As Suicide Rates Rise, Scientists Find New Warning Signs(wsj.com)
wsj.com
As Suicide Rates Rise, Scientists Find New Warning Signs
http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-suicide-rates-rise-scientists-find-new-warning-signs-1465235288
70 comments
>Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts.
It's often said that the presence of firearms in the house greatly increases the chances of suicide since it's this spike in despair, hopelessness, and entrapment that causes the overwhelmingly strong compulsion to end things. But if you can ride out this wave, then things revert to the mean.
Firearms don't give you a second chance to rethink things, unlike swallowing sleeping pills or slitting your wrist.
It's often said that the presence of firearms in the house greatly increases the chances of suicide since it's this spike in despair, hopelessness, and entrapment that causes the overwhelmingly strong compulsion to end things. But if you can ride out this wave, then things revert to the mean.
Firearms don't give you a second chance to rethink things, unlike swallowing sleeping pills or slitting your wrist.
Jumping off a bridge or freeway overpass rarely permits you a second chance to rethink things either. Nor does kicking out a stool while hanging from your rafters. Personally I find the assortment of options available comforting.
Those other options take longer and the longer it takes the more difficult it is to act on a momentary impulse. You could grab a gun from next to your bed and end things in a matter of seconds leaving no time for the impulse to pass or for you to reconsider.
This is an important point.
Its easier to resist a cookie that's out of sight in a cupboard than it is to resist a cookie that's sitting right in front of you.
Impulsivity comes from an emotional response within the deeper parts of the brain. The prefrontal cortex needs more time and willpower to really consider an impulse.
Its easier to resist a cookie that's out of sight in a cupboard than it is to resist a cookie that's sitting right in front of you.
Impulsivity comes from an emotional response within the deeper parts of the brain. The prefrontal cortex needs more time and willpower to really consider an impulse.
With a bridge you still have to do some planning before you can kill yourself by jumping. You have to first find a bridge, go to that bridge, climb on the bridge and then jump off the bridge. That gives you quite a lot of time to reconsider what you're doing. If you have a gun for self defense then you usually carry it around with you all the time. It's just a matter of pulling the trigger.
Plus, just getting out of the house and walking can change your attitude.
What good reasons do people have for owning firearms in urban environments? (Serious)
At least in the U.S. you don't need a reason, yet alone a good one. It would be like asking "what good reason do people have for saying fill in the blank hateful/unpopular/religious things"? Of course no one needs to justify their right to say such things, nor do they need to justify or elaborate reasons for owning a firearm.
If you were genuinely curious, violent crime is easily 2x more prevalent in urban areas. Firearms provide defense for shopkeeps and senior citizens alike.
If you were genuinely curious, violent crime is easily 2x more prevalent in urban areas. Firearms provide defense for shopkeeps and senior citizens alike.
Defending yourself in case someone breaks into your home - far more likely in an urban area than rural.
And carrying concealed, which is allowed in 42 states, plus many less urban counties of California and New York, and cities in Massachusetts. That's something like (from memory) 72% of the US population, as long as you're an adult 18-21 and haven't committed a felony etc. States with concealed carry right now have issued licenses to 5-10% of the age eligible population, well more than 12 million by now, plus 10 states don't require a license, with Missouri likely to join them by the end of the year.
Guns also become a more important means of self-defense the physically weaker the person, so the need, and observed statistics are weighted towards older people, and the US is rapidly graying with the demographic Baby Boom.
Hunting is also a popular pastime in the US, and is in fact a critical resource in controlling various prey populations after we wiped out the apex predators that used to keep them in check. As it is, deer are now the most deadly animals in the US due to collisions with cars.
Guns also become a more important means of self-defense the physically weaker the person, so the need, and observed statistics are weighted towards older people, and the US is rapidly graying with the demographic Baby Boom.
Hunting is also a popular pastime in the US, and is in fact a critical resource in controlling various prey populations after we wiped out the apex predators that used to keep them in check. As it is, deer are now the most deadly animals in the US due to collisions with cars.
Wanting to own one.
That's the good reason for most things that I own. It's something I wanted and I'm allowed to have it therefore I got it.
That's the good reason for most things that I own. It's something I wanted and I'm allowed to have it therefore I got it.
I have a wife and 5 kids under age 7. Were my family to be confronted with a dangerous criminal, I couldn't possibly defend them all without a gun, and even then it might still be very difficult. So I carry a Glock 22 at all times. It really is that simple -- I'm often surprised at the bewilderment about one's desire to own a gun.
