo black males, there are so few murders committed with guns that no public safety argument against guns could be made using murder stats to support it.

[oneshooter]

38. TURN THEM IN, Hoyt!!! Just think of the children!!! n/t

[Hoyt]

40. I do. That's why I have very few left and would never carry one (or two in your case) in public.

A few 5 shooters and a single shot Frankenstein Remington Rolling Block. Still have a nice Sherrington pellet gun too, just in case I see a big bug or rat.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. +1

:rofl:

[ObamaFTW2012]

49. Should I fall victim to Alzheimer's

I would hope my family takes my guns and car keys too. If they have any respect for me, they won't sell my guns and my vehicles.

As for your second sentence, you forgot to mention the 4,000,000+ Americans (myself not included) who demand to be heard in Congress and the various state legislatures. While I personally dislike the NRA for their overly aggressive marketing of junk and member benefit stuff, I respect their tenacity and strict focus in the fight for gun rights.

[pipoman]

61. Any other specific dangers pediatricians should talk to parents about?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Oh I don't know. Doctors were pretty handy with them in the Ghetto Uprising.

Seems like they had a good idea where to shoot people, and a steady hand.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Life is all about weighing choices and risks. If people want a gun and understand the risks... good

[spin]

23. Agreed. Not everyone should own a gun...

and before a person buys one he should carefully consider the decision and get some good firearm safety training.

[ileus]

24. Thanks anyway...I'll keep mine.

[petronius]

36. Points like this one are fascinating to me, and a bit creepy:

Many suicides appear to be impulsive acts. Individuals who take their own lives often do so when confronting a severe but temporary crisis. In a study of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, which would have been fatal without emergency treatment, none of the 30 attempters had written a suicide note, and more than half reported having suicidal thoughts for less than 24 hours. In 2 years of follow-up, none of the 30 attempted suicide again. Other studies that have followed survivors of serious suicide attempts find that fewer than 10% typically go on to kill themselves. (p503-4)

I remember similar discussions about the building of a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge, and the argument was made that there are hundreds of equally high spots that would be fatal. However, studies indicated that many suicidal people would travel past all those spots to get to the GGB, and if balked at the bridge they would travel back home right past all those other opportunities and not try again. IOW, suicide is rarely something that is carefully thought out, and on which a person is absolutely set on (those people really do succeed eventually)...

[AtheistCrusader]

51. We've installed all kinds of shit on the Aurora bridge in Seattle to prevent jumpers.

I doubt it has had the overall positive effect of reducing suicides, but it's peace of mind for the poor bastards that work directly below the bridge. People didn't always come down in the river, landing on parked cars and businesses and sidewalks. Even if they did land in the river, who wants to witness that sort of thing on a regular basis?

We'll see when we've got a couple more years of data, but I suspect it does fuckall to the overall suicide rate.

[eallen]

53. Why is "assisted suicide" good, but non-assisted suicide bad?

It always has puzzled me that the same folks who insist that we have the right to assisted suicide are the ones who would mark every other suicide as an evil. If, when, I suffer some disease that will leave me hapless, I intend, before that point comes, to take my own way out. And so long as one hand works, I won't need assistance.

Any study that mixes suicides with other causes of death is meaningless.

Any study of suicides that doesn't try to distinguish the rational ones from the irrational also is meaningless.

:hippie:

[Euromutt]

69. I've never been able to work that distinction out either

Then there's Hemenway's statement "that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide." Again, I will point out that "risk factor" is a weasel phrase commonly employed by politically motivated researchers to imply a causal relationship on the basis of statistical correlation (whereas any honest scientist knows that "correlation does not imply causation"). The correlation could be readily explained by the possible scenario that firearms are a preferred means of suicide of people who are seriously trying to kill themselves, as opposed to attempting suicide as a "cry for help," as the latter tend to choose methods that are more likely to be survivable (provided they are discovered in time).

