As Suicide Rates Rise, Scientists Find New Warning Signs
wsj.com
wsj.com
"Meanwhile, rates of suicide deaths are rising in the U.S. The rate jumped 24% from 1999 to 2014, from 10.5 to 13 per 100,000 people, according to an April 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
"While depression is the mental illness that is most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts, it doesn’t often lead to suicidal acts. Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts. Most first suicide attempts occur within a year of the onset of suicidal thoughts." [Emphasis added]
"Another study from the same NIMH group has found that, among severely depressed subjects, spending more time awake between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. (as measured by a sleep study called polysomnography) is linked to increased risk of suicidal thinking the next day."
"Computers analyzed more than 30,000 different risk factors, including traditional ones like age and mental-health history. But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk."
"In a study published in 2010 that followed 157 people who had visited a psychiatric emergency room, subjects are asked to classify words into categories. The study found those subjects who were quickest at classifying death and “me words” into the same group had three times the rate of suicide attempts in the next six months compared with those who were quickest at linking life and “me words.” (A past suicide attempt is the strongest predictor of a future one.)"
It's often said that the presence of firearms in the house greatly increases the chances of suicide since it's this spike in despair, hopelessness, and entrapment that causes the overwhelmingly strong compulsion to end things. But if you can ride out this wave, then things revert to the mean.
Firearms don't give you a second chance to rethink things, unlike swallowing sleeping pills or slitting your wrist.
Its easier to resist a cookie that's out of sight in a cupboard than it is to resist a cookie that's sitting right in front of you.
Impulsivity comes from an emotional response within the deeper parts of the brain. The prefrontal cortex needs more time and willpower to really consider an impulse.
If you were genuinely curious, violent crime is easily 2x more prevalent in urban areas. Firearms provide defense for shopkeeps and senior citizens alike.
Guns also become a more important means of self-defense the physically weaker the person, so the need, and observed statistics are weighted towards older people, and the US is rapidly graying with the demographic Baby Boom.
Hunting is also a popular pastime in the US, and is in fact a critical resource in controlling various prey populations after we wiped out the apex predators that used to keep them in check. As it is, deer are now the most deadly animals in the US due to collisions with cars.
That's the good reason for most things that I own. It's something I wanted and I'm allowed to have it therefore I got it.
Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense. This is going to be a bigger deal as your kids get older.
That can't be true, for the number of fatal gun "accidents" per year is ~600 (scare quotes because some number of those are whitewashed murders or negligent homicides), the number of non-suicide homicides is ~11,000, and the number of suicides using a gun ~19,000.
It's very easy to see that the number of self-defense incidents using a gun is substantially larger than those numbers, from anecdotes, to the very lowest formal estimate of 108,000 (see the CDC funded 2013 monograph at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-... pages 15-6). The highest estimates range to 2.5 million, but that was a while ago, and crime rates have continued to decrease.
The risk is far greater when there's a gun around, especially for children. Also it's a bit disingenuous to compare death figures with self-defense incidents where the outcome may have been simple property theft. Injury would be more appropriate, and even that fails as a comparison.
Texas is the only state in the nation that allows the use of lethal force to protect property, so your other point fails, while, I grant, it's informally allowed to some extent elsewhere.
If you've been in the field of science long enough, you learn the smell of bad studies, and this one is patently obvious. But I can look more closely at it if you insist.
As for viewing "my" study, note the "Download Free PDF" button to the upper middle right, all you have to do is supply an email address to do it as a guest. Or ask and I'll put a copy up.
And since your point was couched as a warning to others, another counter is that it's relatively easy to keep your family from joining the bad statistics by gun proofing your kids (which you should do anyway, since you can't control when they might come into contact with one outside your home), and storing your guns responsibly.
And no, I'm not here to advocate taking your guns away. Just trying to suggest that there are certain downsides to always carrying a lethal weapon, and that given our mostly secure society, people might view it as antisocial.
1. I'm not a TV watcher. The last movie I saw was "Frozen", and before that I can't remember. I'm certainly not motivated to live-out some TV action-hero fantasy. Moreover, your comment has a strong expectation that egocentrism undergirds one's actions. My obligation as a father is think of my family before myself. If you're a parent, I hope share this ethos; if not, I hope you develop it before having children.
