digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides

news.yahoo.com — The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves. Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • WiseWeasel, on 06/30/2008, -24/+228So, what's the problem? This is good news, as it means that 55% of gun-related deaths in 2005 were not homicides, but merely suicides, which would surely have been carried out in some other way if guns were unavailable for whatever reason. If someone wants to commit suicide, that's not my problem; and in any case, we're not going to fix it by taking their guns away.
    • DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -8/+48I agree. At the same time, those people who would give a .44 a blowjob are going to find some other way to kill themselves. Seems morbid but it's better than 31,000 people falling onto hoods of cars all across America because they couldn't shoot themselves, so they jumped out of their windows.
      • omelette, on 07/01/2008, -11/+5Not only that, but each of the 31,000 falls on 8 hoods because it takes that many more tries to effectively complete the task.
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8"More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies."

        If these numbers are right, it makes more sense to try to kill oneself with a gun anyhow. You are less likely to botch the job and end up a paralyzed vegetable kept artificially alive instead. However, this next bit interests me the most:

        "Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack."

        If that's a sound estimate, this means that immoral uses of these weapons are far outweighed by helpful ones. This conclusion seems in line with what I'd expect from any type of weapon a human could use against another human, be it ones fists, knives or whatever. Weapons are tools, and they cannot be evil. The intent of the user makes that determination.
      • DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Okay, but the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is not the subject here. The point I was trying to make is that people that want to kill themselves will find a way, and guns are obviously the best choice.

        It's not shocking that when the stats are taken into consideration it turns out that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The bottom line is people are shooting one another all over America at a sickening rate. Maybe, we're just inherently cruel, evil creatures.
    • Jeremyz0r, on 07/01/2008, -16/+9Yesterday's News.

      http://digg.com/world_news/55_of_all_U_S_Gun_Death ...
      • aliengoods, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2And I'm just getting around to it today. What's your point?
      • puter, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0That it is a duplicate post.
    • elister, on 07/01/2008, -17/+8Its your problem should the suicidal person decide they dont want to be alone when they exit life. Its easier to point and shoot than it is to convince people to sit in a sealed garage breathing in carbon monoxide for 20 minutes.

      Columbine is a worst case scenario when it comes to this.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4I think Oklahoma city was a worse case.
      • jameskong15, on 07/01/2008, -2/+13Columbine was clearly about revenge, not them not wanting to be alone when they exit life.
      • aliengoods, on 07/01/2008, -1/+19Columbine? Any society that makes laws to account for the 1 out of 1 million wackjobs on the street has lost it's way.

        You can get shot, you can die in a car accident, you can have a piano fall on your head. There are many ways to die, and we can't prevent them all, nor should we try.
    • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -11/+6In 2005, homicides accounted for 40% of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2% included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

      homicides may not be the majority, but a rather substantial amount. are cases of self-defense counted as homocide or are they in that 2%? if it's the later, the good uses only represent 2% of gun use. it's like if cars were used for transportation 2% of the time.
      • amra51, on 07/01/2008, -2/+27Yea, what figures do you have for percentages of crimes that were averted due to gun deterrence - either by showing a gun and NOT shooting or because of the risk of someone being armed? Do those show up in your 2%? I don't think so.
      • shadeOfGrey, on 07/01/2008, -1/+21My gun will only be used for that 2% 100% of the time.
      • VitaminA, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16The majority of gun owners do not use guns to kill people. Many gun owners are hunters and some are collectors. Some people have guns in their house for defense that are never used but are still serving their purpose, to give the owner a sense of security in an increasingly more dangerous world. Your analogy is incorrect.
      • EntropyFan, on 07/01/2008, -14/+4amea51, I'm going to say it is 0. None what so ever.
        My proof? I have none, just like you. 'averted due to gun deterrence' is a ***** argument, lacking even the smallest evidence to back it up.
      • bfisch1983, on 07/01/2008, -1/+17I started taking martial arts 15 years ago to learn how to defend myself. I have used %0 of my skill to actually defend myself in a fight, that doesn't mean it's worthless.
      • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1how much of it was used to commit homicide?
      • NeilieN, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11You are assuming the optimal use of the gun is a lawful legal killing. You are ignoring the use of a gun as a crime deterrent without fatality. I obviously do not have these numbers, but they would need to be taken into account as well.
      • FizixMan, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@VitaminA: "to give the owner a sense of security in an increasingly more dangerous world"

        Violent crime has dropped and in 2005 was at its lowest point ever. Don't have statistics (read too lazy to search more) for 2006+, but I imagine they can't be much worse than what they were in 2005.
        http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

        The world is only being broadcasted as "more dangerous". We see more gun crime on TV, be it fictional or otherwise. Turn the graph I posted upside down and it represents the amount of violence shown in "news" programs.
      • rationalist, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1The FBI reported crime up in 2006, and again in 2007 - and the trend for 2008 so far is a continued rise in violent crime.

        In fact, violent crime dropped from 1993 through 2000, during which time the Clinton administration pumped significant funding to the states for law enforcement. It leveled off for the first half of this decade, but, after years of underfunding and neglect by the White House and Congress under the Republicans, violent crime is on the upswing. The sorry state of the economy probably has something to do with it as well.

        Either way, it does not have anything to do with gun ownership, which was your central point. Guns don't make people safer by deterring crime. Their increased prevalence increases the probability of accidental or collateral harm to innocents, of them being stolen by criminals, and of them being used in crimes of passion, including suicide (and, contrary to the unfounded assertions of several ideologues here, people who feel suicidal will not necessarily "find a way to do it anyway"; on the contrary, research shows that suicidal impulses tend to have short duration, and access to a weapon dramatically increases the likelihood of an impulse being carried out before it passes or the depressed individual gets help.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Note that you're quoting figures for the percentage of gun-related *deaths* for various motives, not gun *use*. The cases of gun use leading to death are well in the minority. For every gun used for killing a human, there has got to be thousands used for shooting at targets or animals, or for decoration. So no, it's not as if cars were only used as transportation 2% of the time.
    • xtraa, on 07/01/2008, -22/+14Ah yes.

      The prosperity of the "thats not my problem" society.

      • wtbuser, on 07/01/2008, -3/+19Which is far more desirable than the "intervene on everyone's behalf every time" society.
      • trogdor282, on 07/01/2008, -4/+26Otherwise known as 'freedom'
      • xtraa, on 07/01/2008, -12/+1"Which is far more desirable than the "intervene on everyone's behalf every time" society."

        Like you just did.

        @trogdor: newsflash, there is a difference between freedom and ignorance.
      • Butros, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15This is called personal responsibility, it's a side effect of freedom. I'm sorry your parents didn't teach you this.
      • xtraa, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1I bet you are talking about personal responsibility like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for example.

        Yea,

        [ ] you totally understood.
    • rblancarte, on 07/01/2008, -5/+9While I do believe in gun legislation, even I have to agree that this stat does help speak against it.

      Just curious what the numbers are for '06 and '07
      • Frost9999, on 07/01/2008, -13/+1How does this statistic speak against gun legislation? Are you somehow advocating suicide? I see that 31000 people died from guns... that tells me guns are an aid to death. I don't see anything about guns saving many lives, just ending them.

        There are also plenty of people in this thread saying "oh without a gun they would kill themselves anyway." Which is a statement not backed up with any data even if it does seem intuitively true.

        Having said that, heart disease kills many more people than gun crime.

      • PabloMac, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I would bet they are pretty much the same.
      • MWeather, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13"Having said that, heart disease kills many more people than gun crime."

        Then obviously we should ban McDonalds before worrying about guns.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12@Frost9999,

        The gun was the tool. If they put rocks in their pockets and walked into a river would you outlaw water?
      • rationalist, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4The numbers are up in 2006, and again in 2007, and the trend is higher in 2008, for violent crimes.

