Firearm Report from Centers for Disease Control Now In (Interesting Results)


PDA






Gaiudo
June 24, 2013, 02:03 PM
Interesting results from the study Obama ordered on gun violence.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/06/handguns_suicides_mass_shootings_deaths_and_self_defense_findings_from_a.html

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx

Some highlights:




Handguns vs. Longguns: Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

Mass shootings aren’t the problem: “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report.

Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”


The vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.


Read the entire report, as there are a number of points to discuss and debate.

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearm Report from Centers for Disease Control Now In (Interesting Results)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Torian
June 24, 2013, 02:07 PM
Interesting that they keyed in on the self-defense aspect of handgun usage and its frequency.

This study appears much more nonbiased and objective than I thought it would be.

Gaiudo
June 24, 2013, 02:08 PM
We're going to have to fight to continue to maintain the distinction between 'firearm homicides' and 'homicides' when compared with other countries. This report doesn't do a great job of that.

taliv
June 24, 2013, 02:19 PM
yep, we should spread this around because it is important for people on the fence to see this and understand.


i think some will continue to think that 1 death is 1 death too many, and others (incl myself) will continue to think that 1 defensive gun use is enough to justify the RKBA. But this clearly shows two things that most people are probably not aware of:

1. guns protect more innocent civilians than they harm (by as much as an order of magnitude)

2. victims using a firearm have lower injury rates than victims without (which is opposite the Handgun Control/Brady talking points that claim you idiots are more likely to shoot yourself than a mugger, and that if you just acquiesce to the criminal's demands you'll be fine)

i like the way they said it: Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.

Certaindeaf
June 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
You reap what you sow. As just an example, if you let a crazy out of prison after killing his mother with a hammer after 17 years, don't be surprised when he kills again.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/man-killed-2-firemen-left-note-killing-plan-article-1.1227104

Also, most all "convicted" "illegal aliens" are just transferred back from whence they came.. after their raping, murdering, etc. They then come back. Why wouldn't they?
It's an enforcement issue.

Ranger Roberts
June 24, 2013, 02:20 PM
Interesting. The problem with any of these studies is that people (in this case it'll be the controllists) pick and choose what they want to use to prove their point. They take things out of context or just use 1/2 of a statement in their speeches. Then, that is used as a sound bite on NBC and Bill Maher over and over again until people believe it to be a full fact.

Gaiudo
June 24, 2013, 02:24 PM
1. guns protect more innocent civilians than they harm (by as much as an order of magnitude)

2. victims using a firearm have lower injury rates than victims without (which is opposite the Handgun Control/Brady talking points that claim you idiots are more likely to shoot yourself than a mugger, and that if you just acquiesce to the criminal's demands you'll be fine)

These are the two results I found most contra-expectational from a govt. funded study. And most helpful from a political perspective.

MErl
June 24, 2013, 03:00 PM
These are the two results I found most contra-expectational from a govt. funded study. And most helpful from a political perspective.
Yet looking that the priority list for research, the positive use of firearms to reduce violence is not even on the list. Did I miss it or are they ignoring part of their findings when setting future research?

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/Firearm-Violence/FirearmViolence_Insert.pdf

Jim K
June 24, 2013, 03:38 PM
Deleted.

hso
June 24, 2013, 04:10 PM
I recommend the entire thing be read since it isn't cut and dried vindication for our side.

Librarian
June 24, 2013, 05:18 PM
The public health field focuses on problems that are associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The complexity and frequency of firearm-related violence combined with its impact on the health and safety of the nation’s residents make it a topic of considerable public health importance and suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. A public health approach involves three elements: a focus on prevention, a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and pro- tective factors, and multidisciplinary collaboration to address the issue. Public health strategies are designed to interrupt the connection between three essential elements: the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]), the “host” (the injured person), and the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred). This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities.

This paragraph highlights the essential error in approach.

Guns are not an 'agent' nor are they a source of injury, except in the extremely rare instance of a manufacturing defect or unrecognized wear or damage that causes a gun to malfunction and discharge unexpectedly.