2. Even if I were motivated by TV, I'm not sure which action film you're referring to. I missed the one where the dad is leaving the store with the wife and kids, pushing a shopping cart full of groceries, is accosted by "violent criminals out for blood", shoots and possibly kills the criminals in front of the children, then makes their epic retreat to safety in the minivan, with the wife on talking to the 911 operator in between sobs and episodes of panic-induced vomiting. No doubt this happy tale ends with permanent hearing damage for all involved, years of court appearances, legal fees, and a possible prison sentence, and the kids in therapy after witnessing human bloodshed by the time their 4th birthday rolls around. Doesn't sound like a movie I'd like to see.
3. I'm not sure why you've assumed that violent criminals don't exist, or exist to such a limited degree that their presence should be referenced mockingly. In the United States in 2014, "[t]here were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement." [1] Surely this ought to at least make one pause to consider how to protect one's family.
4. I also don't understand why you think the presence of witnesses or general availability of law enforcement is indefeasible deterrent to violent crime, especially in light of the recent events in Orlando. [2] Finally, the Supreme Court has even ruled that police, et al., are not obligated to protect you. [3] Even if the police appeared on the scene the very moment a crime were committed, they would still be reacting to violent crime that has already occurred, and have no legal duty to intervene.
Source:
1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime...
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
No reason to take it to the macho fantasy of the hunter -- that armed with a 21st century high-tech shotgun kills some deer that never had a chance.
Besides, it's not about the chicken having more chances or less. It's that it's a more substantial lesson in "killing one's own food" -- as we eat chicken, beef etc tons of times a year, whereas hunting is 100% hobby and 0% substantial "killing own food".
So make that at worst 50-50. And there's a lot of poorer people out there for whom the annual deer is a significant and cheap source of high quality meat.
And that doesn't count veggies (we did garden) plus the cereals that probably accounted for probably over half the calories we consumed.
The former is like saying "I won't wear seatbelts so I can get out of the car quickly in case of fire". The latter is saying "I'll buy a fire extinguisher for my car, but I'll keep it locked up under the hood."
Simply not true: https://www.google.com/#q=push+button+gun+safe (Americans are problem solvers, after all; you can also use one with a key and keep that on your person, say, on a string around your neck; this is also what hardening your entrances etc. is about, to give you time to react).
And "appropriately" is really situation specific; I haven't lived in a situation where there was danger of another abusing one of my guns for decades. There's also the pattern of keeping it in your safe until you get home (and if you're really hard core, carrying it until you go to bed). And you're completely ignoring concealed carry, which covers 42+ of the states and ~72% of the US population, 12+ million licensees, and 10 states without a license requirement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980298
And that's before we even get into the "much more likely", which simply isn't supported by the facts, starting with a 25% drop in the number of fatal gun accidents per year in the period 1980 to now, while both the population and number of guns owned by it roughly increased by 50%.
Note that if you're depending on e.g. Kellerman's studies, they score only fatal outcomes for home intruders as successful defensive gun uses, when the majority don't involve any shots being fired, the vast majority don't involve anyone getting hit by a round, and pistol torso hits resulting in fatality only about 1/4 of the time. Even the biased CDC admits to the utility of guns: https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CSelf-defense+can+be+an+im...
Historian Joyce Lee Malcom has pointed out that a steady trend of declining interpersonal violence starting in the 13th Century reversed in a few decades. Others point out that "burglaries" in the U.K. much more frequently take place when dwellings are occupied than in the US. See the British Crime Survey, which as of 2009 said:
There were 284,427 burglaries.
20% of those were face to face.
In 59% of those cases, violence was threatened or used.
In 40% of those face to face encounters, violence was actually used against the householder, a rising number since such statistics were first collected in 2002-3.
If the subjects of the U.K. don't feel a need for guns for self-defense; maybe they aren't getting killed in large numbers, but they're getting brutalized, and that's very bad in a zillion ways.
The very definition of citizen, vs. subject or slave, is one who bears arms in defense of his polity.... (Although that's not something that Black Armband History mentions....)
Your "orders of magnitude" claim about school shootings is flatly WRT to Europe, especially Western Europe (which is significantly larger than the US in population), compare, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... This is especially true about the ones of larger magnitude.
UK robbery incidences: 76,179 (THOSB – CEW page 61, paragraph 2.)
76,179 / 561 = 135.72
US robbery incidences: 354,396 (FBI – CUS)
354,396 / 3116 = 113.7
You are thus 1.1x (135.7 / 113.7) more likely to suffer robbery in the UK than in the US.