        The level of violent crime has little to do with gun ownership, it is a function of the amount of funding provided to law enforcement, as well as the general economic situation. More desperate times breed more violence, and during the Clinton administration, when there was an increase in funding for law enforcement as well as an increase in police on the streets, crime decreases, while, during the Bush administration, it leveled off and, as the cuts in funding start to bite, has started to climb once again.

        If more people learned to look at actual data and understand a trend chart, rather than being led by the nose by appealing ideology, many of our social problems would be dramatically reduced if not solved outright. Some of those solutions might come with a "liberal" label, some with a "conservative" label, many with no easy label at all. Who the ***** cares what the label is if it makes for a better, safer, freer, more civil society?
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2"Who the ***** cares what the label is if it makes for a better, safer, freer, more civil society? "

        @rationalist

        The problem is that "safer" and "more civil" are not always but frequently at odds with "freer"

        In fact the main purpose for the 2nd Amendment (along with the vast majority of the Bill of Rights) was to preemptively fight tyranny (the opposite of freedom). Maybe you think our government would never take away our freedoms to the point where we would need to get them back again through some sort of rebellion, but out founding fathers disagreed.

        I know it sounds like some kind of crazy right wing Michigan militia *****, but liberals and conservatives alike should be concerned with the possibility of our government becoming an authoritarian one. Maybe it would be possible to rectify the situation politically but maybe not.

        The United States government is already one of the more fair and democratic governments in the world, and yet our government still violates our own constitution on a regular basis. We have resorted to torturing people in "extreme" circumstances. We are now being spied on without a court issued warrant. This kind of ***** is straight out of 1984 and exactly what the founding fathers were trying to warn us of.

        "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
      • dehemke, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3"liberals and conservatives alike should be concerned with the possibility of our government becoming an authoritarian one"

        First, the only thing liberal politicians appear to be concerned about is how to best help conservative politicians create an authoritarian state. Seriously, what does Bush have on Pelosi and Obama?

        Second, modern liberals in america are weak, pouty little mac users, not the old revolutionary liberal types of the last century who did pick up guns to fight for their rights.... to create massive authoritarian states. Soviets, anyone?
    • ubuwalker31, on 07/01/2008, -10/+10The problem isn't guns in the home, it is mental health. If we had national health care which covered everyone, regardless of income or class, people would be able to have yearly physicals where medical doctors could determine if a patient was becoming (or is) depressed or suicidal, and could treat the disease with therapy and medical treatments.

      Over 52% of suicides that occurred in the United States in 2005 were by firearms...the other 48% were by other methods. Eliminating firearms in the home could arguably reduce suicide deaths...but treating the source of the problem...a diseased mind...would be much more effective. And it wouldn't involve giving up our g-d given right to self-defense.
      • zomglolcats, on 07/01/2008, -0/+17That's a great idea, however, how are you going to make people go to the doctor? Just because someone has mental illness doesn't mean they'll seek treatment, regardless of national health care coverage.
      • JointVenture, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9Tell those people who say they cant afford health care to sell their Xbox 360's, stop smoking ciggs, drinking booze, get rid of the cable, the cell phones for every family member, and spending 5 bucks every morning for a Power Drink and a bag of chips for breakfast.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12The problem is not health care. We have a problem with bureaucracy. Having a governmental health care system will increase that inordinately. Could you imagine health care run like a DMV?

        Also, your statement about removing firearms reducing the death from suicide is just garbage. Instead of gun related suicides we'd have more hangings, pill taking and wrist slashing.
      • Pahtcub, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11What's the problem with people killing themselves, if they want to then let them, don't force people to live their lives if they're completely miserable and don't want to take some unnatural pills for the rest for their lives to create a mediocre state of happiness. I've thought about killing myself sometimes, if I want to do it I'm going to do it, you're absolutely right, it's not your problem, leave them the ***** alone.
      • CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2For any commodity or product, demand goes up as cost goes down. If the government provides health care for free then there is no incentive for anyone to restrict their consumption of it and very soon the system is overloaded and collapses under the weight of unserviceable demand.
      • ubuwalker31, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2@zomglolcatszomglolcats:
        Great point. Thats why I think an incentive program (think $200 health stimulus check) would help motivate people to see the doctor. Plus, if the government can require yearly car inspections, why can't it mandate yearly physicals? On the other hand...I think that requiring a yearly check-up would prove to be problematic because people won't want to be forced to go and it might not be possible for everyone to be seen.
        @JointVenture:
        So if I sell my X-Box ($300), give up cigarettes ($1500 a yr/1 pack/day), stop drinking ($600 for two cases of bud/wk), get rid of cable ($600 a year), get rid of cell phones for the kids ($400 a year), and getting a morning snack ($1500), that amounts to around $5000 bucks. Health insurance for my family costs $1000 a month for my wife and kids through my work based plan. That means I am *still* $7,000 short even after your cost saving devices. And thats before the deductible and co-pays and whatever the insurance company decides not to pay for. (I had a friend who had a brain tumor who is still shelling out $30,000 in uncovered expenses who had so called full insurance)
        Why should people have to give up creature comforts just to have medical insurance???
        Plus, low wage workers making $18,000 can't afford $12,000 for insurance and still afford rent and food, etc.
        @AnarkeIncarnate:
        I'd rather have health care run like DMV than no health care at all. And I agree that the firearms argument is mostly garbage. Thats why I said "arguable".
        @Pahtcub and anyone digging him up:
        Please seek professional medical treatment, if you haven't already. Suicide is bad for the victim, bad for society, and horrible to the victims family. (I'm not talking about doctor assisted suicide, which I am in favor of) I understand that medications aren't for everyone...but suicide isn't a solution.
        1.800.SUICIDE - National Suicide Prevention Hotline
        @CosmicJustice:
        No, you fail basic economics...it depends on what the elasticity of the supply demand curve is, which is open to debate and research.
      • rationalist, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2"g-d given right"?

        Please provide the section of the Constitution in which that right is described as granted by God. Do not quote the Declaration of Independence, as, no matter how lovely a sentiment, it is not the law of the land.

        Rights are given by the people, not by a supernatural being, no matter how many vowels you leave out. The 2nd Amendment was an *amendment* to a Constitution which did not contain that right. If the 2nd Amendment were repealed (as Amendments can and have been in the past), it would no longer be a right.

        ***** theocrats.
      • flashingcurser, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Odd, the Japanese have one of the highest suicide rates in the world. They also have universal health care and are considered (compared to western nations) to have extremely low mental illness.

        What gives?
      • Cybermaul, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@ubuwalker31
        An additional benefit to cutting the unhealthy stuff mentioned would be increased health, therefore reducing your medical costs, and saving you additional money. So, it helps make paying for insurance a bit more feasible.

        Just sayin'
      • ubuwalker31, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@rationalist:
        "Please provide the section of the Constitution in which that right is described as granted by God."

        Asking a rhetorical question like this is an exercise in logical fallacy, but I'll bite: No, there is no language in the US Constitution stating that rights spring from a supernatural being.

        However, the Supreme Court in the DC Gun case said that the 2nd Amendment "codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed."
    • pantone286, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2I can't help but think that Darwin would love this particular stat.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Darwin was a scientist that formed a hypothesis about the mechanism (natural selection) driving evolution. He thought it was remarkable that humans as a species were able to survive without preventing the less fit from procreating or allowing them to die. Darwin, contrary to Ben Stein's idiotic ramblings, did not advocate natural selection as a code of morality (what some people refer to as social Darwinism), but merely observed that this was how nature drives evolution.

        BTW I did not digg you down.
      • pantone286, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1 Thanx for the info wiseguy. LOL
        (I didn't dig you down either....psyche)
    • pjpark, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2What the article is saying is that the right to die folks and the right to not die folks are on the same team. In other words, if we don't ban all guns now, the universe will implode.
    • Sverre, on 07/01/2008, -7/+21The problem is that if you try to kill yourself with a gun, you are extremely likely to succeed. That is not the case with most other methods. The problem is that suicidal thoughts can hit anyone when they are down, and they are also a typical side effect of certain medical drugs. If you don't have a gun, you are unlikely to kill yourself when you go through that, but if you have access to a gun, it is very easy to end your life right there and then.
      • Butros, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Yeah but look at the guy in California that tried to commit suicide by parking on train tracks and then changed his mind and got out of the car, killing a bunch of innocent people in the resulting train wreck. Don't you wish he would have just put a small caliber handgun to his head and done it that way?
      • dehemke, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Suicide is a right. What more inalienable right is there, than the right to our own lives? To choose to live or choose to die?
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1"The problem is that if you try to kill yourself with a gun, you are extremely likely to succeed." How is that a problem?
      • Sverre, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1@dehemke: "Suicide is a right."

        I will grant you that if it is carefully thought through over time, you are not under the influence of medication when you make the decision, and you have seriously tried to get help to change your point of view. Or if you have extreme reasons for it, like having to live the rest of your life in extreme pain.

        It is not necessarily a right we should grant a 16 year old whose classmate has bullied him, or whose girlfriend has left him; nor should we grant that right to someone who are not at their full faculties (like being affected by a drug).

        @silveravnt: Same point as above, really...
    • themastersb, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3An heroes
    • Frost9999, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8Wiseweasel - it is not good news. Gun related deaths, whether homicide or suicide, are bad news.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -4/+14WHY? Why are gun related deaths worse than any other deaths? Why are you fixated on an inanimate object? Guns neither hate, nor love, nor feel. They do not lash out in anger. They do not harm. They are machines. The above actions are those of living beings. Humans do those things and if they use a gun, or a club or poison or blades can harm others out of anger and hate. Why is a death more tragic when one tool is used versus any other?
      • rationalist, on 07/01/2008, -2/+71) He did not say they were worse than other deaths, he said they were bad.
        2) guns are not just "machines", they are devices created with the sole purpose of facilitating violence. Guns have contributed to more deaths since their invention than all the spears, clubs, stones and blades that preceded them. Why? Because they make it easier to do more remotely, more immediately, more effectively and more indirectly. using your (il)logic, one can easily make the extension that a nuclear bomb is not worse than a rock, and Hiroshima no more significant than a knife fight.

        We should be able to have a rational conversation without people on either side pulling emotional rhetorical tricks to evade substantive debate. Murder is murder, suicide is suicide, but don't pretend guns haven't changed the equation of death.
      • flashingcurser, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Why do you feel the need to say "gun related"?

        Death is bad news.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3@Rationalist,

        Don't try to be smart. Stick to the things you are good at. Guns are NOT made with the sole purpose of facilitating violence. They ARE machines. My guns have not done anything violent. The worst they have done is gotten too slippery from lube and cost me a "bragging rights" shot at a target.

        If you want to talk about contributing to death, it is not an issue of the tool but an issue of the mindset. Give a man a gun and he is your ruler. Give everyone a gun and he is your neighbor. If somebody truly wants to be destructive, they will find a way to hurt people. They can poison wells. That requires little to no technology. They can burn houses, again, low tech.

        People are the problem. Prosecute THEM and take into account what they did, but not with what. Anything can be a weapon of mass death if you think hard enough. A car filled with fertilizer blew up a building and killed and maimed dozens. Should we ban cars and *****?

        Guns have the ability to inflict harm. So do thousands of other things we use daily and as a polite society we have accepted. On another thought, however, they remove the disparity of force that creates a power struggle where the weak are overwhelmed by the strong.

        I moderate a firearms/2nd amendment message board. I have heard stories of "Thank God I had a Gun" that would make your skin crawl. I know of at least a dozen cases where somebody's wife and mother was not raped because she was armed. I have others where somebody lost a friend only to survive and fight back. Guns help too. Don't forget that. There is no way to rewrite the timeline and remove them. Any laws now are feel-good nonsense that will strip the law abiding of the teeth they need to fight back.
      • Frost9999, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2@AnarkelIncarnate,

        Machines or not, the primary design goal of most guns is to kill or wound people. They are not the first in a long line of violent weapons that have been adopted into sporting events. Maybe if there was a sarin gas based (manufacturing technique maybe) competition that would make chemical weapons ok because they are just poor innocent chemicals newly adopted for sporting use?

        And yes, all death is bad, but this article was specifically about death by gun. Hence the term gun related.

        Also - on your reference to fertiliser blowing up buildings. When the IRA in the UK was using Ammonium Nitrate/Fuel Oil to create explosives the UK did indeed attempt to solve the problem by mandating a different chemical makeup for the fertiliser component. The IRA managed to create a new technique using the new fertiliser. And prilled ammonium nitrate is hardly '*****' as you put it. It's the little white pills every farmer has in 30kg bags in their storage shed. You will notice that common pre-manufactured explosives are controlled substances because they are dangerous - guns should be controlled better for the same reason.

      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2@Frost9999,

        Listen up. The primary design of guns is to fire ammunition. What you choose to do with that is your own decision. YOU do not get to tell me what the primary goal of gun design is. You seem to have no idea about anything regarding them. If you want to have a discussion, then at least keep your mind open to the fact that you could be wrong. I have been on both sides of the fence, starting out as a "gun grabber" and then actually taking the time to hear the arguments and try it out for myself.

        Guns have:

        Put food on the table. Set people free from oppression, protected the innocent, prevented rape, saved people from wild animals, etc.

        They have also been used to facilitate the commission of crimes, rape, murder, drug deals, etc.

        Their scarcity and mystique is just as big a problem. If people were more apt to fight back with equal force, the criminal element would have less sheep on their hands and more sheep dogs. Criminals like easy targets. They do not want to have somebody who can hurt them. They want to be in control, get the things they want and leave. We have been conditioned to believe that if we relinquish our fates into their hands, they will take our hard earned things and release us to society once more. Time and again that has proven a false sense of security. You can baaaah and bleat with the sheep if you want, wishing the wolves away. Know that regardless of your intent to defend yourself. I am still your defense. For every one like me, a criminal second guesses their target. You are protected by proxy. You don't have to like it or even believe. I don't care.
    • JigoroKano, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3The frequency of suicide and murder will increase if the means of doing so is more easily accessible.
      People will not necessarily find another way. They might be too lazy or the impulse might wear off.
      Only the most motivated will find another way.

      Not that I am arguing for gun control.
    • whatever01, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3FTA: "Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

      Now, correlation does not imply causality. But, having a gun in the house and committing suicide do seem strongly linked. Perhaps a person would attempt suicide some other way and succeed, but the jury is out on that.

      Fortunately, with budget cuts, we don't have to worry about the government looking into this issue much anymore.
      • heyitsdi4n4, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3"The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

        More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies."

        We shouldn't be commending the fact that gun deaths are frequently attributed to suicide, we should be trying to prevent suicide when it can be prevented..
    • magstheaxe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Because most suicides are actually impulse decisions. If the tool to kill yourself it readily available, most suicidal people won't talk themselves out of it.

      The New Yorker has a great article about the Golden Gate Bridge (#1 spot in the world for suicides) and they interview several people--including survivors--about what goes on in the heads of people who jump. One suicide expert said,

      "Jumping from the bridge is seen as sure, quick, clean, and available—which is the most potent factor,” Dr. Jerome Motto, a local psychiatrist and suicide expert, says. “It’s like having a loaded gun on your kitchen table.”

      http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013 ...
    • peter78, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10Actually this is very wrong. My gf actually works in suicide prevention.

      Studies have shown that people who think about suicide are less likely to actually go through with it if a gun is not available. Typically this is because the other options are less reliable (and therefore there is the chance of failure of death and pain) or more gruesome. These studies show that individuals who take an extra 24 hours to think about their predicament, are less likely to follow-up on the actual suicide.

      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3So what? If people who had access to liquor were more likely to commit suicide than those that didn't, would you ban alcohol? If smokers are correlated with suicides, should we ban those too? Correlation does not imply causation, and it could just be that suicidal people are more likely to buy guns.

