wacki
Member
The whole "spontaneous urge to commit suicide" thing has been pushed a lot lately. From the WaPost:
Via the NYT's article The Urge to End It All
Suicide statistics from that SINGLE country seem to support the whole "spontaneous suicide" notion. Yet this article from Real Clear Politics doesn't focus on a single country:
uh oh..... The NYT's didn't tell us that!
The new york times article says:
And then they go on talking about a woman that spontaneously bought a gun and shot herself in the head. Yet they never mention this CDC assessment report that says waiting periods don't reduce suicides.
and more from the far more balance RCP article:
And when they talk about erecting bridge barriers to stop "spontaneous" jumpers they use a limited data set:
The data from one bridge and one state! Lets see that analysis done again on a much broader scale please.
I gotta admit, after reading numerous "spontaneous" suicide articles lately I was *beginning* to buy into the whole spontaneous suicide thing and started worrying about friends who might purchase a gun. And I'm a gun owner! Now, I can't help but think I've been duped.
Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide is usually an act of impulsive desperation ... Even the risk of terrorism doesn't begin to come close to the risk of suicide.
Via the NYT's article The Urge to End It All
“Sticking one’s head in the oven” became so common in Britain that by the late 1950s it accounted for some 2,500 suicides a year, almost half the nation’s total.
Those numbers began dropping over the next decade as the British government embarked on a program to phase out coal gas in favor of the much cleaner natural gas. By the early 1970s, the amount of carbon monoxide running through domestic gas lines had been reduced to nearly zero. During those same years, Britain’s national suicide rate dropped by nearly a third, and it has remained close to that reduced level ever since.
Suicide statistics from that SINGLE country seem to support the whole "spontaneous suicide" notion. Yet this article from Real Clear Politics doesn't focus on a single country:
A few decades ago, various European countries changed the type of natural gas used for home heating and cooking -- replacing a toxic form with a harmless variety. That step eliminated one time-tested way of killing oneself. Alas, while the number of gas suicides declined, in most of these countries, the death toll didn't.
uh oh..... The NYT's didn't tell us that!
The new york times article says:
Similarly, studies have shown that merely keeping a gun unloaded and storing its ammunition in a different room significantly reduces the odds of that gun being used in a suicide.
And then they go on talking about a woman that spontaneously bought a gun and shot herself in the head. Yet they never mention this CDC assessment report that says waiting periods don't reduce suicides.
and more from the far more balance RCP article:
The National Academy of Sciences report noted that any link between firearms and suicides "is not found in comparisons across countries." The number of guns in a nation tells you nothing about its suicide rate.
And when they talk about erecting bridge barriers to stop "spontaneous" jumpers they use a limited data set:
Except the opponents were wrong. A study conducted five years after the Ellington barrier went up showed that while suicides at the Ellington were eliminated completely, the rate at the Taft barely changed, inching up from 1.7 to 2 deaths per year. What’s more, over the same five-year span, the total number of jumping suicides in Washington had decreased by 50 percent, or the precise percentage the Ellington [bridge] once accounted for.
The data from one bridge and one state! Lets see that analysis done again on a much broader scale please.
I gotta admit, after reading numerous "spontaneous" suicide articles lately I was *beginning* to buy into the whole spontaneous suicide thing and started worrying about friends who might purchase a gun. And I'm a gun owner! Now, I can't help but think I've been duped.