Now, robberies in the context of home invasions I don't know, and I didn't see it on that page. Nor did I see where you then got a 4x more likely to be killed if in a house invasion robbery in the US, although I'm quite willing to believe it. But I'll seriously look at that page, the author's inclusion of BCS and NCVS statistics means he's serious (as, e.g., a posting in the current "Dial 911 and get Wall Street" topic notes, US robbery statistics are understated by cities where they don't even bother with them if there's no injury).
I think the US officially changed the way they counted suicide in that time; and coroners became more likely to report deaths as suicide.
> "While depression is the mental illness that is most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts, it doesn’t often lead to suicidal acts. Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts. Most first suicide attempts occur within a year of the onset of suicidal thoughts." [Emphasis added]
Body dysmorphia is surprisingly common and is over-represented in suicide death.
> "But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk."
UK is aiming to tackle these with "No Health Without Mental Health", one strand of which is "people with physical health problems will experience better mental health". I'm not going to claim it's going well. NHWMH is at least 5 years old now, and parity of esteem is still lacking, and it's hard to get commissioners of physical health stuff to consider the MH impact.
I wonder if something more general could be inferred - when I'm getting bad sleep (stress-related, mostly), I tend to wake up at around 4AM. My day is often cranky, sometimes I'm completely ineffective until noon.
Could overall sleep levels be more coincident with lower suicidal thoughts?
The key part may be "among severely depressed subjects," but I've noticed that whenever my sleep changes (stress-related, too, or a random early meeting) my following day is simply awful and I accomplish more-or-less nothing.
Something that seems obvious now, but wasn't obvious to me until recently, is that people should be realllllyyy protective of their sleep. I guess that study supports that idea.
If it's not something i can do anything about i fret for an hour, crawl back in bed, toss and turn till morning, and have a generally bad day.
Something deep down takes comfort in the agency. at least i tried to improve the situation.
I'll probably be gone in a year or two. My life has been a downward spiral that is reaching its endpoint.
As an aside, to suggest that someone is using words to bias a discussion pretty much misses the whole point of mounting an argument, does it not?
Also, people nowadays seem to be afraid of fats in their diets. But your brain needs (good) fatty acids to function properly.
That might be because of a full 6 decades of propaganda against them, weakly if at all supported by legitimate science.
The powers that be are only now starting to admit that they might have made a catastrophic mistake, e.g. https://www.google.com/#q=cholesterol+is+not+a+nutrient+of+c...
That's a rather specific thing to agree about.
> Dr. Nock says that some of these may be self-inflicted or related to impulsive behavior. Using the historical data, the approach was able to detect 45% of suicidal acts an average of about three years before the event.
> A study using similar methods looking at suicide risk among U.S. Army soldiers in the year after hospitalization for psychiatric issues was published in 2015 in JAMA Psychiatry. The algorithm was able to predict about 53% of the suicides in that high-risk period.
I wonder what the false positive rates on these are.
It is so very western to treat suicide as a disease, a disorder of the brain. We ignore the concept that suicide can be a rational act. In the east (Japan) suicide is considered a private decision to be respected. That doesn't mean that it isn't an evil that society should attempt to prevent. Some people have may suffer medical conditions that make them prone to suicide, but other perfectly healthy people may opt to kill themselves. We cannot treat them all as medical problems. Sometimes the answer is much more practical, sometimes the problem is purely economic.
Except in cases of assisted dieing. There we switch the approach and suddenly declare that killing one's self can be rational decision. It is strange how we muddle rationality and reasonableness, as if the fact that someone makes a decision society disagrees with is per se irrational.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r..., the US is in a tie for 50th place for suicide rates. So in spite of the fact that the US has a high gun ownership rate, we're not anywhere close to being the top of the suicide rates.
Also, recall the articles around middle aged death rates in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10499434 One of the takeaways is that people may be committing de-facto suicide by following a pattern of life choices (addiction for example). The "Leaving Las Vegas" effect (if you saw the movie, recall Nicholas Cage's character tried to drink himself to death) is really hard to measure.
Side note: suicide is illegal in Nepal and "attempted suicide is illegal in Nepal and people who attempt suicide when caught are subject to imprisonment, fines or both", yet Nepal is ranked 7th on the list. One might be led to conclude that this law is ineffective, if not counter-productive.
Laws against suicide are a little silly imho. Someone willing to kill themselves is operating at a level beyond criminal laws. Nepal probably needs to keep suicide legal for purposes of inheritance, so that surviving families don't suffer. Laws that penalize suicide risk encouraging non-suicide suicides that endanger other people such as "suicide-by-police".