        Also, freedom means taking personal responsibility. What you are arguing for is protecting people from themselves by taking everyone else's rights away. Should we also take cars away from potentially suicidal people, in case they might want to drive off a cliff, or into oncoming traffic? Household cleaners? Knives and razor blades? Put them in a padded room where they can't hurt anyone or themselves? If someone has made the decision to kill themselves, I'm not going to stand in their way. They should be free to do that too.
      • Frost9999, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2@Wiseweasel. Yes you have a point about removal of personal freedoms. That's what makes this such a heated debate. But you are a little cavalier about people who might be suicidal. They are sometimes mentally ill, and you need to acknowledge the prevalence of mental illness in society to properly have a discussion about suicide. Writing people off by saying you will not stand in their way is neither thoughtful or useful. Maybe there is a solution with compromise. For example - sport shooters will argue that guns are just for sport. Maybe they should keep their guns exclusively at the gun club? Maybe hunters should have to book and check out their rifles from a central police station? I don't know the solution, but I don't like the black and white thinking adopted by the gun lobby.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/02/2008, -2/+3I say print the number for a suicide hotline on every box of ammo, and maybe have a stack of those pamphlets at gun stores, and call it a wrap... Beyond that, you're just trying to live people's lives for them.
      • Sverre, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1@WiseWeasel: "What you are arguing for is protecting people from themselves by taking everyone else's rights away."

        I'm not sure he is, and I haven't seen a single comment here actually arguing that guns should be outright banned.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2@Sverre: How about this quote: "sport shooters will argue that guns are just for sport. Maybe they should keep their guns exclusively at the gun club? Maybe hunters should have to book and check out their rifles from a central police station?"

        Clearly, the person I was responding to was suggesting some significant impediments to people accessing their guns. Taken to the logical conclusion of this discussion's subject of suicide, there would be implied denial of guns to people felt at risk of committing suicide. That gets into an incredibly slippery slope of determining who is 'sane' enough to have access to their guns, and this is completely unacceptable. The federal and state governments simply do not have the authority to prevent citizens from owning a gun and bringing it to bear, even if they might possibly be suicidal.
      • Frost9999, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1@Wiseweasel: Your idea about the suicide hotline info on ammo boxes is interesting. I doubt it would be very effective. I don't know gun ownership numbers for the US but I suspect a huge number of people own guns and do not kill themselves or other people. Numbers of injuries are probably much higher than deaths so first aid information might be smarter to put on ammo boxes but that's a different issue.

        My ideal solution would be to make a gun that knows the target it is being aimed at, whether through another object etc... so basically a very clever gun. Maybe sometime in the future. It could prevent firing if you tried to kill yourself or others. And for self defense issues perhaps it could even assist you and fire at the perfect moment as you nervously wave your gun at an attacker that is bearing down on you with a machete.

        Such a tough topic, I believe strongly in personal freedoms, but I dislike guns and the damage they inflict. So I'm kind of torn.

        Thanks for a good debate.
    • daybreak, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6"which would surely have been carried out in some other way if guns were unavailable for whatever reason"

      Sorry, but you're wrong and you've pulled this directly out of your ass. If you bother to look at the studies, you'll find that

      "Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors."

      "More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies."

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/ ...

      Thanks for playing.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2So all you're showing is that people who are serious about committing suicide have a preference for guns. Correlation does not imply causation.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Dude there were no suicides before guns were invented.
    • repins, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Only 11% of suicides are commited with firearms, the most popular methods are hanging and poisoning.

      http://www.irmrc.unsw.edu.au/documents/injuryprofi ... look at page 2 has a nice pie chart for ya :)
      • rationalist, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Those are the statistics for Australia, we are talking about the U.S.
    • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3in addition to all the data telling you that people who kill themselves with guns might have lived if they'd had to find another method, an anecdote. my dad killed himself because in a moment of intense shame, there was a gun handy. if he'd had to go in search of the right pills or a cliff, he might have calmed down and gotten through his problems. for all that he was a *****-up man when i was a kid, i wish he had lived to try the magic of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.

      i'm not saying all guns should be illegal because some people are mentally ill. but the more regulation, the *****' better. people should have to get clean psych evaluations to own guns.
      • lostmyleggins, on 07/02/2008, -1/+5people should have to get clean psych evaluations to own guns and cars and have kids and...what else do you want govt approval for?
    • ZiggyILM, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1WRONG: Not having a gun _greatly_ decreases suicides: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/magazine/06suici ...
  • MrRealSurf, on 07/01/2008, -37/+13More than 15,000 people dead is good news??? Are you totally insane?

    They are too going to fix it by taking guns away (from the article in question which you obviously could not be bothered to read:

    "One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

    The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

    More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

    "Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.
    • fLUx1337, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Better than 15,001
    • Nidy1, on 07/01/2008, -5/+28Why are we trying to prevent people from killing themselves? That's THEIR choice. Their body is THEIR property.
      • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16Thank you.

        Don't punish all of the law abiding and responsible gun owners because some people can't handle the pressures of life, or obey other laws.
      • clutchdude, on 07/01/2008, -15/+3Because it affects more than just the person killing themselves. What about the family that's left behind?
      • RRJackson, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Yeah, what about the family that's left behind? If you're going to kill yourself, it seems like the only polite thing to do is kill your family first.
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -3/+9RRJackson & clutch:

        That is total *****. By your reasoning no one should have the freedom to choose anything since ALL of our choices have some sort of an effect on others. Your view is selfish in the extreme. The person who is killing themselves is the one in pain not the others you are talking about. You advocate their continues suffering to placate others. To spare the feelings of others. That's is total crap. People don't choose to kill themselves for no reason. They are suffering either physically, emotionally, or mentally. No one should be forced to continue living if they do not wish to. Peopel love to call those who end their lives as the selfish ones. That's a laugh. It's those who choose to ignore the obvious suffering of the person seeking suicide in favor of their own selfish need to keep that person around who are the truly selfish ones.
    • krnldmp, on 07/01/2008, -1/+20Forcing 15,000 people who want to kill themselves to stay alive is going ***** things up WAY worse than letting them do it.
      • whatever01, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Actually, the suicidal impulse is generally short lived (no pun intended) and passes relatively quickly. People who were suicidal once often go on to live healthy, happy and productive lives.
    • Pezza131214, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4You're also forgetting that many people who take drugs as a suicide method are doing it for attention, not to die. They don't even take the drugs with the intent to kill themselves. It still gets classified as a suicide and it skews the statistics.
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4You got that from those afterschool special didn't you?
      • gandhii, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1how about anecdotal evidence? I've known people like that. Having a hissy fit about life, taking a bunch of pain killers and then running off to the hospital in a panic does not create the image of true intent.
    • PolishLogic, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11"One public-health study"....one.

      If that's the case, then why has the population of DC fallen over the years, but the homicide rates stayed relatively the same? Even going through a phase of a sharp increase roughly 15 years after the gun ban was put into effect.

      1975 (year before gun ban put in place): 716,000 people.....235 murders
      2006: 581,530 people.....169 murders

      Of course in that time, they were knowns as the murder capital of the US in the 90's when they peaked at 482 in 1993 when the population had fallen to 578,000.

      So how is this showing that murders dropped thanks to the gun ban? I'll go ahead and call ***** on that study from those two "organizations" (and I use that term loosely).
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10Didn't you know? Only people with guns kill other people. Those other folks with knives and such are just goffing around.
    • GRTWHT, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1"Reply" - try it, you'll like it (and so will we)!
    • mike81890, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Hate to sound like a dick, but there are a lot of people on the earth, too many. If 15,000 of them don't want to live any more then let them die.
    • Gorehog, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Quote: "One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks."

      So, how does any of this stop a legitimate gun owner from committing suicide? They know how to unlock, assemble, and load their weapons. I sure do.

      Have you ever seen the pain a failed suicide attempt causes a person? Could you imagine the suffering of living with a broken back, trapped in a wheelchair or being bedridden and knowing you inflicted it on yourself? Why would you wish that on someone so miserable that they tried to kill themselves in the first place?

