I hate to contribute to it going off topic, but it really is a sad postscript that what could have been an impulsive action as a teenager had such tragic aftermath. Totally separately from reading this I was recently reminded that more than 20,000 people kill themselves with guns in the US per year. And looking this statistic up to confirm it, I learned that people in households with guns were more likely to die by suicide than those without by a factor of 3-4 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705 via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...)
This is like the archetypical off-topic ideological tangent. On a thread about a stunning and complicated medical achievement, more than 30% of the comments are a firearms debate issuing from this comment. Please don't write stuff like this. I know it seems natural to use this story as a launching point for talking about the broader ideological issue, and unnatural not to do that when it's the obvious thought the story generates in your head, but with volatile topics we have to resist the urge lest flamewars burn down the threads.
(I fucking hate firearms, for whatever that's worth).
I might have otherwise been inclined to agree, but the framing of the original story I think wisely spends at least a little bit of time -- maybe not 30% -- discussing the para-political and social issues surrounding this, not just the scientific and technological issues of the transplant and the human story of Katie's recovery.
I think it's wise for the original article to discuss at least in passing the access to guns that allowed the suicide attempt to happen, the drug crisis that leads to there being any young donors at all, the donor waitlist situation and the choice to become a donor, and the DoD's involvement, and I'm glad the comments do as well.
I do agree that the comment you're responding to directly probably isn't the best kick at the can, though, and so to the extent that you mention the parent comment needing to resist the urge, I think the urge that should be resisted is the urge to have a driveby comment on a volatile subject, not to bring in related social/political issues.
If I understand correctly, plenty of research shows that it's an impulsive decision, and access to a tool that makes it easy greatly increases the likelihood of acting on it. The research shows that the presence of guns, in particular, in increases suicide. Killing yourself is hard; a gun makes it a push-button operation.
However, it would be much better if someone could share the actual research with us.
If someone thinks about suicide for years and then "impulsively" picks up that gun, I'm guessing the researchers count that as an "impulsive decision". On the other hand, it does seem Katie's attempt was genuinely a spur-of-the-moment thing, and a proper gun cabinet might have been sufficient to stop her.
As a PSA, don't ever try to kill yourself with a gun. The success rate is only 70 percent. The 30 percent who survive are much worse off than the rare jumper who survives the golden gate bridge
> If someone thinks about suicide for years and then "impulsively" picks up that gun, I'm guessing the researchers count that as an "impulsive decision".
Is there something you can point to that supports that theory? I appreciate that you say you are "guessing".
Also, I don't know what "thinks about suicide for years" signifies. Probably everyone thinks about it at some point, and probably at multiple points; thus we all 'think about it for years'. I thought about being a fireman for years when I was a child. There's a big difference between thinking and acting, or there would be a lot more startups in the world.
We have plenty of research to show that method substitution is unusual.
This research comes from a few places: looking at people who've died by suicide and the methods they used, and any previous attempts. Looking at survivors of suicide attempts, and at what methods they've used in the past. And some natural experiments, such as the introduction of catalytic convertors to cars, or switching the UK gas supply from coal gas to natural gas.
She totally could have. But other means of suicide give family and bystanders a chance to intervene. Pills and alcohol can be pumped out of the stomach. You can be pulled down from the edge of a bridge. You can rescue yourself from a hanging if you find you have last minute regrets.
A gun is brutally efficient at killing you; Load and pull the trigger. If the gun is lying around loaded, all you have to do is pick it up and pull. A gentle flick of the finger and it's over.
Even if we were to agree with such a right, you would have a duty about how you do it to reduce trauma to others and society has a duty to make sure it is a rational choice. Also, even in a world where adults would have that right, but I doubt those under 18 would without special circumstances such as terminal illness.
I see this as on par with banning alcohol to drastically reduce drunk driving. People tend to not support that one because they see, though they would likely never formulate the thought in such a fashion, that having the freedom to buy and consume alcohol is worth the trade off of people drunk driving and the lives ruined by it. Of course, other actions are done to reduce the harm of drunk driving, but people are not willing to give up alcohol for it. Many people, especially in the USA, view guns in the same manner.
I do find it odd that some people who hold the first view concerning alcohol find the second view as being immoral.
i don't find these comparable, at least not in Europe, drink driving cause very few deaths in car accidents statistics which are already drastically better than they have been and pretty much everyone adult drinks at least occasionally, I seriously doubt pretty much every adult in US shoot gun occasionally let alone own it
but I don't see problem with ban on alcohol even if it would save only few people killed by drunk drivers, because it would decrease cases of domestic violence and violence in general and most importantly for me we would get completely rid off those hordes of drunk Britons roaming our cities, also no drunks (homeless) in streets and cleaner public transport and streets would be nice, so it sounds like great trade off, not because of drunk drivers deaths which are really rare to ban alcohol from majority of adult population, but because of other factors,
so great idea and I say this as someone who was basically alcoholic for a year in my first job in China where we drink spirit (baiju) during lunch break and then after work, then after switching jobs basically stopped drinking completely and now back in Europe me and wife consume maybe 1-2 bottles of wine per month so it's not like we are abstainers that it would not affect me, although i think charging like 500-1000% tax on alcohol and raising agree limit to 30-40 years and strictly enforcing it would seem more realistic regarding voters than complete ban, after all those people with alcohol issues started usually very young
It's difficult to compare rates of suicide across countries because there are different ways of counting deaths, and there are different ways of ruling that something is a suicide.
You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there.
And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.
> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country
Does that really happen enough to worry about? Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun? Or maybe on more comprehensive healthcare for my family instead? Perhaps on living closer to schools and other amenities so we don't have to drive as much?
I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence... but maybe that's because I don't live in america
This is where the argument always fails for me. "But having a gun means I can defend my family!" Against what? I just don't buy the premise that you're significantly at risk of a violent attack out of nowhere, for no reason, at any given time. I've never felt even remotely unsafe living in London, let alone felt the need to keep a weapon on me.
In the US, that would be against the individuals who collectively commit millions of violent crimes per year (surveys indicate this number easily exceeds 5 million per year).
What are the odds of that happening to you though? I don't know what the actual statistics are but it seems highly improbable. And it doesn't seem logical to me that a criminal who wants to (i.e. rob you) is really going to actually shoot and kill you to do it.
About 150 per 100k people are the victim of a violent crime every year in my hometown. And the rates are much higher than that in some neighborhoods.
You mentioned London. St. Louis has about twice as many homicides per year as London. There are 300 thousand people in St. Louis. London has, what, 8 million? And half as many murders.
I’m sure you do feel safe there. I’m less confident when I’m back home.
You’ll forgive me, I hope, for accidentally posting the crime rates for the greater St. Louis area, immediately followed by the homicide totals for only the City of St. Louis.
The actual rates within the city are almost unbelievable: 1,913.2 violent crimes per 100k people.
Of course, this highlights the truth of a chorus oft-repeated there, which is that the region as a whole isn’t nearly as unsafe as the City numbers imply, a problem exacerbated (and concealed) by the City’s relatively small footprint within the area.
But that’s small consolation to those of us who make our homes and spend our time in that undeniably violent core.
That's hugely dependent on who you are and where you live and so on, but there are estimated to be around 6 million violent crimes per year, or about 55 people per violent crime. Of course many people are victimized more than once, so you can't easily extrapolate to how likely a random person is to be victimized. Either way, over a lifespan, that is a significant risk.
>And it doesn't seem logical to me that a criminal who wants to (i.e. rob you) is really going to actually shoot and kill you to do it.
What you're missing is that I don't want someone to rob me. I don't want my family to ever be at the mercy of a violent thug. They ultimately depend upon me for their safety, and I am going to do what I can to guarantee it.
Okay we are not on the same page at all because again I don't understand what "deadly threat" you could be encountering. You're talking like you live in the Purge or something.
I'm talking about the ~6 million estimated violent crimes that occur each year. Many, many of those are deadly threats. Any that involve a weapon are automatically deadly threats. Any involving multiple attackers are deadly threats. Any that involve a significant advantage in physical force of the attacker over the target are deadly threats. In general, any that involve the attacker being in a position to cause death or grave bodily harm are considered deadly threats, and can be legally met with lethal force if that is necessary to stop the threat.
I'm not sure what world you are living in. There are millions of people who are victims of violent crime each year in the US. It happens. A lot.
The US is awash with guns. There are multiple guns for every US citizens. Despite all these guns the US, as you say, is also a very violent crime ridden country.
I can see that they're not an automatic cure-all for violence. There are parts of the US with extremely high gun ownership rates, and virtually no crime. And there are parts of the US with high gun ownership rates and high levels of crime. The fact is that there are many people in this world with violent tendencies. There always have been. Their violent tendencies are not a consequence of guns being around.
However, guns are a very effective tool for defending one's self and one's family against such people.
What the hell do you mean "surveys"? You don't need "surveys" to tell you how many violent crimes there are in a year. We have actual statistics. And the numbers are not in the millions. Stop pushing lies.
Crime victimization surveys. The 'actual statistics' you refer to are reported crimes, i.e. crimes which were reported to the police and which the police took the time to record. They vastly underrepresent the actual number of crimes. That's why people who are interested in getting a more accurate estimate of the actual number of crimes do crime victimization surveys. This is all pretty well known and obvious. That you aren't aware of it is telling.
