Australia's gun laws see suicide rates drop

Saigon, there is no issue at hand. Dance around the truth all you want, I see where you are going with this. The number of suicides by guns do not justify disarming the population. So the answer to your question is no, "gun control" did not work.

No, you don't see where I am going with this, because I am not suggesting that the US implement the same laws that Australia has implemented.

I would be happy to see the US include a simple mental health check within background checks (as being done here in the EU) and leave it at that. Preventing anyone who is being medicated or treated for depression from buying a weapon would be a very good move for the US.

Well that certainly gives the person who does "simple mental health checks" quite some power doesn't it ?
 
There is no doubt that the data in the study are accurate.

But one cannot compare the United States with Australia, as the United States is a considerably more violent society, where violence is sanctioned as a legitimate form of conflict resolution.

As with most complex, difficult issues, there is no quick, simple solution – to decrease gun violence, including suicide, there must first be change in the fundamental nature of American society, where violence is not sanctioned as a legitimate form of conflict resolution, regardless what firearms regulations are in place.

This is a violence issue, a cultural issue, an education issue, a social issue, not an availability of guns issue.

Japan has strict gun control and a high suicide rate; the US has little to no gun control and a high suicide and murder rate. The three persons I knew well who killed themselves both used handguns, one of whom was an 11 year old boy.

Camus wrote about suicide in the Myth of Suicide that (and I paraphrase) maybe a sharp word from a friend drove the actor to the final solution. In the case of the 11 year old a poor grade was his reason. Having a gun makes the act quick and simple.
 
Let me get this straight... Removing guns makes people happier, and less likely to kill themselves. This thread is absurd.

:cuckoo: Makes people happier? Who is saying that? No one! The fact is that a suicide attempt with a firearm rarely affords a second chance whereas attempts involving drugs or cutting, which account for more than 90% of all suicidal acts, prove fatal far less often. Hence, if someone doesn't have immediate access to a firearm, they are less likely to die from suicide.

Why do you limit your suicide efforts to cutting and drugs? By far the most popular method of suicide in hanging, something that like firearms affords no second chance.

The methodology of compiling suicide statistics has been manipulated so we really don't know.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare looked at the recording of suicide statistics in 2009. The report noted that the ABS had repeatedly pointed out flaws in its methodology due to its unavoidable reliance on state and territory data about cause of death, which means some suicides aren’t included in the data because they are misclassified, or not classified correctly until later.

Moreover, there has only been a fully nation-wide National Coroners Information System operating since 2001. The result is that actual numbers of suicides, according to the AIHW, may be up to 16% higher than the data the ABS was using until 2007. After 2007, the ABS altered its processes to enable later classification or reclassification of suicides to be added to the data, which in the AIHW’s view would capture about half of the suicides not currently being picked up in the data.

Debate about Australia's suicide statistics | July 2012 | Crikey
 
By far the most popular method of suicide in hanging,

No it isn't - that is absolute nonsense.

In the US the most popular method for males is guns, for females guns comes second to pills. Suffocation is also quite common.
 
Well that certainly gives the person who does "simple mental health checks" quite some power doesn't it ?

Have you ever sat a driver's license test?

Is there a point there ?

Yes - a fairly obvious one I would have thought.

The person conducting a driving test has the power to fail you if they so choose. You can always apply again later. If you don't have a problem with that, there is no reason for you to object to a similar system for guns.
 
Have you ever sat a driver's license test?

Is there a point there ?

Yes - a fairly obvious one I would have thought.

The person conducting a driving test has the power to fail you if they so choose. You can always apply again later. If you don't have a problem with that, there is no reason for you to object to a similar system for guns.

You're not suggesting people be denied a gun because they don't know how to use one. You are suggesting that they exhibit an acceptable mental state before they are allowed to have one. Mental health isn't a simple thing to determine nor is it a constant.
 
You're not suggesting people be denied a gun because they don't know how to use one. You are suggesting that they exhibit an acceptable mental state before they are allowed to have one. Mental health isn't a simple thing to determine nor is it a constant.

Yes, that's true - a mental health check is not a perfect method by any means - but it is a very good start.

We have to accept that massacres like Virginia Tech would likely have been avoided had a mental health check been conducted.
 
You're not suggesting people be denied a gun because they don't know how to use one. You are suggesting that they exhibit an acceptable mental state before they are allowed to have one. Mental health isn't a simple thing to determine nor is it a constant.

Yes, that's true - a mental health check is not a perfect method by any means - but it is a very good start.

We have to accept that massacres like Virginia Tech would likely have been avoided had a mental health check been conducted.

Total speculation.
 
You're not suggesting people be denied a gun because they don't know how to use one. You are suggesting that they exhibit an acceptable mental state before they are allowed to have one. Mental health isn't a simple thing to determine nor is it a constant.

Yes, that's true - a mental health check is not a perfect method by any means - but it is a very good start.

We have to accept that massacres like Virginia Tech would likely have been avoided had a mental health check been conducted.

Not even CLOSE.

Cho's mental stability was well documented but no one ever reported his instability to any agency that would have prevented him from legally obtaining his firearms. The Virginia Tech case has that much in common with Loughner and Holmes. With Holmes, it was even worse because he had a whole notebook of his dangerous ramblings and no one ever went to any authority. These mentally unstable individuals would have passed a mental health check with flying colors because no one ever made a report.

Tech Gunman's Records Reveal Lack of Treatment - Washington Post

The missing mental health records of Seung Hui Cho, released Wednesday afternoon, provide more evidence that Virginia Tech's counseling center and the state's mental health system failed to recognize, communicate and treat the gunman's increasingly erratic behavior.
 
The gun nuts here would provide another source to say that your source is wrong, even though I know its right.

Correlation is not causation.

You are right - and in this case what has been proven as a statistical fact is causation - not correlation.

Statistical fact is an oxymoron.

There are many more variables than just guns that are being ignored.

For example were there any improvements to the mental health system, intervention etc?

People who want to kill themselves will do so with or without a gun.
 
Katz -

While that may be true, the EU proposal here calls for a mandatory 30 minute interview with a mental health professional, who would also have access to the applicants medical records.

I would question whether young Mr Cho would have gotten through that interview.

Total speculation.

Of course. But it also illustrates how background checks could save lives.
 
Katz -

While that may be true, the EU proposal here calls for a mandatory 30 minute interview with a mental health professional, who would also have access to the applicants medical records.

I would question whether young Mr Cho would have gotten through that interview.

Total speculation.

Of course. But it also illustrates how background checks could save lives.

and they can also be used to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights. These simplistic and idealistic ideas are very pretty on the surface but totally ignore the uninteneded consequences. It's the big picture that counts folks and there is NO evidence that a 30 minute interview will stop a damn thing. " Maybe we should try this idea " solutions are bullshit.
 
I never saw the necessity to worry about suicide rates.

IMO if people want to kill themselves it's none of my business now is it?
 

Forum List

Back
Top