      I know in a lot of these cases if the person had survived the attempt and recovered from the physical damage they might get help and live a long and healthy life. Probably true. If you are seriously into prevention of suicide then maybe you should be busy advocating public health care so someone in jeopardy can get help before they ever start looking at suicide options. Are you more interested in banning guns or preventing suicides?
    • mcquitty, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Really? Do you want to go down that slippery slope?

      Let's look at the actual numbers for 2005 (from the CDC):

      30,964 Gun Related Deaths
      17,002 Gun Related Suicides
      13,173 Gun Related Homicides
      789 Gun Related Unintentional Deaths.

      Ok. Let's look at other leading causes of death. There were 2,397,615 deaths in the US that year.

      Leading Causes?
      Heart disease: 652,486
      Cancer: 553,888
      Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
      Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
      Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
      Diabetes: 73,138
      Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
      Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
      Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
      Septicemia: 33,373

      Should we have mandatory exercise to cover to reduce heart disease? What about regulating carlorie intake?

      • meruru, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Looks like we need to make death illegal
      • gandhii, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2exercise would probably only just increase the deaths by "accident" number.. ;]
        People need to just relax and get over this excessive fear of death thing. Everybody does it.. its not the end of the world.
    • zomglolcats, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4So let me get this straight, it would be better to take away guns, and have someone unsuccessfully attempt suicide and be a vegetable their whole life? That's ridiculous.
      • PolishLogic, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Depends on the variety of vegetable. Corn on the cob is delicious.
    • CamperBob, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2'"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.'

      I don't understand his point. Is he saying that society is better off if a suicidal person turns himself into a quadriplegic by jumping off of a building and landing on someone's car, than we are if he succeeds by shooting himself?

      It seems much better for all concerned if someone who is serious about killing himself gets it right the first time.

      At any rate, fixating on the tool of choice is not exactly a productive way to address mental illness as a social problem.
  • knucklebusted, on 07/01/2008, -29/+54People that want to kill themselves use a gun. People that want attention by pretending to kill themselves use drugs.
    • Chassit, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11Or a rope or a poison or a cliff or a lake or.....
    • digigeek, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11People who want to get drunk, drink Whiskey or Tequila. People who want to pretend to get drunk, drink wine coolers, lite beer, or Miller Chill.
    • pjpark, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Source?
    • aoliver, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5**SOME** People that want to kill themselves use a gun. **SOME** People that want attention by pretending to kill themselves use drugs. **SOME** People think this generalization is retarded.
    • repins, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2check this out http://www.irmrc.unsw.edu.au/documents/injuryprofi ... look at page 2 has a nice pie chart for ya

      Only 11% of suicides use a gun...60+% are suffocation or Poisoning.
    • socokoolaid, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3And then there is the sad people who are too poor to own a gun and must bludgeon them selfs to death with a rusty screwdriver. It's a horrible way to go.
  • smitas, on 07/01/2008, -7/+1Oho I never knew this fact
  • kevman459, on 07/01/2008, -3/+17The other half? Regicide.
    • jscozzari, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4if you know the name of the king being murdered..press 1
    • alperea, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Regicide=to kill Regis??
  • GOVStooge, on 07/01/2008, -5/+150FACT: 100% of suicides are self inflicted.
    • fLUx1337, on 07/01/2008, -6/+22Proof?
      • CosmicJustice, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2I don't think you understand the definition of the word suicide.
      • WallnutBoy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4I don't think you understand the definition of the word SARCASM.
    • gavin422, on 07/01/2008, -0/+12What about Marilyn Monroe's?
    • Gorehog, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11Almost funny but sadly false. Ever hear of suicide by cop? In some cases when the police shoot a suspect it turns out the person "drew the foul" and was already suicidal. So they go and create a situation where the police MUST shoot them. I'm not defending police brutality. And I'm not saying all police shootings go this way. In a small percentage of situations this does happen. Suicide inflicted by an outside source.

      I know someone is going to point out that the suicidal person forced the police to shoot and therefore inflicted the suicide on themselves. It's a complicated semantic issue and I feel for any officer who has to deal with the repercussions of such an event. The key here is the difference between committing suicide and inflicting the actual damage. For instance, if you jump off a bridge you committed suicide but it was hitting the ground that killed you.
      • jp12380, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7FACT: Although the cop physically shoots the person the death was still self inflicted by the behavior of that individual.
    • Eezyville, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Even death by cop?
    • digigeek, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Of course - Pics or it didn't happen.
    • GOVStooge, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6It can easily be argued that even suicide by cop is self inflicted.
    • oldgal, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Should it be the government's business to protect us from ourselves?
      • Adamlite, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5No, it shouldn't.
      • jessethouin, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1No. I think that was the point of the comment. If in the process of protecting others the government also protects us from ourselves, then that is fine, but I think the word "protect" in "protect and serve" is most certainly meant as protection from others that wish to do harm.
      • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1it's the gov't's business to protect you from dylan klebolds, who take everyone they can with them on their suicidal voyages.

        gun owners need frequent psych evaluations. if gun shows and the nickel ads can't comply with that, ***** gun shows and the nickel ads.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2@queenstarsha
        knife owners need frequent psych evals. And drivers. And parents. And truckers... oh wait, no truckers really do need frequent psych evals.
    • Sverre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Even if it came after severe depression and suicidal thoughts as a side effect of medical drugs? I think not.
    • damnyooneek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3thats false people have done assisted suicide
    • mesmeriffic, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Kevorkian.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1A tool for suicide just like a gun.
  • seinman, on 07/01/2008, -34/+35Good. Too bad it isn't higher. There's too many people, and suicide is pretty good at weeding out those who are too weak or damaged to be productive members of society.
    • kuantan97, on 07/01/2008, -4/+22Actually, I'd say that much of the garbage tend to hang on till the bitter end.

      The good die young.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Whats good or admirable about putting a shotgun in your mouth and blowing your brains all over the wall? Get real.
      • gurudrew, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2@PawnsOfJoshua
        If someone is intent on pulling the trigger, would you prefer that it be pointed at themselves or someone else?
      • ph1sh55, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2.
      • kuantan97, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3"If someone is intent on pulling the trigger, would you prefer that it be pointed at themselves or someone else?"

        A false dilemma if there ever was one.
    • BattleScars, on 07/01/2008, -10/+19Hitler...is that you?
    • sfkit, on 07/01/2008, -14/+2he isn't hitler - your battle scars are from cum shots
    • D1Foley, on 07/01/2008, -3/+16Tell that to the soilders with PTSD who killed themselves *****
      • rezonq3, on 07/01/2008, -5/+6You're killing me.

        Root cause of PTSD: Pointless Wars.

        Want to solve the suicides of Veterans? Stop sending them to Iraq, Iran, or whatever other country we are invading this week.
    • Gryffydd, on 07/01/2008, -9/+4Absolutely brutal...and absolutely true.
      • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1so if you ever get the flu, we should send the lions to come cull you from the herd, right?

        just a drain on society, you with the flu.
    • emt1451, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Would you say the same thing to cancer victims? Are they just too weak or damaged? No? Why not? Because it's a disease? So is depression...
      • Hello1024, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2If you've decided there are too many people, and that some people need to be "removed", then yes you would "remove" diseased people first.