There's a difference between owning a gun and carrying a Glock 22 at all times. It's sad that people imagine themselves in some action film surrounded by violent criminals out for their blood. I take it that where you live there is no police force and that you and your family are always isolated from bystanders who could help, witnesses who would discourage an attack on your family, etc. You've chosen to live in a failed state with your large family, it seems.
Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense. This is going to be a bigger deal as your kids get older.
Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense. This is going to be a bigger deal as your kids get older.
Statistically, it's far more likely that one of your children will kill themselves, or a friend, or each other, with your gun than it is that it will be helpful for self-defense.
That can't be true, for the number of fatal gun "accidents" per year is ~600 (scare quotes because some number of those are whitewashed murders or negligent homicides), the number of non-suicide homicides is ~11,000, and the number of suicides using a gun ~19,000.
It's very easy to see that the number of self-defense incidents using a gun is substantially larger than those numbers, from anecdotes, to the very lowest formal estimate of 108,000 (see the CDC funded 2013 monograph at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-... pages 15-6). The highest estimates range to 2.5 million, but that was a while ago, and crime rates have continued to decrease.
That can't be true, for the number of fatal gun "accidents" per year is ~600 (scare quotes because some number of those are whitewashed murders or negligent homicides), the number of non-suicide homicides is ~11,000, and the number of suicides using a gun ~19,000.
It's very easy to see that the number of self-defense incidents using a gun is substantially larger than those numbers, from anecdotes, to the very lowest formal estimate of 108,000 (see the CDC funded 2013 monograph at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-... pages 15-6). The highest estimates range to 2.5 million, but that was a while ago, and crime rates have continued to decrease.
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rhuef/courses/Notes5321-6321/t...
The risk is far greater when there's a gun around, especially for children. Also it's a bit disingenuous to compare death figures with self-defense incidents where the outcome may have been simple property theft. Injury would be more appropriate, and even that fails as a comparison.
The risk is far greater when there's a gun around, especially for children. Also it's a bit disingenuous to compare death figures with self-defense incidents where the outcome may have been simple property theft. Injury would be more appropriate, and even that fails as a comparison.
Nice move the goalposts, that's for children aged 5–14. And since those ages are completely non-standard in the literature, we can be sure the data set was massaged until they could "prove" their point using just that interval.
Texas is the only state in the nation that allows the use of lethal force to protect property, so your other point fails, while, I grant, it's informally allowed to some extent elsewhere.
Texas is the only state in the nation that allows the use of lethal force to protect property, so your other point fails, while, I grant, it's informally allowed to some extent elsewhere.
Pardon my lack of familiarity with "the literature" and its standard age groups. Good of you to immediately dismiss the data as "massaged." I couldn't even view your study.
Don't the ages 5 and 14 strike you as strange? What boundaries do they fall on? Not any standard one I can remember for young children, and 14 is a bit more common, but it's not when you become a teen, or the traditional coming of age which is also generally 13, and more like 16/18/21 in the modern US.
If you've been in the field of science long enough, you learn the smell of bad studies, and this one is patently obvious. But I can look more closely at it if you insist.
As for viewing "my" study, note the "Download Free PDF" button to the upper middle right, all you have to do is supply an email address to do it as a guest. Or ask and I'll put a copy up.
And since your point was couched as a warning to others, another counter is that it's relatively easy to keep your family from joining the bad statistics by gun proofing your kids (which you should do anyway, since you can't control when they might come into contact with one outside your home), and storing your guns responsibly.
If you've been in the field of science long enough, you learn the smell of bad studies, and this one is patently obvious. But I can look more closely at it if you insist.
As for viewing "my" study, note the "Download Free PDF" button to the upper middle right, all you have to do is supply an email address to do it as a guest. Or ask and I'll put a copy up.
And since your point was couched as a warning to others, another counter is that it's relatively easy to keep your family from joining the bad statistics by gun proofing your kids (which you should do anyway, since you can't control when they might come into contact with one outside your home), and storing your guns responsibly.
It's sad that people are often confronted by violent criminals. If this time were to come, should we just hope that police and/or bystanders will protect us? Criminals seek situations where neither is readily available.
You're free to make your own decision. I'm not about to pack heat every day for some bogeyman. The few times I've felt threatened, it's been trivial to remove myself from the situation. Awareness and caution can go a long way.
And no, I'm not here to advocate taking your guns away. Just trying to suggest that there are certain downsides to always carrying a lethal weapon, and that given our mostly secure society, people might view it as antisocial.