There is a rather ugly tendency among public health researchers to assume that nobody who attempts suicide does so with a serious intent to kill themselves, and that the only factor that determines whether they actually manage to kill themselves is the method chosen, as opposed to considering that the choice of method may be an indication of how badly the subject wanted to die.

[iverglas]

70. why does anyone still think that someone is fooled

by the straw adversaries they invent for themselves?

Why is "assisted suicide" good, but non-assisted suicide bad?

Maybe if you ask the person who said that, you'll get an answer.

Meanwhile:

It always has puzzled me that the same folks who insist that we have the right to assisted suicide are the ones who would mark every other suicide as an evil.

is a flat-out false statement. You didn't know that?

Suicide is not illegal in Canada, i.e. there is no "attempted suicide" offence that allows for people whose attempts are unsuccessful to be punished. However, assisting a suicide remains illegal. We have a famous case on the subject involving Sue Rodriguez, who went to the Supreme Court seeking the right to assistance when her ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) made it impossible for her to act on her own. Her long-time supporter was Svend Robinson, an NDP member of Parliament.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html

The Supreme Court of Canada ultimately ruled against Rodriguez, but her struggle galvanized the public. Rodriguez committed suicide in 1994 with the help of an anonymous doctor.

(It is widely assumed that Svend was also present at her death.) Had the Court struck down the law, as I believe it should have done, the onus would then have been on the government to regulate assisted suicide, which it could do perfectly legally:

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act was approved by voters in 1994 but blocked for three years by critics who challenged its constitutionality in the U.S. Supreme Court.

... The state's strict rules governing assisted suicides stipulate that the patient must have been declared terminally ill by two physicians and must have requested lethal drugs three times, including in writing.

I don't really think that anyone who supports legalizing assisted suicide says any more than that. I don't know anyone who says that everyone should have the right to assisted suicide.

Specifically, I think your statement that anyone thinks that "assisted suicide" <is> good is totally false.

I think adultery should be legal; this does not mean I think "adultery is good".

No more do I know of people who advocate legalizing assisted suicide who say that every other suicide <is> evil. (Do you??)

Someone I was once in a relationship had lost a 13-year-old son to suicide a couple of years before; he had used the father's unsecured hunting rifle. The boy had a disability, spina bifida at birth resulting in a "club foot", and had recently suffered a surgical setback. He was plainly depressed to an extent no one realized. His circumstances were temporary -- yes, he would have some disability all his life, but few people would think that his disability was comparable to a terminal illness.

Do I think it should have been legal for someone to assist him in committing suicide? Take a flying guess.

Are there really people who believe that allowing a depressed young teenager access to the means to commit suicide and attempting no intervention to address the child's mental health problems is a good thing?

Are there really people who would say that this child's suicide was a good thing?

You'll forgive me if I don't.

What I say is that suicides committed by people who should have had access to supports, that could in many if not most cases have addressed the reasons they wanted to kill themselves, are "bad". Just as any failure by communities and societies to offer assistance to any member in need is bad, and the loss of any life to preventable causes is bad.

Do YOU oppose legalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill people? Do YOU say that all other suicides are "evil"?

I suggest that you find somewhere where demagoguery like yours is welcomed, and take it there.



Not content with one giant straw person in your post, you throw in some more.


Any study that mixes suicides with other causes of death is meaningless.

Somebody else who didn't read the study? I'm sure you'll be very happy together.

The study has different sections, distinguished, interestingly enough, by their headings. Like

Self-Harm: Suicides
Homicides

Gosh. How clever of the authors, eh?

Of course, unlike some who like to present the question of the effects of widespread access to firearms in terms of killing and nothing else, the study didn't limit its field to deaths. It also considers the risks of intimidation as part of a pattern of spousal abuse, for instance.


Any study of suicides that doesn't try to distinguish the rational ones from the irrational also is meaningless.

If you're asserting that firearms suicides are more likely to be "rational" than other suicides, you're the one who might want to substantiate that.