At the community level, a range of factors appears to be related to high levels of gun use. These include high rates of poverty illicit drug trafficking, and substance use. For example, increased firearm violence has been associated with drug markets. A number of situational-level factors are also associated with increased risk of violence in general and firearm violence in particular. For example, the presence of drugs or alcohol increases the risk of firearm violence. Moreover, criminals often engage in violence as a means to acquire money, goods or other rewards.

A number of individual behaviors and susceptibilities are associated with firearm violence and injury. Impulsivity, low educational attainment, substance use, and prior history of aggression and abuse are considered risk factors for violence (for both perpetrators and victims). Suicide is often associated with mental and physical health problems, financial strain, veteran status, and relationship problems. Some studies have tried to provide accurate estimates of the proportions of the general population and subpopulations with access to firearms. Less is known about the types of weapons obtained, the means of acquisition, the frequency of gun carrying in public, community-level risk and protective factors (such as the role of social norms), and degree of knowledge about and skill in firearm operation and safety, and how these risk and protective factors are affected by the social environment and neighbor- hood/community context.The bolded text, above, has no necessary connection to firearms. 'Improvements' to the listed risk factors might be an overall societal good, but placing those in a firearms context is a mistake.

JustinJ
June 24, 2013, 06:03 PM
This paragraph highlights the essential error in approach.

Guns are not an 'agent' nor are they a source of injury, except in the extremely rare instance of a manufacturing defect or unrecognized wear or damage that causes a gun to malfunction and discharge unexpectedly.

No, it doesn't. You are just playing semantics. "Agent", in this context, is the means in which the injury was inflicted. This is blatantly obvious. Repeating the mantra "guns don't kill, people do" is a completely ineffective way to contest the methodology, if that is what you wish to do.

jfh
June 24, 2013, 06:21 PM
I'm with the others who say this report is an unexpected surprise in the inclusion of findings such as the DGUs frequency and the the 'less injury with gun defense' findings.

Over the long run, the issues will be the distortions that the MSM and the antigun forces in the 'scientific community' produce in either highlighting their studies or new ones that will follow.

It will be the "Public Health" studies that will be the source of most of them.

Jim H.

230RN
June 24, 2013, 08:03 PM
taliv, quoteworthy:

i think some will continue to think that 1 death is 1 death too many, and others (incl myself) will continue to think that 1 defensive gun use is enough to justify the RKBA. But this clearly shows two things that most people are probably not aware of:

1. guns protect more innocent civilians than they harm (by as much as an order of magnitude)

2. victims using a firearm have lower injury rates than victims without (which is opposite the Handgun Control/Brady talking points that claim you idiots are more likely to shoot yourself than a mugger, and that if you just acquiesce to the criminal's demands you'll be fine)

i like the way they said it: Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively.

I nearly jumped out of my seat when I read:

Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report.

ETA Note that " I shifted the decimal point " means I divided by ten.

Then I shifted the decimal point, but it still looks too high. I wish there was a way to filter out criminal-on-criminal homicides the way they filter out suicides.

hso:

I recommend the entire thing be read since it isn't cut and dried vindication for our side.

Probably not, given it was comissioned by a known "anti" organization, but if "they" can take out "study bytes," why can't we? :D

Izzat a new phrase? "Study bytes?"

Terry

Deaf Smith
June 24, 2013, 08:30 PM
Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide.

Yea but Japan has almost no guns yet per capita more suicides than the US.

So are the Japanese all using the same gun or do they just find another method than a gun?

Deaf

Carl N. Brown
June 24, 2013, 08:31 PM
I followed the link and this is the same PDF I downloaded from NAS on 10 Jun 2013.
June 2013 "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence",
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18319

MErl
June 24, 2013, 08:40 PM
Yea but Japan has almost no guns yet per capita more suicides than the US.

So are the Japanese all using the same gun or do they just find another method than a gun?