And no, I'm not here to advocate taking your guns away. Just trying to suggest that there are certain downsides to always carrying a lethal weapon, and that given our mostly secure society, people might view it as antisocial.
We seem to be in complete agreement. Personally, I do not conceal carry; however, my point was to state why some might want to do so.
Wow, you've made a lot of assumptions about me and not very charitable ones. Let me address a few of them:
1. I'm not a TV watcher. The last movie I saw was "Frozen", and before that I can't remember. I'm certainly not motivated to live-out some TV action-hero fantasy. Moreover, your comment has a strong expectation that egocentrism undergirds one's actions. My obligation as a father is think of my family before myself. If you're a parent, I hope share this ethos; if not, I hope you develop it before having children.
2. Even if I were motivated by TV, I'm not sure which action film you're referring to. I missed the one where the dad is leaving the store with the wife and kids, pushing a shopping cart full of groceries, is accosted by "violent criminals out for blood", shoots and possibly kills the criminals in front of the children, then makes their epic retreat to safety in the minivan, with the wife on talking to the 911 operator in between sobs and episodes of panic-induced vomiting. No doubt this happy tale ends with permanent hearing damage for all involved, years of court appearances, legal fees, and a possible prison sentence, and the kids in therapy after witnessing human bloodshed by the time their 4th birthday rolls around. Doesn't sound like a movie I'd like to see.
3. I'm not sure why you've assumed that violent criminals don't exist, or exist to such a limited degree that their presence should be referenced mockingly. In the United States in 2014, "[t]here were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement." [1] Surely this ought to at least make one pause to consider how to protect one's family.
4. I also don't understand why you think the presence of witnesses or general availability of law enforcement is indefeasible deterrent to violent crime, especially in light of the recent events in Orlando. [2] Finally, the Supreme Court has even ruled that police, et al., are not obligated to protect you. [3] Even if the police appeared on the scene the very moment a crime were committed, they would still be reacting to violent crime that has already occurred, and have no legal duty to intervene.
Source:
1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime...
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
1. I'm not a TV watcher. The last movie I saw was "Frozen", and before that I can't remember. I'm certainly not motivated to live-out some TV action-hero fantasy. Moreover, your comment has a strong expectation that egocentrism undergirds one's actions. My obligation as a father is think of my family before myself. If you're a parent, I hope share this ethos; if not, I hope you develop it before having children.
2. Even if I were motivated by TV, I'm not sure which action film you're referring to. I missed the one where the dad is leaving the store with the wife and kids, pushing a shopping cart full of groceries, is accosted by "violent criminals out for blood", shoots and possibly kills the criminals in front of the children, then makes their epic retreat to safety in the minivan, with the wife on talking to the 911 operator in between sobs and episodes of panic-induced vomiting. No doubt this happy tale ends with permanent hearing damage for all involved, years of court appearances, legal fees, and a possible prison sentence, and the kids in therapy after witnessing human bloodshed by the time their 4th birthday rolls around. Doesn't sound like a movie I'd like to see.
3. I'm not sure why you've assumed that violent criminals don't exist, or exist to such a limited degree that their presence should be referenced mockingly. In the United States in 2014, "[t]here were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement." [1] Surely this ought to at least make one pause to consider how to protect one's family.
4. I also don't understand why you think the presence of witnesses or general availability of law enforcement is indefeasible deterrent to violent crime, especially in light of the recent events in Orlando. [2] Finally, the Supreme Court has even ruled that police, et al., are not obligated to protect you. [3] Even if the police appeared on the scene the very moment a crime were committed, they would still be reacting to violent crime that has already occurred, and have no legal duty to intervene.
Source:
1. https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/september/latest-crime...
2. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...
I live in the middle of Montreal and don't own firearms, but I plan on going hunting soon because I want to try to kill my own food, and if I get into it it would be a pretty good reason to own a firearm.
If you want to "kill your own food", you could start by killing poultry with your hands -- and cooking the chicken!
No reason to take it to the macho fantasy of the hunter -- that armed with a 21st century high-tech shotgun kills some deer that never had a chance.
No reason to take it to the macho fantasy of the hunter -- that armed with a 21st century high-tech shotgun kills some deer that never had a chance.
As if the chicken had a chance when you kill it "with your hands"... No reason to be condescending towards another's hobby.
Another's hobby, an animal's death.