Most people would likely regard suicide by the terminally ill as "rational" and suicide by people suffering from depression or other mental illness as not necessarily "irrational" but certainly affected by an emotional or psychological state or a thought process that could be described as abnormal.

Are people who are terminally ill more likely to commit suicide by firearm than some other way? I would have thought quite the opposite.

In any event:

For example, a cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness, alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse, and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and in urban areas. There was no association between gun prevalence and a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate. The findings held for both sexes and all age groups.

Feeling better now?

[alp227]

54. first you have two unnecessary commas in subject,

secondly it's worse to be cornered with armed robbers at home and have no good means of self defense via firearm than to have an accidental shooting. That's what gun locks and storage locks are for. Kids can't figure out how to work those. But it's easier for robbers to break in your home.

[pipoman]

57. ...

[Euromutt]

62. "American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine"?

Well, that certainly sounds like a high-impact publication(!) WTF is "lifestyle medicine," anyway?

Some research turns up that the AJL has no impact factor (i.e. it's not cited in other journals at all), and it's not even indexed in PubMed. Apparently, even Hemenway can't get his stuff published in Trauma or Pediatrics any more, let alone the JAMA and NEJM (though it's not like the NEJM hasn't printed some garbage lately).

Note an interesting pattern in Hemenway's rhetoric: when he's talking about evidence that supports his thesis, he uses words like "overwhelming" and "compelling" which sound very certain, but ultimately what is "overwhelming" and "compelling" is that the presence of firearms is a "risk factor." But "risk factor" means nothing more than that there is some statistical correlation, but that a causal relationship cannot be demonstrated to exist, in spite of the authors' most fervent wishes to the contrary.
Conversely, when Hemenway talks about evidence that might refute his hypothesis, he says there is "no good evidence." Note he doesn't say there is "no evidence," which implies that there is evidence, which Hemenway dismisses as being "no good." But on whose say-so? If that of Hemenway himself, well, I'm sure we can see the conflict of interest, can't we?

It also continues to be remarkable how Hemenway manages to assert that "a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide" despite having conceded ten years ago that:

A problem with international studies is the difficulty in fully accounting for the disparate cultural factors that may influence the incidence and method of suicide. Additional problems with these studies are that data on suicides may not be completely comparable across nations, and data on gun availability are not routinely collected. On the other hand, a virtue of international comparisons is that gun availability and suicide levels are often so variable that it is possible to spot significant differences even when the sample size is small.

The few international studies that address the gun-suicide question suggest that firearm availability affects the method of suicide and may have an influence on the total level of suicides, especially among youth. The evidence, however, is far from convincing that gun ownership levels are related to overall suicide rates for all age groups. The U.S., for example, has the highest levels of gun ownership, but its overall suicide rate is only 16th out of 26 high-income countries. One study found a statistically significant relationship between gun ownership levels and suicide rate across 14 developed nations (e.g. where survey data on gun ownership levels were available), but the association lost its statistical significance when additional countries were included.

Emphases in bold mine. Isn't it interesting how, since 2001, all those problems with international comparisons have been overcome, as if by magic? Or is it more plausible that Hemenway just decided to conveniently ignore all that "far from convincing" evidence precisely because it was "far from convincing"?

[gejohnston]

63. but, but, but

Hemenway is a highly respected scientist. How dare you question the integrity and skill of anyone who works at Harvard. You must be some anti-intellectual climate change denying rube or something. :sarcasm:

[DonP]

67. Wait a minute ... where's the Bloodbath?

There are now a record number of firearms in American homes, based on the last 3 years sales alone.

If the "43 times ..." story, that some among us keep repeating, is right, we should all be tripping over bodies left and right by now. Shouldn't we? Where is all this death and destruction if they are right?

According to those obviously lying "right wing bastards" at the FBI and CDC violent crime and gun deaths are at a 35 year low.