Deaf
My understanding is that they prefer hanging but it really just shows it comes down to culture. I've seen studies that suicide rates in UK went down after the total bans and never got back to the initial rates. It is very possible, likely even, that completely removing firearm access from americans would lower suicide rates. That is far too high a price to pay to protect a few thousand people from themselves.

Carl N. Brown
June 24, 2013, 09:14 PM
As I recall, US suicides by shooting have an 80% success rate; hangings a 70% success rate; and sucessful suicides often include prior attempts.

Suicide by poison or cutting have such low success rates, however, that I suspect they are the preferred method for suicidal gestures (with the exception of ritual seppuku).

I still suspect some of the medical researchers are guilty of confusing a result or a correlation with cause.


I can't find in the 124 page PDF mention of O'Carroll or Christoffel, which may be a sign of an attempt at neutral research.
1990s Patrick O'Carroll, Acting Section Head of the Division of Injury Control, Centers for Disease Control:
We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.
Katherine Christoffel, M.D.:
Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.... Get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of the deaths.
in Janice Somerville, "Gun Control as Immunization," American Medical News, January 3, 1994, p. 9.
That's the kind of stuff that got CDC barred from using research funds to generate research to lobby Congress for gun control (Additional Requirement 13).

Carl N. Brown
June 24, 2013, 09:30 PM
From 2000 to 2010 .... annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence

That is a decade's worth, not an annual count.

I wish there was a way to filter out criminal-on-criminal homicides the way they filter out suicides.

There isn't, but 91% of homicide victims in Baltimore MD had criminal records. (75% Philadelphia PA, 77% Milwaukee WI, 85% Newark NJ).

There are unkept statistics: in particular homicides adjudicated as justifiable at the coroner, medical examiner, prosecutor, grand jury, trial judge, trial jury or appellate court level are not kept nationally. What we do have is "shooting of a felon in commission of a felony by a citizen" as adjudicated in police report to FBI UCR. Well, any given year fifteen or twenty states simply don't let police reports adjudicate homicides as justifiable or not. I know in my area when there is a police shooting, there is always a presentation by the state bureau of investigation to a grand jury panel for adjudication.

Librarian
June 24, 2013, 10:42 PM
No, it doesn't. You are just playing semantics. "Agent", in this context, is the means in which the injury was inflicted. This is blatantly obvious. Repeating the mantra "guns don't kill, people do" is a completely ineffective way to contest the methodology, if that is what you wish to do.
I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

Kates et al, 1994 - http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html
In sum, health leaders see violence as a public health crisis and the firearm as something akin to an infectious disease. For example, one author characterized guns as "a virus that must be eradicated."[33] Their views receive wide exposure because, unlike criminology and other social scientific journals, medical and (p.524)health periodicals announce the appearance of their articles on firearms with press releases describing their anti-gun conclusions. This follows the health advocate sages' avowed intention to promote the idea that firearm ownership is an evil and that its elimination is a desirable and efficacious means of reducing violence.[34]The public health approach is simply wrong.

The references to Kellerman and Hemenway as research exemplars seem to me to be strong indications of the direction preferred.

Sentryau2
June 24, 2013, 11:02 PM
:) now lets see some anti-gunners pop up on cnn and start ranting about facts and then ignore these :banghead: they always do. Is there any pro gun media that debates with anti-gun folks?

Deaf Smith
June 25, 2013, 12:16 AM
My understanding is that they prefer hanging but it really just shows it comes down to culture. I've seen studies that suicide rates in UK went down after the total bans and never got back to the initial rates. It is very possible, likely even, that completely removing firearm access from americans would lower suicide rates. That is far too high a price to pay to protect a few thousand people from themselves.
But we always wonder of some of these 'one car collisions' were in fact suicides to.

I suspect over time people migrate to what becomes culturally acceptable. In America, there are suicides by firearms, pills, jumping off bridges, slit wrist with razor blades, carbon monoxide poisoning (usually cars that are left running in an enclosed place), self-asphyxiation (many methods), self-immolation, suicide by cop, etc....