        The flaw in the argument is that even if there are too many people in the world, "removing" (ie. killing) people might not be the best way to solve it...
      • emt1451, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Just because someone has a disease doesn't mean they are any less valuable to society. I think a better method would be to remove the lazy.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1No we will give them a million dollars in treatments so they can live another 6 months. People die. Get over it.
      • emt1451, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I'm aware people die. Note my username.
    • RadioFreeOpium, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8wrong you are. studies show a positive correlation between suicides and intelligence, and this is a statistic that is supported by data collected world-wide, not just in western countries where suicide rates are higher on average (along with IQ's).
      • dondara, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Ignorance is bliss.
      • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2yep. also correlates with a conscience i bet. the truly shameless ***** (dick cheney) live much longer than nature wants them to.
    • Hello1024, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8how do you define "productive members of society"? By your reasoning, all ongoing healthcare should be banned to "weed out" everyone who isn't as productive as "the rest". Is that what you intended?
      • whatever01, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I think you could argue that, in general, Diggers don't fall in the productive category.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1@whatever01
        Really? I figured most ppl here were employed in the tech field making a decent living. Or in school training for such a career.
    • mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7I don't know what is scarier: the sentiment expressed by seinman or the fact that so many people are digging him up.
      • Shadealorian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5welcome to the internet. Where misanthropes socialize.
    • ph1sh55, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Yes I'm so glad my friend back in 8th grade shot himself with his dad's handgun. When people get down we all know they never recover, and I'm sure that he never would have been a productive member of society. Thank you easily accessible guns in the household! Too bad it isn't higher indeed.
      Just kidding you're a ***** idiot.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Sure thing. I mean, you guys would have been so less messed up if he took a dive off a high building like a guy in my High School did years ago. Perhaps if he had taken a fist full of meds from the bathroom and died a day and a half later like my neighbor's daughter did, you would also have not cared. Too bad he had to use one of them evil guns. I mean, if it were not around, not only would he not have killed himself, but he could have ***** a rainbow.....and I am all out of skittles.
      • mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Guns are the easiest way for people to carry out successful suicide attempts. If ph1sh's friend hadn't had access to a gun, chances are he wouldn't be dead today. Everybody goes through ups and downs, and his friend probably would have come out of whatever led him to kill himself. Easy access to guns makes it much more likely that people, especially teenagers, will do something impulsive and permanent to cope with short-term despair.
        I personally am not convinced that this is sufficient reason to enact tougher gun laws (though it is good reason for parents of teens to choose to not own a gun), but at least acknowledge the problem.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1That's a load of crap, Mlrigsby. Sure, they have access to a tool that they can use to kill themselves. As I have said, there are plenty of people who do not fail at killing themselves with whatever is at hand. Swallowing a bunch of pills can kill you, even if you make it to a hospital. Jumping 12 stories is not likely to be one you walk away from. Running out in front of a bus or train is also likely to leave you dead. Are we banning tall buildings, trains, buses? No. Don't vilify the tool when the problem is the suicide.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1That's different because he was a child and his dad should have been responsible for that gun. I have 2 guns and 2 kids. my guns are locked. The one key is on a chain around my neck. I'm far more worried about my dog hurting a kid than my gun.
    • tumples, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5If one of your parents killed themselves, would you think "thank Christ for that, she was a total drain on the countries resources?"

      You are a sick *****.
    • Revolution101, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2i ***** love you jack
    • al3efroman, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1ass
  • kolop1, on 07/01/2008, -7/+16This was front page yesterday.
  • SwedishNinja, on 07/01/2008, -7/+34We should make suicide illegal!
    • yayster, on 07/01/2008, -1/+29I think it is.
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1No it's not a crime.
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1The Supreme Court ruled against such laws back in 1997.
      • lostmyleggins, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1DC should pass strict suicide control
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1You do forfeit your life insurance if your death is a suicide so make it look like and accident.
    • cheerio, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2Like Utah?
    • jzuska, on 07/01/2008, -1/+15It is.
      • cawpin, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13In most states in the US, attempted suicide is illegal but a successful suicide is not, for obvious reasons. Suicide is the only act that it is illegal to attempt but not illegal to commit.
      • Eezyville, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2So whats the punishment for attempted suicide?
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1Sorry but suicide is not illegal. When was the last time soeone was given jail time to trying to kill themselves? THINK!!! It would also help to look up the criminal codes of the various locations online. I love it the idea tho. "You failed at killing yourself so as your reward we are sending you to jail/prison for a bit." LOL!!!!!
      • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1life.
    • FatAmerican, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12Death Penalty.
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Suicide is illegal? LMAO. So how many people have been convicted of first degree suicide?
      • norman619, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Plenty. They were given the death penalty. DUH!!!
      • magstheaxe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I don't know what the penalty is in the US, but in some countries historically if a death was ruled a suicide (and depending on the culture there might be exceptions, such as if the person was demonstrably of unsound mind) the state had the right to seize some or all of the dead person's assets. Ignomious burial was another popular penalty.

        Obviously, the vicitm would be dead and not in a position to care either way. But many suicidal people still care about their families. It's easier to commit suicide when you're the only one affected; knowing that your suicide could cause your family to lose their home might stay your hand.

    • HxChris91, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6No, in fact attempted suicide is illegal, commiting suicide is not illegal...
      • cybrguy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4better not mess up! use a gun! Wow, one could make an arguement that the law against suicide encourages more effective tools in committing suicide. because if they don't succeed, they will be punished!

        This line of logic makes me question why the hell this is even an issue.
    • Eezyville, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Lol whats the punishment?
    • Wakkyweed, on 07/01/2008, -9/+6The cops should shoot anyone who threatens to commit suicide. As a Christian nation it is our duty to save the immortal souls of potential suicides from spending an eternity in hell!

      /sarcasm
    • Taiyoryu, on 07/01/2008, -2/+12Everyone has the right to live and as a consequence have the right to die as well.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4I totally agree actually. As twisted as it initially seems, to me, the right to end your own life should be as inalienable as freedom of religion or speech. And no matter what laws you try to pass, this is one right that needs no constitutional basis to be universally protected and or executable by all. I mean slaves in the hold of a ship, bound and continuously monitored, used to find ways to end their own lives. It can ALWAYS be done - you can always bite off your own tongue and choke on it.
    • whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10Suicide is illegal only because it allows the state to detain crackpots after their failed attempts.

      If it were up to me, it would be totally legal.
      • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Regardless of what any laws say, can anyone cite one instance of a person serving jail time after a failed suicide attempt?
      • whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4It's more about temporary detention, so that the person can be taken to a mental hospital. If it were totally legal, the state would have no recourse to detain the individual per the 4th amendment.

        I can't cite an example off hand, but I'm sure that someone with more time on their hands or some expertise can.
      • Cloned, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I was put on probation and had to go through rehab at a mental health facility for adolescents. I was only allowed out of the hospital after I could prove that I was mentally fit and had no thoughts of suicide. I didn't after my attempt, I think it was really just more about a cry for help, after the attempt I didn't want to kill myself, but I was still depressed (My dad was terminally ill)

        Suicide is illegal so they have the authority to put you into rehab so you can't just attempt again. Although to be completely honest, I hated rehab. I wanted to get out that place and ended up acting happy so they would let me leave and see my friends and family (who were the real people who helped me)
    • mike81890, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Cause we don't have enough LIVE people in jail n_n
    • mariecordona, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2As far as I know, it's illegal because of the financial impact to the community from tying up resources (police, ambulance, etc.) as well as any cleanup if it was done in a public place. So if you're unsuccessful in killing yourself, expect a bill from the police department and the EMT's who revive you. I don't think that kind of thing is generally covered by health insurance.
      • JeddHampton, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1"..expect a bill from the police department and the EMT's who revive you."

        That will show him for trying to die.
    • jp12380, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Only attempted suicide can be made illegal.
      • whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Well there isn't much point in throwing the proverbial book at a corpse, is there?
      • o0joshua0o, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Anything can be made illegal...the trick is enforcement.
    • wtbuser, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1LOL @ everyone who missed the sarcasm of the original poster.
    • cybrguy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Funny thing how this law doesn't have an effect on people since in their minds they won't be around to see the consequences.