Besides, it's not about the chicken having more chances or less. It's that it's a more substantial lesson in "killing one's own food" -- as we eat chicken, beef etc tons of times a year, whereas hunting is 100% hobby and 0% substantial "killing own food".
Besides, it's not about the chicken having more chances or less. It's that it's a more substantial lesson in "killing one's own food" -- as we eat chicken, beef etc tons of times a year, whereas hunting is 100% hobby and 0% substantial "killing own food".
Speak for yourself. My father and I have a policy that everything we hunt that isn't a varmint (pest control and the like, due to our removal of other apex predators, including dealing with invasive species like coyotes) we also eat. From squirrels and turtledove to elk and moose, and I'm pretty sure that the value of good meat gained by my father's hunting of the latter and mule deer before my mother said NO MORE! (due to the taste) at least covered the expenses of his hunting, which weren't huge. A whole elk or moose goes a long way (I don't remember much about the deer phase, but mule deer aren't small).
So make that at worst 50-50. And there's a lot of poorer people out there for whom the annual deer is a significant and cheap source of high quality meat.
So make that at worst 50-50. And there's a lot of poorer people out there for whom the annual deer is a significant and cheap source of high quality meat.
Sounds like the very definition of "outlier". Even if your family does that, nowhere near a significant majority of hunters do anything like 50-50 for hunted vs bought food.
Err, sorry for my lack of clarity, I meant hunting itself is a 50-50 hobby and food collection thing. The one big animal a year back when my father did that, plus upland game birds and miscellania (including the bull frogs I hunted for dissection and giving the legs to my Cajun mother), plus fishing ... maybe as much as 1/3 the year's meat? More than half the red meat, a much smaller fraction of fowl compared to the chicken, and a domestic turkey or three a year.
And that doesn't count veggies (we did garden) plus the cereals that probably accounted for probably over half the calories we consumed.
And that doesn't count veggies (we did garden) plus the cereals that probably accounted for probably over half the calories we consumed.
There need not be a distinction. Your hobby could literally be to kill your own food.
Recreation. Many people enjoy visiting a firing range.
Why not let the firing range own the weapons then, and rent whatever you like for the day? Or at least, why not store them there in an approved gun locker you can rent?
Same reasons most people own a car instead of lease - for one it is yours - every time you go back to the range, your favorite gun is the exact same as when you left, a few thousands rounds have not been thrown through it since. For two it costs less over time, to own if you shoot frequently. For three you are in control of maintenance and upkeep.
Some people do exclusively rent guns and never take them out of the firing range. If this is your only intended use, that's probably the best strategy. However, like others have suggested, an additional reason to own a gun is self-defense; a gun stored at the firing range is completely ineffective in this regard.
Only the latter addresses customization of guns, and I've done a fair amount of that, plus fixing a couple of issues, plus of course all my cleaning of them, at home. Or assembling your own, in the US AR-15 pattern rifles are pretty much the ultimate examples of both.
Because I don't just use one range? Also, I can't shoot intruders with a gun at the range.
I've never understood "guns for self defense". Gun ownership without storing the gun in a proper secured gun locker is completely irresponsible, and is much more likely to lead to your kids or someone else discharging the firearm and injuring/killing someone than it is likely to be useful for self defense. And if you do store your guns appropriately, you won't have time to get them in a self defense situation.
The former is like saying "I won't wear seatbelts so I can get out of the car quickly in case of fire". The latter is saying "I'll buy a fire extinguisher for my car, but I'll keep it locked up under the hood."
The former is like saying "I won't wear seatbelts so I can get out of the car quickly in case of fire". The latter is saying "I'll buy a fire extinguisher for my car, but I'll keep it locked up under the hood."
And if you do store your guns appropriately, you won't have time to get them in a self defense situation.
Simply not true: https://www.google.com/#q=push+button+gun+safe (Americans are problem solvers, after all; you can also use one with a key and keep that on your person, say, on a string around your neck; this is also what hardening your entrances etc. is about, to give you time to react).
And "appropriately" is really situation specific; I haven't lived in a situation where there was danger of another abusing one of my guns for decades. There's also the pattern of keeping it in your safe until you get home (and if you're really hard core, carrying it until you go to bed). And you're completely ignoring concealed carry, which covers 42+ of the states and ~72% of the US population, 12+ million licensees, and 10 states without a license requirement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980298
And that's before we even get into the "much more likely", which simply isn't supported by the facts, starting with a 25% drop in the number of fatal gun accidents per year in the period 1980 to now, while both the population and number of guns owned by it roughly increased by 50%.
Note that if you're depending on e.g. Kellerman's studies, they score only fatal outcomes for home intruders as successful defensive gun uses, when the majority don't involve any shots being fired, the vast majority don't involve anyone getting hit by a round, and pistol torso hits resulting in fatality only about 1/4 of the time. Even the biased CDC admits to the utility of guns: https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CSelf-defense+can+be+an+im...
Simply not true: https://www.google.com/#q=push+button+gun+safe (Americans are problem solvers, after all; you can also use one with a key and keep that on your person, say, on a string around your neck; this is also what hardening your entrances etc. is about, to give you time to react).
And "appropriately" is really situation specific; I haven't lived in a situation where there was danger of another abusing one of my guns for decades. There's also the pattern of keeping it in your safe until you get home (and if you're really hard core, carrying it until you go to bed). And you're completely ignoring concealed carry, which covers 42+ of the states and ~72% of the US population, 12+ million licensees, and 10 states without a license requirement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11980298
And that's before we even get into the "much more likely", which simply isn't supported by the facts, starting with a 25% drop in the number of fatal gun accidents per year in the period 1980 to now, while both the population and number of guns owned by it roughly increased by 50%.
Note that if you're depending on e.g. Kellerman's studies, they score only fatal outcomes for home intruders as successful defensive gun uses, when the majority don't involve any shots being fired, the vast majority don't involve anyone getting hit by a round, and pistol torso hits resulting in fatality only about 1/4 of the time. Even the biased CDC admits to the utility of guns: https://www.google.com/#q=%E2%80%9CSelf-defense+can+be+an+im...
I guess my main argument against the need for guns for self-defense is that outside the US, only people living in the worst slums of megacities plus people living in the less civilised parts of Africa, Middle East and Latin America feel a need for guns for self defense. Everywhere else people do fine, and it's not like people getting killed in armed home invasions is a problem anywhere civilised. The occurrence of e.g. school shootings are also orders of magnitude lower.
Is that really true for the U.K., where the courts first stripped its subjects of the right to effective self-defense (using more force than the perpetrator) in the 1950s, then the Parliament by statute in the 1960s, and of course this was in the middle of increasing gun control that started more than a century ago and that is now almost total.
Historian Joyce Lee Malcom has pointed out that a steady trend of declining interpersonal violence starting in the 13th Century reversed in a few decades. Others point out that "burglaries" in the U.K. much more frequently take place when dwellings are occupied than in the US. See the British Crime Survey, which as of 2009 said:
There were 284,427 burglaries.
20% of those were face to face.
In 59% of those cases, violence was threatened or used.
In 40% of those face to face encounters, violence was actually used against the householder, a rising number since such statistics were first collected in 2002-3.
If the subjects of the U.K. don't feel a need for guns for self-defense; maybe they aren't getting killed in large numbers, but they're getting brutalized, and that's very bad in a zillion ways.
The very definition of citizen, vs. subject or slave, is one who bears arms in defense of his polity.... (Although that's not something that Black Armband History mentions....)
Your "orders of magnitude" claim about school shootings is flatly WRT to Europe, especially Western Europe (which is significantly larger than the US in population), compare, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... This is especially true about the ones of larger magnitude.
Historian Joyce Lee Malcom has pointed out that a steady trend of declining interpersonal violence starting in the 13th Century reversed in a few decades. Others point out that "burglaries" in the U.K. much more frequently take place when dwellings are occupied than in the US. See the British Crime Survey, which as of 2009 said:
There were 284,427 burglaries.
20% of those were face to face.
In 59% of those cases, violence was threatened or used.
In 40% of those face to face encounters, violence was actually used against the householder, a rising number since such statistics were first collected in 2002-3.
If the subjects of the U.K. don't feel a need for guns for self-defense; maybe they aren't getting killed in large numbers, but they're getting brutalized, and that's very bad in a zillion ways.
The very definition of citizen, vs. subject or slave, is one who bears arms in defense of his polity.... (Although that's not something that Black Armband History mentions....)
Your "orders of magnitude" claim about school shootings is flatly WRT to Europe, especially Western Europe (which is significantly larger than the US in population), compare, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting#Europe and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_th... This is especially true about the ones of larger magnitude.
And yet, there is a 1.5x higher chance per capita of being in a burglary in the US vs UK, and 4x more likely to be killed. Even though US citizens have much higher gun ownership.