And that is why we will see no benefit of any kind of gun control. But even if we did, like you said, it does not cover how many were saved by guns nor does it cover for a loss of freedom and ability to tell our government 'no' if need be.

Kind of like the NSA spying thing... even if it helps some it erodes to many of our rights.

Deaf

Bruno2
June 25, 2013, 02:35 AM
I expect to see a crusade against pistols sometime soon.

Gaiudo
June 25, 2013, 05:30 AM
US suicides by shooting have an 80% success rate; hangings a 70% success rate

I wonder what might be the rate of success for jumping off bridges. Given how successful and widespread suicide was in the Roman Empire, if someone's gonna off themselves, the lack of pistols aren't going to stop them.

Kiln
June 25, 2013, 05:50 AM
I'm surprised that the results weren't more skewed towards anti gun agenda.

JSH1
June 25, 2013, 01:06 PM
I've seen studies that suicide rates in UK went down after the total bans....
There is no "total ban" on individual gun ownership in the UK. Repeating misinformation that can be disproved with a simple Google search does nothing to help preserve American gun rights.

MErl
June 25, 2013, 01:11 PM
tis close enough that americans would consider it such if implemented here, especially among handguns.

JSH1
June 25, 2013, 01:48 PM
To you it might as well be a total ban but to someone with moderate views you may just come off as a gun nut telling lies. Many people here complain about the anti-gun crowd spreading misinformation, why resort to the same tactics?

MErl
June 25, 2013, 02:00 PM
I made a quick generalization to stress the point in the other half of that sentence. Sorry for that confusion.

rodregier
June 25, 2013, 02:19 PM
Probably outside their brief, but suicide rates tend to be cultural and means-independent.

However, to compare that would require looking at other countries.

230RN
June 25, 2013, 08:57 PM
Not to focus exclusively on Japan, but Dave Kopel has written extensively on their culture as related to firearms and other civil rights. I have some questions about some of his statements in this particular selection from 1993, but it is an interesting read.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm

Back to topic.

Terry 230RN

Note: "This article is condensed from the law review article Japanese Gun Control, 1993 Asia-Pacific Law Review 26."

Archaic
June 26, 2013, 02:22 AM
I wish they would parse out suicide as a 'violence' statistic. One does not do 'violence' to ones self. The 30k per year fatality numbers that get thrown at us always includes those 18k suicides. How many of them would have killed themselves even if a gun were not available to them.

Solo
June 26, 2013, 03:18 AM
Actually, from a psychological standpoint, self harm is an outlet for aggression when the subject cannot relieve the pressure any other way.

Or so I hear.

Dean Weingarten
June 27, 2013, 10:14 AM
Firearms Homicides is a propaganda term. What matters is overall homicides. If reducing "firearms homicides" results in higher overall homicides, then you have created more problems than you have solved.

Dean Weingarten
June 27, 2013, 10:16 AM
How many of them would have killed themselves even if a gun were not available to them.
Virtually all of them. The overall suicide rate does not decrease when guns are restricted.

Dframe
June 27, 2013, 10:40 AM
I still think USING the CDC as a tool for firearms study is WRONG. What the hell do firearms have to do with Disease? The answer of course, is they want guns to be thought of that way!

GrOuNd_ZeRo
June 27, 2013, 05:15 PM
There are still millions of ways to die when you don't have firearms available, suicidal people can jump infront of a bus/train/semi-truck etc and will not inhibbit their desire to die, my wife attempted suicide by taking an overdose of the medication that was supposed to HELP her.

People who want to kill or die will always find a way, gun or no gun.

JustinJ
June 27, 2013, 05:29 PM
Quote:
How many of them would have killed themselves even if a gun were not available to them.

Virtually all of them. The overall suicide rate does not decrease when guns are restricted.

On what basis can you make that conclusion? What is your knowledge of suicidal ideation and it's causes? Do you seriously doubt that using a firearm increases the likelihood of a successful attempt over other commonly used methods?

It is of little question that the readily available means to commit the act is a significant risk factor. The decision to kill one's self or the obsession with the idea can certainly be influenced external factors, such as the availability of a gun. Also, the likelihood of success of using a gun, as well as the avoidance of pain, are certainly influential factors as well. For some people there may be some other readily available means, such as living next to a giant cliff, that provides the straw to break the camels back but there is no question that a gun in the house can also be the straw.

I certainly don't believe my our your right to self defense should be limited so fewer people will commit suicide but we should still keep our facts straight.



No, it doesn't. You are just playing semantics. "Agent", in this context, is the means in which the injury was inflicted. This is blatantly obvious. Repeating the mantra "guns don't kill, people do" is a completely ineffective way to contest the methodology, if that is what you wish to do.

I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

So if a scientific paper or study were written that used the term "chemical agents" you would accuse them of blaming chemicals, not people? Because the word "agent" is regularly used in scientific literature and it has nothing to do with bias or "blaming the agent".

The public health approach is simply wrong.

The references to Kellerman and Hemenway as research exemplars seem to me to be strong indications of the direction preferred.

The cdc studies all sorts of things that are involved in injury or death. Referencing other papers or studies is also common practice in such scientific studies.

Librarian
June 27, 2013, 06:53 PM
So if a scientific paper or study were written that used the term "chemical agents" you would accuse them of blaming chemicals, not people? Because the word "agent" is regularly used in scientific literature and it has nothing to do with bias or "blaming the agent".

The public health approach is simply wrong.

The references to Kellerman and Hemenway as research exemplars seem to me to be strong indications of the direction preferred.
The cdc studies all sorts of things that are involved in injury or death. Referencing other papers or studies is also common practice in such scientific studies.

The paper we are discussing purports to offer direction for further research.

Public health research 'agents' are uniformly and unequivocally 'bad' - we never see PH research remarking on the positive aspects of sewage in our drinking water, or the ecological benefits to predators of the Anopheles mosquito. The concept that an 'agent' might have any beneficial effects is foreign to the discipline; I believe the paper's mention of studying such benefits about as much as I believe a member of the current administration when he or she claims support for the Second Amendment.

Noting Kellerman/Reay (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506) or Hemenway research with approval is equivalent to citing the Brady Campaign for criminological research. It is a bad sign for the future.

scramasax
June 27, 2013, 06:55 PM
The CDC has no right to study or interpret any crimes. They need to just stick to "disease control". The budget and staff should be lowered accordingly. Because they obviously have more time and money than they need to work on medical issues.

I stated this in public over 35 years ago at an emergency medical conference in Nashville.

A doctor from the CDC Started his session with a large picture of an AR on the screen and proceeded to push his agenda of confiscation and control needed because of the violence of the inner cities. His next slide was of a Barrett with the statement that the police had been facing criminals on a regular basis in the projects using them.

It was just too much ****e for me to listen to and not speak out.

Cheers,

ts

Solo
June 27, 2013, 06:58 PM
we never see PH research remarking on the positive aspects of sewage in our drinking water
Are there any?

silicosys4
June 27, 2013, 07:59 PM
Are there any?

Sure, strengthened immune system, and an ability to drink funky water.

Hacker15E
June 27, 2013, 10:17 PM
I expect to see a crusade against pistols sometime soon.

What is it....hmmmm....there was recently something that closed this door....

Oh, yeah.

Heller.

JustinJ
June 28, 2013, 06:13 PM
The paper we are discussing purports to offer direction for further research.

As papers often do.

Public health research 'agents' are uniformly and unequivocally 'bad' - we never see PH research remarking on the positive aspects of sewage in our drinking water, or the ecological benefits to predators of the Anopheles mosquito. The concept that an 'agent' might have any beneficial effects is foreign to the discipline; I believe the paper's mention of studying such benefits about as much as I believe a member of the current administration when he or she claims support for the Second Amendment.

That is just completely untrue.

Noting Kellerman/Reay or Hemenway research with approval is equivalent to citing the Brady Campaign for criminological research. It is a bad sign for the future.

Referencing data gathered in other studies is not "approval".

mgkdrgn
June 28, 2013, 06:44 PM
Interesting you post this from the UK, 'cause you are NEVER going to see this in any major media coverage here.