What's wrong with this formula?

Who are you going to believe, Hemenway, Kellerman and the VPC, or your own lyin' eyes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. How *dare* you question your betters, you uneducated lout?

The valuation of empirical evidence over credentials is the sort of concrete thinking encouraged by
right-wing racist misogynists. Just look at the hell they've given Dianne Feinstein and Sylvester Stallone recently.

They refuse to acknowledge that Sen. Feinstein and Mr. Stallone are far more qualified to carry concealed firearms
than the sort of riffraff you'd find living in a housing project or attending university in inner city Philadelphia.

I mean, really, the sheer crust of some people...

[iverglas]

68. garsh, Billy Bob, d'ya think

that the fact that what you quote is 10 years old might just have a teeny smidge of relevance to the differences between those findings and the current ones?

Isn't it interesting how, since 2001, all those problems with international comparisons have been overcome, as if by magic?

If you consider mouses and internet connections magic too, I'm not surprised you would say this. The explanation would be that you didn't actually read the published article. Oopsie.

The suicide portion resides at pages 503 to 505. It contain interesting little tidbits like

Violent Deaths Among 5- to 14-Year-Olds:
United States Versus Other High-Income OECD Countries, 2003a
Mortality rate ratio
gun homicides: 13.4
gun suicides: 8.0

Wowsers, you've got the rest of us beat six ways to Sunday on both counts!

Oh, and see the date there? 2003.

I'll bet if Hemenway had cited 2003 data in his 2001 paper you would have called him a charlatan. So he saved it up for you, hahaha.

Violent Deaths Among US Children Aged 5 to 14 Years
in High- and Low-Gun States, 2003-2007a
Mortality rate - Ratio of high-gun states to low-gun states
gun homicides: 2.5
gun suicides: 12.1

Once again, you caught the date range?


How's them correlations doing for you?


Scientific studies show that a gun in the home is
a risk factor for suicide.(12,18)

More than a dozen case-control studies have examined
the relationship between gun ownership and suicide in
the United States, and all find that firearms in the
home are associated with substantially and significantly
higher rates of suicide.(19-33)

These and other studies(34,35) indicate that individuals
have especially high risks of suicide if they live in
homes with loaded guns and unlocked guns.


So let's check those footnotes: 12, 18, 19-33, 34, 35 ... I'll just grab a batch at the end, so as not to offend you with any Hemenway self-citations.

28. Kung HC, Pearson JL, Liu X
. Risk factors for male and female suicide decedents ages 15-64
in the United States: results from the 1993 National Mortality
Followback Survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003; 38: 419-426.

29. Kung HC, Pearson JL, Wei R
. Substance use, firearm availability, depressive symptoms,
and mental health service utilization among white and African American
suicide decedents aged 15 to 64 years. Ann Epidemiol. 2005; 15: 614-621.

30. Dahlberg LL, Ikeda RM, Kresnow MJ
. Guns in the home and risk of a violent death in the home:
findings from a national study. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 160: 929-936.

31. Wiebe DJ
. Homicide and suicide risks associated with firearms in the home:
a national case-control study. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 41: 771-782.

32. Shah S, Hoffman RE, Wake L, Marine WM
. Adolescent suicide and household access to firearms in Colorado:
results of a case-control study. J Adolesc Health. 2000; 26: 157-163.

33. Grassel KM, Wintemute GJ, Wright MA, Romero MP
. Association between handgun purchase and mortality from firearm injury.
Inj Prev. 2003; 9: 48-52.

34. Shenassa ED, Rogers ML, Spalding KL, Roberts MB
. Safer storage of firearms at home and risk of suicide:
a study of protective factors in a nationally representative sample.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58: 841-848.

35. Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al
. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and
unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA. 2005; 293: 707-714.


Checked them there dates?

I dunno. Can Joyce afford to keep all those folks on the payroll?