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com
https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com
"Being in a burglary", such that you might get killed, counts as robbery in the US, and per that page:
UK robbery incidences: 76,179 (THOSB – CEW page 61, paragraph 2.)
76,179 / 561 = 135.72
US robbery incidences: 354,396 (FBI – CUS)
354,396 / 3116 = 113.7
You are thus 1.1x (135.7 / 113.7) more likely to suffer robbery in the UK than in the US.
Now, robberies in the context of home invasions I don't know, and I didn't see it on that page. Nor did I see where you then got a 4x more likely to be killed if in a house invasion robbery in the US, although I'm quite willing to believe it. But I'll seriously look at that page, the author's inclusion of BCS and NCVS statistics means he's serious (as, e.g., a posting in the current "Dial 911 and get Wall Street" topic notes, US robbery statistics are understated by cities where they don't even bother with them if there's no injury).
UK robbery incidences: 76,179 (THOSB – CEW page 61, paragraph 2.)
76,179 / 561 = 135.72
US robbery incidences: 354,396 (FBI – CUS)
354,396 / 3116 = 113.7
You are thus 1.1x (135.7 / 113.7) more likely to suffer robbery in the UK than in the US.
Now, robberies in the context of home invasions I don't know, and I didn't see it on that page. Nor did I see where you then got a 4x more likely to be killed if in a house invasion robbery in the US, although I'm quite willing to believe it. But I'll seriously look at that page, the author's inclusion of BCS and NCVS statistics means he's serious (as, e.g., a posting in the current "Dial 911 and get Wall Street" topic notes, US robbery statistics are understated by cities where they don't even bother with them if there's no injury).
At the moment, correct, in most places there is no need to defend against violent crime in most parts of the U.S. It's shortsighted to think it will always be that way. Guns for self-defense is a long-term form of insurance.
Because they're pretty to look at and can make incredibly loud noises / destroy things. Guns are just appealing to own. And plus a properly maintained gun will be more acurate than the one you rent at a range.
None.
> "Meanwhile, rates of suicide deaths are rising in the U.S. The rate jumped 24% from 1999 to 2014, from 10.5 to 13 per 100,000 people, according to an April 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
I think the US officially changed the way they counted suicide in that time; and coroners became more likely to report deaths as suicide.
> "While depression is the mental illness that is most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts, it doesn’t often lead to suicidal acts. Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts. Most first suicide attempts occur within a year of the onset of suicidal thoughts." [Emphasis added]
Body dysmorphia is surprisingly common and is over-represented in suicide death.
> "But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk."
UK is aiming to tackle these with "No Health Without Mental Health", one strand of which is "people with physical health problems will experience better mental health". I'm not going to claim it's going well. NHWMH is at least 5 years old now, and parity of esteem is still lacking, and it's hard to get commissioners of physical health stuff to consider the MH impact.
I think the US officially changed the way they counted suicide in that time; and coroners became more likely to report deaths as suicide.
> "While depression is the mental illness that is most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts, it doesn’t often lead to suicidal acts. Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts. Most first suicide attempts occur within a year of the onset of suicidal thoughts." [Emphasis added]
Body dysmorphia is surprisingly common and is over-represented in suicide death.
> "But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk."
UK is aiming to tackle these with "No Health Without Mental Health", one strand of which is "people with physical health problems will experience better mental health". I'm not going to claim it's going well. NHWMH is at least 5 years old now, and parity of esteem is still lacking, and it's hard to get commissioners of physical health stuff to consider the MH impact.
> "Another study from the same NIMH group has found that, among severely depressed subjects, spending more time awake between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. (as measured by a sleep study called polysomnography) is linked to increased risk of suicidal thinking the next day."
I wonder if something more general could be inferred - when I'm getting bad sleep (stress-related, mostly), I tend to wake up at around 4AM. My day is often cranky, sometimes I'm completely ineffective until noon.
Could overall sleep levels be more coincident with lower suicidal thoughts?
I wonder if something more general could be inferred - when I'm getting bad sleep (stress-related, mostly), I tend to wake up at around 4AM. My day is often cranky, sometimes I'm completely ineffective until noon.
Could overall sleep levels be more coincident with lower suicidal thoughts?
I wonder if that 4am to 5am timeframe is relevant. I've been falling asleep at ~5am for the past few years...
The key part may be "among severely depressed subjects," but I've noticed that whenever my sleep changes (stress-related, too, or a random early meeting) my following day is simply awful and I accomplish more-or-less nothing.