      On that note, I realize that the true effect and possible aim of this law is to reduce people faking suicide.
  • aschmack, on 07/01/2008, -5/+80Fact: Bears eat beets.
    • kinerry, on 07/01/2008, -2/+24Bear, beats, battlestar galactica
    • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -5/+1Do bears ***** in the woods?
    • lostsymphonies1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3hahaha I was coming in here to say the same thing -_-
    • Screwy1138, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3don't make light of this. Bears are the #1 threat to America.
    • declan69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Question: Which bear is best
      FALSE: Black Bear
    • bubba9999, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Identity theft is serious business.
  • moonboots, on 07/01/2008, -11/+27Someone who wants to commit suicide will find some other way if guns were banned, so why does this fact affect the legitimacy of gun ownership?
    • PawnsOfJoshua, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Really, this only enforces the legitimacy of the right to bear arms. This is imo a contrary point against anyone who thinks guns should be banned. I totally agree with your comment.
    • consoneo, on 07/01/2008, -6/+9Yeah. I mean, if guns get taken away, we're going to have to start teaching "When you're really serious about suicide: go down the highway, don't cross it." in our health classes.

      ***** that. Let them shoot themselves. It's not the government's job to police family relationships marred by suicide. It's the family's responsibility to instill the correct and proper morals and mental strength to prevent their members from committing such acts.

      Government: You stay out of my house, and keep others out of it too. That's all you need to do!

      Quote me on that.
      • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Hey look, someone that doesn't want the government to be responsible for their own lives, and how it's run.

        Bravo...dugg
      • JustFender, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2"Government: You stay out of my house, and keep others out of it too. That's all you need to do!" - consoneo

        if you ban guns then it'll be easier for the gov. to keep others out, plus if the gov. is soley in charge of keeping people out you wont have a good reason for needing a gun anyway(besides hunting). Also, banning guns would delay people who are trying to kill themselves allowing more time for family and friends to change their mind...

        ps. im english so i dont really care about your gun laws but i am interested in your answers/replies.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4@JustFender,

        Dude, don't be such a git. The government won't do anything better by making a law to do it. The cops won't respond any faster. The criminals won't be any less armed and deadly. Laws punish. They do not prevent.
      • JustFender, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1@anarkelncarnate,

        i weren't being a git i was running off what he said, and anyway from your comment it sounds like you oppose consoneo and want the government out of your house and you want to be able to personally keep others out, which is different to what he said. This whole gun thing is weird, i personally dont care about the legallity of firearms because it seems that with them illegal crime is a threat and with them legal crime is a threat but with more risk involved.
      • consoneo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3JustFender, I dunno if you'll ever read this, but in any case, guns are not about keeping just others out. They are, principally, about keeping the Government in check. If you look at history, oppression on a country's peoples, by Government, is easily done, and commonly done, by those without the freedom to own their own guns. That is the big deal behind gun control. It is defense against ourselves, against our own rule, that we need weapons for. Not against criminals, although it helps sometimes.
    • greepoman, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Why do so many people on digg think suicidal people are some seperate part of society that will stop at nothing til they are successful.

      Truth is, there are lots of people who are in a bad spot, attempt suicide, fail, then go on to live normal lives. A lot of these people are teenagers who just haven't gotten enough experience in life to have a good perspective on it (you don't need a study to tell you teenagers do stupid *****).

      So while I disagree with you idea that suicidal people will kill themselves no matter what, I do agree with you in that I don't think that taking away a constitutional right is worth it.
    • Bloodboiler, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1It is not that simple.

      Having a gun and suicidal thoughts is so dangerous because of how easy is makes to act on those thoughts. To jump from high place you need to get to a high place, to poison yourself you need some hard to find nasty chemicals etc. Unlike all other things generally available, guns are designed to kill, and make killing yourself quick and painless if successful. Even suicidal people don't like the idea of dying in horribly painful way (e.g. drowning or in a car crash).

      Furthermore, people who have suicidal thoughts are not always fully aware that dying is the end of everything. That sounds crazy, but so is the way anorexic people are convinced they are fat while slowly dying from hunger. Wanting to kill oneself is, to put it simply, just a symptom of chemical problems in the brain (terminally ill people who are in great pain may make an exception). If suicidal people don't fully understand concept of death, that makes all manner of hair splitting about those really wanting to die and those just kinda like wanting to die meaningless. None of them really want to die. Its just that bad brain chemistry, fueled by hard times in life compels them to try death.

      Somewhere around 20% of the population in western countries goes trough some level and length of depression in their lives one or more times. There may be more suicidal people than there are handicapped, but only handicapped have have all sorts of equal access rights laws. Why not have similar "life" rights for the depressed and make it a little harder to get guns. Most publicly accessible high places already have the courtesy to make it hard to jump.

      BTW. Greenpoman, doesn't US constitution imply that people in a well regulated militia have right to have guns. It doesn't exactly say that everyone from local village idiots to known murderers should be allowed to have guns. Leaving out the part about well regulated militia is like leaving out the "Thou shall not"s form the 10 commandments (from British radio comedy: The Now Show).
  • nomad421, on 07/01/2008, -9/+35The blurb attached to this post is such an absurd statement. Is the implication that we could prevent many suicides if only guns were outlawed? Perhaps the poster doesn't realize that there are a plethora of alternative ways by which one may commit suicide. This fact is completely orthogonal to the supreme court ruling, and only a fool would try to draw a link.
    • tschau, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3You obviously didn't read the article. Do that first.
    • nomad421, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10Actually, I did read the article, and I stand by my comments. If people are more successful at committing suicide with a gun than by jumping from high places, that is fine. Frankly, I don't believe that suicide makes sense; there is always a better alternative. However, if people choose to do such things (no matter how effective their means) it has no bearing on the right of citizens to own and maintain firearms. People who commit suicide with guns are responsible for their own death, and their misjudgment about how to deal with their desperation should not lead the government to infringe upon the rights of other sovereign citizens.
      • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Dugg for loving the Constitution and Bill of Rights...
    • krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+2the same political side that argues self destructive drugs should be legal ... (drumroll) ... also argues that guns are bad because they're self destructive.
  • jzuska, on 07/01/2008, -24/+19Don't care. Touch my gun, and you'll be a suicide.
    • itsthebrod, on 07/01/2008, -8/+8You can make people kill themselves? That's an amazing superpower you have there.
    • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1 I touched it when you were distracted
  • AntBing, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6People like easy.
  • XxtraLarGe, on 07/01/2008, -3/+56"Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they were pushed out of a window?" Archie Bunker responding to his daughter Gloria on the number of gun deaths each year.
    • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2it sure a is a lot more work than pulling a trigger.
      • RuffRidr, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Is it? Leaving a car on in a closed garage doesn't seem that hard. Swallowing a bottle of pills isn't that hard. Jumping off a bridge is not that hard.
      • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2killing a bunch of people is hard that way.
      • RuffRidr, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3It's also a lot easier to defend yourself with a gun, than with a bridge. But what is the relevance of that to this story again?
      • pockiez, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Trigger is easier. I don't have a garage, and the other two have high potential for failure.
      • silveravnt, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1True, It's more rewarding if you really work at it.
    • flashingcurser, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Conspiracy nut friends of mine say that pushing people out of a window is a favorite of the CIA. Hard to prove it wasn't suicide.
      • lostmyleggins, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1please stand by your window, a govt employee will be there shortly
  • 9bpm9, on 07/01/2008, -8/+7Fiction.
  • chrisduser, on 07/01/2008, -11/+4FACT: GUNS KILL 100% OF ALL MENTALLY ILL IN WHICH GUN SUICIDE IS INVOLVED.
  • Chairboy, on 07/01/2008, -13/+15Think of it as evolution in action.
    • Gryffydd, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7I think the term you're looking for is natural selection.
      • Chairboy, on 07/01/2008, -5/+4Nope. It's a book reference that also happens to stand on its own merits. But specifically, it's exactly the phrase I was looking for.
      • mlrigsby, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3But the phrase doesn't make any sense in this context...
      • Chairboy, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Whoa! I'm at -1 now, and my original post is down 2 from where it was before. I must have really offended some folks.