It really is quite amazing. In fact, I was just remarking on this last night to the co-vivant. He was blabbing on about talking iPhones or something. Voice-activated. I was recalling how a colleague of mine who never learned to type was asked to be guinea pig on one of those softwares about 20 years ago. He's a prissy but drily funny Oxbridge-educated anglo West Indian with prematurely bald pate. So when I heard the news about the voice recognition trial, I painted him a watercolour caricature for his office: Capt. Jean-Luc <Smith-Jones> looking at his little Star Trek pop-up screen and saying "Computer: indent from left margin, half impulse." Sadly, he backed out. I think he probably thought there might be radiowaves involved that would read his mind. Anyhow, I was remarking as how I have no idea how he has done our job for the last 20 years, because he has no idea what the internet is. I open 40 or 50 tabs an hour to do the research I need for the work. And the thing is, the work itself has totally changed because the people producing things some of my work relates to have access to the net too, so their products are hugely more research heavy. None of us can just wander into the law library and photocopy a few cases any more. We need UN documents (for which I used to have to drive to a big government building, wait for one of the scarce parking spaces, get into the library, find a librarian, have them go through aisle after aisle of loose pieces of paper in those vertical cardboard magazine holders, get the one I wanted, then the next one, beg the favour of photocopying them, go back home in a snowstorm and realize I'd missed one; now I move my mouse over to the google window on my other monitor and type in what I want, then c&p the right bit into my document), foreign government documents, documents from every domestic government body and department and agency and tribunal there is, obscure scientific and other terminology ... and it's (almost) all there on the net. So anyhow, where I was going is that exponentially more stuff is being produced now because of the net, because of all the data and documents available on the net, which means more stuff for people to produce more stuff with ... so you see where I went with this.


There is a great big difference between 2000 and 2010 in terms of data availability: the availability of data, and the data that are available.

How not very surprising that a conclusion of inconclusiveness would have changed in a decade. How not at all surprising.


Here's just another little tidbit for you:

For example, a cross-sectional study using firearm ownership data
from the large Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System found
that in states with more guns, there were more suicides (because
there were more firearm suicides), even after controlling for the
percentage of the state’s population with serious mental illness,
alcohol dependence or abuse, illicit substance dependence or abuse,
and the percentage unemployed, living below the poverty level, and
in urban areas. There was no association between gun prevalence and
a state’s nonfirearm suicide rate. The findings held for both sexes
and all age groups.43

43. Miller M, Lippmann S, Azrael D, Hemenway D
. Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 U.S.
states. J Trauma. 2007;62:1029-1035.

(Oh, by the way, you will note that that is Trauma, and it was Hemenway, 2007.)


So how are you feeling about actually reading and addressing something actually in this current paper then?

Beyond the abstract, that is, where you found the words you take unfounded issue with here:

Note an interesting pattern in Hemenway's rhetoric: when he's talking about evidence that supports his thesis, he uses words like "overwhelming" and "compelling" which sound very certain, but ultimately what is "overwhelming" and "compelling" is that the presence of firearms is a "risk factor." But "risk factor" means nothing more than that there is some statistical correlation, but that a causal relationship cannot be demonstrated to exist, in spite of the authors' most fervent wishes to the contrary.

If you'd bothered to read any of the paper, you would have found that "compelling", for instance, is in the penultimate paragraph of the sectionon suicides; it is the conclusion. Before engaging in this pretense of rebutting that characterization (well, all you actually did was baselessly deride it), you really might want to read what it is the conclusion from.

You're reminding me of the demand-proof/delay thing I think I quoted in this thread. Can you cite any study of a human behaviour that has proved cause-and-effect? Like, childhood sexual abuse: not a risk factor for committing child sexual abuse in adulthood, but a cause of that behaviour. Like that. Got some? I'd hate to think you were criticizing Hemenway for not doing something that no one examining any similar phenomenon has done.

[gejohnston]

72. Actually

Joyce does have that kind of money.