Something that seems obvious now, but wasn't obvious to me until recently, is that people should be realllllyyy protective of their sleep. I guess that study supports that idea.
The key part may be "among severely depressed subjects," but I've noticed that whenever my sleep changes (stress-related, too, or a random early meeting) my following day is simply awful and I accomplish more-or-less nothing.
Something that seems obvious now, but wasn't obvious to me until recently, is that people should be realllllyyy protective of their sleep. I guess that study supports that idea.
Totally anecdata, and therefore useless, but here goes. When i wake up in the middle of the night i give myself a few minutes to try to get back to sleep. If it's work related stress, i get up and poke at something for an hour. sometimes i make progress, sometimes i don't. Fall right back to sleep and have a fine day the next day.
If it's not something i can do anything about i fret for an hour, crawl back in bed, toss and turn till morning, and have a generally bad day.
Something deep down takes comfort in the agency. at least i tried to improve the situation.
If it's not something i can do anything about i fret for an hour, crawl back in bed, toss and turn till morning, and have a generally bad day.
Something deep down takes comfort in the agency. at least i tried to improve the situation.
I think everything is more related to sleep phases than to day-time or certain hours.
Having suffered physical injuries and chronic physical impairment -- including congestion that impairs sleep and functioning -- I can say that correlation with physical health conditions causes me no surprise. Actually, I'm amazed and angry with Western/U.S. medical practice that so often and ignorantly divorces the two.
I'll probably be gone in a year or two. My life has been a downward spiral that is reaching its endpoint.
I'll probably be gone in a year or two. My life has been a downward spiral that is reaching its endpoint.
Wonder if diet high in refined processed carbohydrates is a factor. I've switched to paleo-like with fat no-carb/less protein(and somewhat calorie restricted) days and much of that anxiety is gone. Can sugar be literally murdering(some) people?
As an inanimate object, sugar cannot be literally murdering people. It's possible that it's killing people, but "murdering" is both incorrect and unnecessarily emotive language that looks like it's being used in an attempt to bias the discussion.
google literally..
ie. informal - used for emphasis while not being literally true.
The problem is more the "murdering" than the "literally". Even if you read it as "figuratively murdering" it's still excessively emotive language.
I would argue that literally here is a modifier to murdering, and in fact both are used here in an intentionally excessive (or emotional if you prefer) in order to underline a point. By all means disagree with the point, but sugar can actually be figuratively murdering people.
As an aside, to suggest that someone is using words to bias a discussion pretty much misses the whole point of mounting an argument, does it not?
As an aside, to suggest that someone is using words to bias a discussion pretty much misses the whole point of mounting an argument, does it not?
[deleted]
Personally, I think it is because people stopped taking cod liver oil.
Also, people nowadays seem to be afraid of fats in their diets. But your brain needs (good) fatty acids to function properly.
Also, people nowadays seem to be afraid of fats in their diets. But your brain needs (good) fatty acids to function properly.
Also, people nowadays seem to be afraid of fats in their diets.
That might be because of a full 6 decades of propaganda against them, weakly if at all supported by legitimate science.
The powers that be are only now starting to admit that they might have made a catastrophic mistake, e.g. https://www.google.com/#q=cholesterol+is+not+a+nutrient+of+c...
That might be because of a full 6 decades of propaganda against them, weakly if at all supported by legitimate science.
The powers that be are only now starting to admit that they might have made a catastrophic mistake, e.g. https://www.google.com/#q=cholesterol+is+not+a+nutrient+of+c...
Diet certainly affects mood, but I'd say the suicide trend is probably more connected to the isolation of modern life. i.e. Can connect to anyone via FB yet not speak to anyone for days (if so inclined)
Not sure about carb and suicide but I agree that there is a linear correlation between carbs and anxiety. If you carb in-take is higher than what you need and then you get anxious. Add processed carbs like sugar and wheat the effect is even stronger. I did many tests isolating different carbs over days and yes sugar and wheat based stuff like bread and pasta are worst. Rice and cooked potatoes and fruit are ok but here it's very important to keep the volume low. Once you pass a given threshold you feel the same effects.
> I agree that there is a linear correlation between carbs and anxiety.
That's a rather specific thing to agree about.
That's a rather specific thing to agree about.
Health-wise? Sure. But you may be less anxious due to the novelty of your new diet and the conviction that it's healthy, reinforced by the trendiness of "paleo" diets. You should be at least a little suspicious of the powerful placebo effect before jumping to bizarre theories.