Hahaha uhh no. Not even remotely. This is completely pulled out of your ass. First of all the CDC has been banned from studying guns since GW Bush administration. Secondly deaths by homicide in the US aren’t even close to that. California had the most murders of any state in 2016 and it wasn’t even 2000, then it drops off quickly from there. Total murders in the US is less than 20k per year. For your number to be right guns would have to be stopping 93.7% of murders.
Where did you even get that ridiculous number from? Insanity.
Yes, of course it does. There are literally millions of violent crimes in the US in any given year.
>Should I spend my money on a newer, safer car or a gun?
I leave that to you to decide. I don't know you. Bringing a gun into your home might make you less safe if you are an irresponsible person or if you have psychological issues. If you are a responsible person with no psychological issues, but you live in an area that has virtually no violent crime, then it might just be a waste of money.
>I can't imagine that there are that many scenarios where a gun saves the day from violence
There are estimated to be over 100,000 defensive uses of guns in the US each year. The widespread ownership of guns has had a clear influence on the behavior of violent criminals. Particularly, in the US, criminals avoid breaking into homes when they are occupied, because they know many occupants will be armed.
> You also have a substantially reduced ability to defend your families against violent criminals that live in your country, so there's kind of a trade off there.
You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.
Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.
> And no, violent criminals don't need guns to hurt you. People have been hurting each other a lot longer than gunpowder has been around.
As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
>You don't wish to go here as the statistics are against you.
What a hilariously arrogant statement.
>Gun owners are far more likely to have their gun fired in an accident or in a suicide than as genuine defense against a criminal.
Whether your gun is more likely to be used against you or in an accident is almost entirely in your power to control. Whether someone else decides to attempt to make a victim out of you is much less so. Wealthier people may be able to take precautions like avoiding areas frequented by certain groups of people and strategically choosing where to live but that is out of reach for many.
>As the victim, you are far more likely to survive an encounter if a gun isn't involved.
You're also vastly less able to prevent yourself and your loved ones from becoming victims in such an encounter if you aren't armed. That's why criminals in the US have a much greater tendency to avoid occupied homes than do criminals in other parts of the world. I would much rather take my family's safety into my own hands than leave it to the benevolence of violent thugs.
i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals, i am more afraid i will be hit by bad driver or about building fire than violent criminals, violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary
>i don't have gun in my place and feel perfectly safe about violent criminals
Perhaps you are. I don't know where you live.
>violent crimes are very rare here in Europe where i live, especially during burglary
I hope it stays that way. That's not how it is in many parts of the USA. And no, it's not that way because we have guns. It's because we have more people who are inclined toward violence. I'll leave you to guess why that might be.
All of these nations have higher suicide rates today than the US did in the late 1990s.
So is the premise that the US would have a far lower rate of suicide than European nations if guns were more tightly controlled, or would people in the US commit suicide in other ways as they do in European nations?
Unless I'm misreading, the data you link suggests that the correct interpretation is that the US has basically middle-of-the-road suicide rates by European standards, no? Going by the age-standardized rates, it's sandwiched between Sweden and France in the list. Some European countries are significantly higher (Belgium, Poland), while others are significantly lower (Spain, UK), but the US doesn't seem to be a real outlier.
The linked page says you can't compare suicide rates across countries.
For example, the UK statistics would tend to over count deaths. Here's the definition we use:
---begin
The National Statistics definition of suicide includes all deaths from intentional self-harm for persons aged 10 and over, and deaths where the intent was undetermined for those aged 15 and over. This definition was revised in January 2016 and further information on the impact can be found in the 2014 suicide registrations bulletin.
Deaths from an event of undetermined intent in 10 to 14 year-olds are not included because although for older teenagers and adults we assume that in these deaths the harm was self-inflicted, for younger children it is not clear whether this assumption is appropriate. Deaths from an event of undetermined intent cannot be applied to children due to the possibility that these deaths were caused by unverifiable accidents, neglect or abuse.
---end
I'm unable to find the definition used by the CDC, but I think it's likely to include language like "with the intent to end life".
not sure what have suicide rates to do with guns, they are based on various socioeconomic factors so if you want honestly compare us with something you should find country with similar living standards, environment etc which doesn't have easily accessible guns
but you are right banning access to guns doesn't mean that 100% of those people won't commit suicide, but I guess it could shave at least few percentage points from suicides by gun and most importantly gun accidents would be drastically reduced, you don't see children accidentally killing/hurting someone daily in Europe
if you want serious comparison i am aware of only one country with similar cultural background - Australia, proving limiting gun access can reduce crime, accidents etc