        Mlrigsby, when someone kills themself, they're removing themselves from the gene pool. If the person already had kids, then it's a wash, but if not, then that's the end of the line for whatever genetic defect caused them to destroy themself. It's lost its vector to propagate. This is one of the components of evolution, and a catchy phrase.
  • diggdiggdug, on 07/01/2008, -8/+12GOOD if people are going to off themselves not having a gun is not going to stop them. Using a gun can help them finish themselves with less pain and suffering from a failed attempt.
    It seems some gun control freaks may try any method available to try to cash a shadow on gun ownership.
    • greepoman, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Sure some suicidal people might be chronically depressed but there are also a lot of suicidal people who are basically just going through a "rough patch" who later go on to live happy lives. So quite frankly your logic is as flawed as those "gun control freaks".
  • Jeremyz0r, on 07/01/2008, -6/+18Old, saw this yesterday.

    http://digg.com/world_news/55_of_all_U_S_Gun_Death ...
  • Badandy127, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3This is good news. So when people cite how many deaths are by guns to support their twisted views on how crime occurs, we can exclude 55% of them who would have killed themselves through other means and who committed suicides.
  • jnava121, on 07/01/2008, -5/+29FACT: 98% of all people will die in their lifetime.
    • Hrodrik, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3So 2% will only die when they are dead?
    • gavin422, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Don't you die AFTER your lifetime?
      • digigeek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Sure, but *that many* people actually "die" right after College. (e.g. they get married, get a mortgage, and stop living)
    • Pixelante, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Who's the remaining 2%, McLeod's relatives?
    • JeddHampton, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I thought there could only be one!!!
    • cybrguy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Maybe they were intending the last two percent to be really profound?

      The final 2% never really lived... or The final 2% never die because they will never be forgotten.
    • OrangeTide, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11+/- 2% margin of error.
  • Exquisitething, on 07/01/2008, -25/+2People can't live in peace with gun
    • ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -1/+19I have many guns yet I manage to live in peace. Take that ***** somewhere else.
  • sneedo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+22Fact: Digg's dupe checker failed on this one, or someone is a Mrbabyman fan.
  • kinerry, on 07/01/2008, -8/+31Fact: gun ownership isn't about self-defense or even hunting, it's about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government

    Zimbabwe sure as hell wouldn't be in the situation it's in now if regular citizens were able to keep the government in check
    • whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10Can't it be all three of the above?
    • urgeigh, on 07/01/2008, -0/+9Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government is self-defense.
    • pintomp3, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3guns have done wonders in darfur, rwanda, and seirra leone.
      • AnarkeIncarnate, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Are they owned by the masses or simply the foot soldiers of the warlords? If the people banded into militias, they would not be subjugated.

        Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those that did not.
      • Egoist, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4No one in those countries are fighting to liberate their country, they're fighting for their respective warlords. Winning a war isn't the goal of these people, revenge, terror and maintaining the status quo is.

        Have you ever made a non-ignorant comment on Digg? Seems like I'm having to respond to your stupid comments on a near daily basis.
    • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1for the purposes of a well-regulated militia, i assume you're okay with mental health screening for gun ownership?
  • RRJackson, on 07/01/2008, -13/+8Thinning the herd. Good news for everyone. Without firearms there might be more mentally ill people out there passing their bad genes on to a new generation of idiots for me to dodge in traffic.
  • LukeMadrid, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4If anything, this should be a statistic that helps support responsible gun-control rather than ALL-OUT banning of our firearms and the second amendment. Americans always want to play the "pick and choose" game with the constitution.

    No way, bump that. The idea of owning a gun is so that you'll never have to use it. The fact that most gun related deaths are suicidal in nature is "ok" with me. I don't see why that's a bad thing. Some people are acting like these people are illegally quitting their debt-consolidation pyramid scheme or something.
  • Piontek, on 07/01/2008, -13/+3holy ***** 15000 killings a year, and thats only counting those from firearms.. thank God i don't live in "his own country"
    • Hetman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6I am more worried about dying in a traffic accident than I am getting shot. Mcdonalds also is very terrifying to me. Regardless of how much I try I cannot resist a big mac.
  • RizenBB, on 07/01/2008, -11/+5Just thinning the gene pool.
    • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1too late! my dad had bred four times before he shot himself.

      go ***** yourself, darwin.
  • welliwonder, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3more air for me
  • HypocriteDigg, on 07/01/2008, -14/+22Guns are RARELY used in true self-defense. Some guy in Utah shot a gas station security guard in the neck who tried to tackle him and claimed 'self-defense'. The reason I want to keep guns legal is so I have a stash to fight the neocons during the next civil war.
    • ender7074, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1Bring it on.
    • executorzz, on 07/01/2008, -10/+5I think the neocons will win any civil war.
    • whataboutdave, on 07/01/2008, -5/+7Guns are "RARELY used in true self defence"?

      I hope you never need to defend your life with a firearm.
      • meannate, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6I think some people are *waiting* to use their guns in self defense... Actually, maybe "hoping" is a better word.
    • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -4/+9You use one bad example when there are countless positive examples of self defense...

      Just having the weapon can keep both parties (good & bad) from being harmed...

    • amra51, on 07/01/2008, -5/+19The "neocons" probably wont be the ones coming to take your guns, to prevent you from shooting yourself. It will likely one of the elitist socialist liberal types...who are there to "save you" from yourself.
      • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1i'm not worried about people taking my guns as much as locking me up and torturing me to death because i'm in the wrong place at the wrong time. or dropping bombs on my children and calling it freedom. that's what republicans do. and if they manage to steal any more elections, corrective measures will have to be taken to save our democracy.
      • enantiodromia, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1that's really very interesting, because as far as I can tell, the Jesus freaks who want to ban drugs, and abortion, and every other thing they consider a sin, are doing EXACTLY that; trying to save people from themselves.

        btw, if you think the Bush family isn't one of the most "elite" in the country, you're on d0pe.
    • briansearles, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Funny, I sure would have when I had the chance. I doubt you'd be saying the same if your life was ever in somebody else's hands.
      • whatever01, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Damn - ever walk on a city street? Drive a car on a freeway? You life is always in someone else's hands. You're just not aware of how fragile your existence is.
    • RuffRidr, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11Really? Various studies show anywhere from 60,000 to 1,000,000 defensive uses of a firearm every year. Most times without a bullet even fired. I would not call that 'rarely'.
      • KSUdesigner, on 07/01/2008, -7/+1Rare is a relative term. How many other uses of a firearm are there every year? If there are 100,000,000 other uses each year, then those defensive uses you cite are rare, being only about 1% overall.
      • Egoist, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6Brilliant, KSU. And if there were a billion trillion uses every year, that's only 0.000000000000000001% of the time (plus or minus a zero)!

        So you make up a number out of your butt to make your point. That's some strong logic you're using there.
      • queenstarsha, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1if there are so many studies, why not even one link to one, hm?
    • ancientshoes, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0OH NOE! TEH NEOCONS!!!
    • Samurai77, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Sic Semper Tyrannis!

  • darny, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Actually, according to an article from time.com that was posted on digg recently (approximately 13 hours and 30 minutes ago), 55% of all U.S Gun Deaths Are Actually Suicides.
    • 1timeuser, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1So MORE than half?! Bury this is inaccurate! actually bury this because its a retarded dupe.
    • darny, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1maybe I should just bury you instead.
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11and relevance to gun control laws is what? Please, what a lame attempt to support gun control. Gun control is like tax regulation for media pirating.
  • ultraJesus, on 07/01/2008, -4/+22Buried for being on the front page yesterday.
  • HackWithRamzi, on 07/01/2008, -2/+12Guns aren't the problem. Every minute a suicide is attempted. A great acknowledgment of suicide as an illness is needed to curtail it.

    http://www.everyminute.org
    • johndavidjack, on 07/01/2008, -5/+0The best cure to suicide is doing it successfully.
  • Metatron197, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7Fact: This is not a Lysol commercial
  • Puffles, on 07/01/2008, -7/+23Guns don't kill themselves. People kill themselves.
  • richardtallent, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or h