"And, how do suicide and drugs compare to other violent deaths across the population? Far greater than firearm related deaths, and on the rise
In 2010, 19,392 of the 38,364 suicides were "by discharge of firearm" [the same term used for classifying 11,078 homicides and 606 accidental deaths]. Seems a bit odd that the report classifies the accidents and homicides as "firearm related deaths" but the suicides as unrelated.
From a public health perspective, a 50% reduction in suicide by firearm would save more lives than the complete elimination of HIV deaths or cervical cancer deaths or uterine cancer deaths.
> From a public health perspective, a 50% reduction in suicide by firearm would save more lives than the complete elimination of HIV deaths or cervical cancer deaths or uterine cancer deaths.
That's not necessarily true. Various methods of suicide are subject to substitution effects. As shown by several recent studies in Australia, a decline in the share of suicides by firearm results in a consummate rise in suicides by hanging.
The commonly cited studies supporting the 'substitution' hypothesis are based on data right up to the point when Australia's rate began to decline and tend to be short on demographic analysis. The correlation was found at a time of increasing male suicides where most of the increase was by hanging.
Note also that the substitution hypothesis is not consistent with the overall decline in female suicides during the same period.
This more recent Harvard study indicates that reducing the lethality of suicide means correlates with a decline in deaths. Interestingly, it postulates that the age demographic which saw an increase in hanging deaths was the same younger population more likely to be familiar with sexual asphyxia and thus the mechanics of hanging while older males did not see a significant decline in firearm suicides.
It seems odd to conflate person-on-person crime with a choice to kill one's self. Further, in my limited experience with suicide, firearms are part of the planning process and not the impetus of death. It seems just as likely to me that a 50% reduction in suicide by firearm would be followed by 1000% increase in suicide by hemlock.
I think the question is the substitution effect. If easy access to firearms really did increase the total number of suicides by a substantial amount (i.e. they were more effective, or people were not willing to use other methods), then I'd view it as something specific to firearms.
I'm pretty sure there is near 100% substitution, but that firearms are a much more effective method, which accounts for the net difference.
Having a gun around is a constant reminder of death in a way that having a rope or a drawer full of kitchen knives is not. The objects in your environment are directly related to the choices available to you and are part of the framework you use when trying to think about what actions to take.
Clearly false: In Switzerland, even though one likely posses a gun, one is more likely to use a rope to commit suicide.
While we, being simple humans, may project feeling upon an inanimate object, it's a mistake to assume a god's eye view, objectivity, or universal reality.
Bringing it back around: Are you suicidal? We're here to help. ;)
I am not sure that you fully understand my point as the method used is not what I was getting at exactly. Even if the majority of people do not reach for the gun as the method does not say whether the availability of the gun made the suicide more likely. It also matters what you associate with the gun, you could have very different thoughts about a gun kept for hunting deer, than one kept for shooting potential attackers, for instance.
I read your argument as (1) humans are entangled with the environment and (2) a judgement that guns are related (mind) to death more so than edged weapon or rope (hence my question of your mood or state). Following your logic, shouldn't we expect a higher rate of suicide in Switzerland than the US?
As for intentionality, proper reference to cultural symbol and relation, as you state in your last sentence, is essential but seemingly ignored in favor of how one believes, desires.
The Golden Gate Bridge might be a well studied form of this (it's a fairly common suicide location, and a visible landmark across much of SF). i.e. do people commit suicide more frequently if they have a view of the GG Bridge vs. a view of something else?
The category ‘‘drug-induced causes’’
includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of
drugs (legal and illegal use), but also poisoning from medically
prescribed and other drugs. It excludes accidents, homicides, and
other causes indirectly related to drug use. Also excluded are
newborn deaths due to mother’s drug use. (For drug-induced causes,
see Technical notes.) Between 1997 and 1998 the age-adjusted death
rate for drug-induced causes increased 5 percent from 5.6 deaths per
100,000 U.S. standard population to 5.9, the highest it has been since
at least 1979.
And doing a little searching for number of deaths from prescribed medications:
In 2010, there were 38,329 drug overdose deaths in the United States;
most (22 134; 57.7%) involved pharmaceuticals; 9429 (24.6%) involved
only unspecified drugs. Of the pharmaceutical-related overdose deaths, 16,451
(74.3%) were unintentional, 3780 (17.1%) were suicides, and 1868 (8.4%)
were of undetermined intent. Opioids (16,651; 75.2%), benzodiazepines (6497; 29.4%),
antidepressants (3889; 17.6%), and antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs
(1717; 7.8%) were the pharmaceuticals (alone or in combination with
other drugs) most commonly involved in pharmaceutical overdose deaths.
Among overdose deaths involving opioid analgesics, the pharmaceuticals
most often also involved in these deaths were benzodiazepines (5017; 30.1%),
antidepressants (2239; 13.4%), antiepileptic and antiparkinsonism drugs (1125;
6.8%), and antipsychotics and neuroleptics (783; 4.7%)." -
See more at: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death#sthash.gaJ8WlzN.dpuf
I think the "drugs kill more people than guns" statement in the slide show is a little disingenuous because "drug deaths" implies "illegal drugs" and not "your doctor gave you some shit that killed you". Also, I find it hard to believe that that number starting in, what, the late 70s? is anywhere near accurate. I'll ask you this: do you think more or fewer people were using dangerous drugs in the 70s than today? During disco, coke, free sex, and a general environment of nihilism? My guess is same or less, not the quite significant growth suggested in the slideshow.
This probably depends on your community/social circle. Some groups heavily advocate that pharmaceuticals be limited to life saving emergencies and not ongoing usage ("pill for everything").
True, provided we don't see a commensurate increase in suicide by some other means. Considering how effective suicide by firearm is at accomplishing that goal it probably would significantly reduce first-attempt "success" rate.
In 2010, 19,392 of the 38,364 suicides were "by discharge of firearm" [the same term used for classifying 11,078 homicides and 606 accidental deaths]. Seems a bit odd that the report classifies the accidents and homicides as "firearm related deaths" but the suicides as unrelated.
From a public health perspective, a 50% reduction in suicide by firearm would save more lives than the complete elimination of HIV deaths or cervical cancer deaths or uterine cancer deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf