Hacker News Reader

Comment by sosuke | Hacker News Reader

I keep looking through the data, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf, and it seems like cars still beat out guns by a good margin. They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide. Just the few numbers I grabbed says you're still 3 times more likely to be killed by or in a car. I looked again at the article and they don't even list the numbers because it conflicts with the story they WANT to have. The proper title is "The forecast for ways you might die in the next 5 years if you remain in the 15-24 age bracket shows a higher change of being killed by a gun, or killing yourself with a gun, than by being killed in or by a car."

Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms 11,068

Accidental discharge of firearms 591

Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent 248

Motor vehicle accidents 35,303

Unless you're taking your own life: Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms 19,990

View on HN

And for context, suicide overall: 39,518

Source Center for American Progress... Politically motivated.

> They even say in the article most of the gun deaths are by suicide.

It says "suicides, accidents or domestic violence." These are all vital statistics in determining the deadliness of guns.

Gun advocates have been arguing here that suicides shouldn't be counted, which doesn't make sense. Access to an effective suicide method is one more consequence of a gun-owning society. It should be acknowledged, analyzed, and discussed.

It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly. That's nonsense. This is a comparison of deadliness; a gun death is a gun death. Despite a decline in gun ownership, gun deaths are trending upward, and the NRA opposes smart-unlock features like thumbprint identification that contrast with the myriad safety controls placed on vehicles.

How many people reading that headline do you think actually think of suicides when they read it?

The reason for determining the deadliness of guns is to know whether they should be banned or not. And we're arguing that since suicides don't justify prohibition, it's not fair to include them in "deadliness". Suicides don't justify prohibition because I as a person should have the right to choose to own a gun at the small risk that I may commit suicide with it. It is not the governments place to protect me from that small risk.

    It seems as though advocates are arguing that the statistics should 
    be filtered to make guns appear less statistically deadly.

And the other side is doing the same thing, inflating the statistics with deaths that we believe should not affect the policy decision.

    gun deaths are trending upward

Not according to the graph in the article: http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecac...

If this were epidemiology, we would talk about "total morbidity." If I develop a flu vaccine that 100% stops flu deaths but kills 10% of patients via heart attacks, I have not improved the situation. A troll or person otherwise committed to a narrative that my flu vaccine should be foist on everyone might say "a flu death is a flu death" but it's not what matters.

About half of American households have access to a gun while about half of suicides are done via gun. The US is within 10% of most other first world countries in terms of suicide rate. The real world evidence is that if you got rid of guns in an attempt to stop suicides, the strong majority of those who want to commit suicide would find another method.

> The real world evidence is that if you got rid of guns in an attempt to stop suicides, the strong majority of those who want to commit suicide would find another method.

What does "real world" evidence mean? Because real world evidence from England (paracetamol pack sizes; switch to natural gas from coal gas; removing coproxamol from general use) shows that many people do not find another method.

The real world evidence in the comment you replied to, from the paragraph that you selected your quote from.

1. About half of US households have access to gun, implying half do not. Suicide-by-gun is about half the total suicide rate. With the assumption that people kill themselves with a gun if it's available, the no-gun-in-household suicide rate is very similar to the gun-in-household suicide rate.

2. The fact that the US is within about 10% of most other first-world countries in terms of suicide rate. Unless you want to argue that something especially good about the US's mental health system such that only Luxembourg ought be in front of it.

If the US turned into Canada (meaning: essentially no guns and a suicide rate 0.92 of the US) then more than 80% of gun suicides would find another way.

You seem to be saying that there are two groups of equal size (people who complete suicide by gun and people who complete suicide by other methods) and then saying that if you remove access to guns that all or most of the gun group would just switch to the other group and that the total number would stay the same.

Don't think that an attempted suicide by gun is the same as an attempt using another method. Guns are a very lethal method of suicide. Other methods of suicide are not as sure. This might explain the differences in completed suicide numbers for men and women (more men die to suicide) and rates of self harm (very many more women self harm) -- men might be using more lethal methods.

Some members of the "want to use a gun as a method of suicide group" would use a different method and would complete suicide. But certainly not all that group. Some would use a less fatal method and attempt suicide but not die. Others would find help before attempting suicide.

For a tiny US example: look at the Taft and Ellington Bridges in Washington State. They were both used by people to complete suicide, although more people used Ellington. After a number of people dying to suicide in a short number of days a suicide barrier was put up. People did not switch to the other bridge, even though it was close.

http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/

Again: look at the rates of completed suicide in England after switching gas supplies; after removing coproxamol from general use; and after reducing the amount of paracetamol. All of these resulted in permanent drops in the suicide rate.

You seem to be saying that there are two groups of equal size (people who complete suicide by gun and people who complete suicide by other methods)

I think you might be misreading me. The reason it's important that gun-suicide and non-gun-suicide are about the same size is that about equal number of households have guns and don't have guns.

If about 10% of households had access to a gun, and about 10% of suicides were done via gun, I'd say the same thing: access to guns isn't the significant driver of suicide completion.

> But certainly not all that group

Sure, certainly not all. I agree some people would stop. My guess is that around 10% or so.

The problem I have with the thesis that "most people won't switch to another method" is that it leads to a world where the United States is supposed to have an amazingly low suicide rate compared to most other first-world countries. And the thing that is stopping the US is a hot-button political issue, especially because most of the people who are inclined to try and get rid of the guns would disagree that the United States has an especially good mental health system compared to Canada, the UK, Germany, Denmark, Iceland, France, and Finland.

You can point to a bunch of small effects, but you want to apply them to the big picture. Well, why isn't the big picture a lot different? If the US had twice the suicide rate of most other countries, I think you'd be right.

I'd argue that domestic violence shouldn't be separated in that, and to my point the word domestic doesn't appear in the data. It is suicide, homicide, or accidental. As for suicide prevention, removing the instruments of death only makes people more creative, and isn't the right focus. http://clinicalpsychreading.blogspot.com/2014/12/suicide-by-...

Removing access to means and methods is a well know. Part of suicide reduction.

You are wrong when you say that people get creative. Suicide is often an impulsive act and so making people work even a little bit harder does reduce the numbers of people dying by suicide.

England changed the domestic gas supply from coal gas to natural gas. It's now not possible to use a home even to complete suicide. This led to a permanent reduction in suicide numbers.

England made it very much harder for people to get coproxamol. That led to a small permanent drop in completed suicide.

England changed the amount of paracetamol that people could buy. This led to a reduction in suicide deaths from paracetamol. http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/resparacet.html

Restricting access to means and methods of suicide is a useful and important suicide prevention measure.

A gun death is not necessarily a gun death. For many people who commit suicide, they will find a way. If there is a gun available they will use it, if there isn't they'll do something else. Contrast that with someone who wants to go postal, with a gun they kill a someone, without a gun perhaps they toss a computer monitor off the desk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com