Librarian
June 28, 2013, 07:58 PM
That is just completely untrue.
Counter examples, please? I'm willing to learn.

JustinJ
June 28, 2013, 08:02 PM
Counter examples, please? I'm willing to learn.

This one even says "beneficial agent" in the title:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/76738664/Expandable-Medical-Device-For-Delivery-Of-Beneficial-Agent---Download-as-PDF

Gaiudo
June 28, 2013, 09:50 PM
The term 'agent' is typically used in any context where the device (or more commonly the substance) is responsible for acting transitively upon something else. So:

'A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect: agents of change; bleaching agents.'

Unless there is a direct, transitive role being performed by the object, we should probably speak in terms of 'instrument'. That is, an object by which an agent acts.

I agree with the opinion above that the report have been more accurate in using the language of 'instrumentality' rather than 'agency' in describing the use of weapons.

danez71
June 28, 2013, 10:21 PM
On what basis can you make that conclusion? What is your knowledge of suicidal ideation and it's causes? Do you seriously doubt that using a firearm increases the likelihood of a successful attempt over other commonly used methods?




But then you say the following which doesn't really support the above. :confused:


It is of little question that the readily available means to commit the act is a significant risk factor. The decision to kill one's self or the obsession with the idea can certainly be influenced external factors, such as the availability of a gun. Also, the likelihood of success of using a gun, as well as the avoidance of pain, are certainly influential factors as well. For some people there may be some other readily available means, such as living next to a giant cliff, that provides the straw to break the camels back but there is no question that a gun in the house can also be the straw.





Then you go on to say:


It is of little question that the readily available means to commit the act is a significant risk factor.

Which would support that a "gun" doesn't increase the risk as the are tons of other ways to kill yourself.


Further support below that people will find a way... any way... regardless if ther are guns around.


According to the following links, hanging and OD/poisoning are 2 of the top 4 methods in both the US and in 'England & Wales

http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/england-wales-methods-suicide
http://lostallhope.com/suicide-statistics/us-methods-suicide



The cdc studies all sorts of things that are involved in injury or death. .


Yes.. the CDC does; Including suicide. The links used data from the CDC that shows that people will find a way.

In 'England & Wales' where firearms are all that accessible, they found 7 other ways besides firearms to kill themselves indicating that if they are determined, they will find a way.


I have a (step) bother that killed himself with a gun and a uncle that used the running car in the garage method. He lived in rural MN and had hunting rifle(s) and shotgun(s).

Gaucho Gringo
June 29, 2013, 01:53 AM
A parallel study on automobile suicides should be done to gun suicides. The dirty little secret is that a fairly large percentage of automobile deaths are actually suicides but never get reported as such. It has been known for the last 100 years, just not acknowledged as such. So lets outlaw automobiles, they are known killers. It's for the children you know is the biggest lie ever perpetuated.

Librarian
June 29, 2013, 04:38 PM
This one even says "beneficial agent" in the title:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/76738664...ownload-as-PDF

That article was not a 'public health' topic; I'm not claiming the term 'agent', in scientific papers, is never used in a neutral or positive sense - I'm saying the usage of 'agent' in a public health context is ordinarily as 'a bad thing to be controlled, minimized or eliminated'. Certainly that is how guns appear to be characterized in the paper we are discussing.

Note that I am backing away from my earlier statement of 'uniformly' and 'foreign to the discipline'; I can imagine, say, DDT as an 'agent' to kill mosquitoes and thus control malaria, and 'agent' there would be a positive usage.

Deltaboy
June 29, 2013, 06:45 PM
All these stuff comes from folks who want to take guns away. After 20 years in the Ministry I have seen too many cases of Suicide but banning guns will not fix a thing. The root of suicidal thoughts is a sick mind. If the Fed would spend more money on accessible mental health care the problem would get fixed.

If you enjoyed reading about "Firearm Report from Centers for Disease Control Now In (Interesting Results)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!