Well having had fun with depression I am never went through the suicide side of things. However what I have noticed is a lot more medications seem to be carrying the "suicidal thoughts warning" than used too. I am used to seeing the "it causes sleepiness, don't operate heavy machinery" notes but I am wondering how many combinations are needed before you find the secret "oh my god I think life would be better without me". Its like the Joker from Tim Burton's Batman, which combination kills.
> Computers analyzed more than 30,000 different risk factors, including traditional ones like age and mental-health history. But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk.
> Dr. Nock says that some of these may be self-inflicted or related to impulsive behavior. Using the historical data, the approach was able to detect 45% of suicidal acts an average of about three years before the event.
> A study using similar methods looking at suicide risk among U.S. Army soldiers in the year after hospitalization for psychiatric issues was published in 2015 in JAMA Psychiatry. The algorithm was able to predict about 53% of the suicides in that high-risk period.
I wonder what the false positive rates on these are.
> Dr. Nock says that some of these may be self-inflicted or related to impulsive behavior. Using the historical data, the approach was able to detect 45% of suicidal acts an average of about three years before the event.
> A study using similar methods looking at suicide risk among U.S. Army soldiers in the year after hospitalization for psychiatric issues was published in 2015 in JAMA Psychiatry. The algorithm was able to predict about 53% of the suicides in that high-risk period.
I wonder what the false positive rates on these are.
>>> Researchers are hunting for so-called biomarkers, such as patterns of brain activity on fMRI scans or levels of stress hormones in the blood, linked to suicidal thoughts and acts.
It is so very western to treat suicide as a disease, a disorder of the brain. We ignore the concept that suicide can be a rational act. In the east (Japan) suicide is considered a private decision to be respected. That doesn't mean that it isn't an evil that society should attempt to prevent. Some people have may suffer medical conditions that make them prone to suicide, but other perfectly healthy people may opt to kill themselves. We cannot treat them all as medical problems. Sometimes the answer is much more practical, sometimes the problem is purely economic.
Except in cases of assisted dieing. There we switch the approach and suddenly declare that killing one's self can be rational decision. It is strange how we muddle rationality and reasonableness, as if the fact that someone makes a decision society disagrees with is per se irrational.
It is so very western to treat suicide as a disease, a disorder of the brain. We ignore the concept that suicide can be a rational act. In the east (Japan) suicide is considered a private decision to be respected. That doesn't mean that it isn't an evil that society should attempt to prevent. Some people have may suffer medical conditions that make them prone to suicide, but other perfectly healthy people may opt to kill themselves. We cannot treat them all as medical problems. Sometimes the answer is much more practical, sometimes the problem is purely economic.
Except in cases of assisted dieing. There we switch the approach and suddenly declare that killing one's self can be rational decision. It is strange how we muddle rationality and reasonableness, as if the fact that someone makes a decision society disagrees with is per se irrational.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Yet there's a whole subthread debating the wisdom of gun ownership because that's a popular axe to grind. Getting at the root of the issue is trickier. Clearly depression and suicide are popular topics on HN. We know that there's some kind of social problems that lead to depression and suicide, but the best some people can come up with is to talk about gun ownership.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r..., the US is in a tie for 50th place for suicide rates. So in spite of the fact that the US has a high gun ownership rate, we're not anywhere close to being the top of the suicide rates.
Also, recall the articles around middle aged death rates in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10499434 One of the takeaways is that people may be committing de-facto suicide by following a pattern of life choices (addiction for example). The "Leaving Las Vegas" effect (if you saw the movie, recall Nicholas Cage's character tried to drink himself to death) is really hard to measure.
Side note: suicide is illegal in Nepal and "attempted suicide is illegal in Nepal and people who attempt suicide when caught are subject to imprisonment, fines or both", yet Nepal is ranked 7th on the list. One might be led to conclude that this law is ineffective, if not counter-productive.
Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r..., the US is in a tie for 50th place for suicide rates. So in spite of the fact that the US has a high gun ownership rate, we're not anywhere close to being the top of the suicide rates.
Also, recall the articles around middle aged death rates in the US: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10499434 One of the takeaways is that people may be committing de-facto suicide by following a pattern of life choices (addiction for example). The "Leaving Las Vegas" effect (if you saw the movie, recall Nicholas Cage's character tried to drink himself to death) is really hard to measure.
Side note: suicide is illegal in Nepal and "attempted suicide is illegal in Nepal and people who attempt suicide when caught are subject to imprisonment, fines or both", yet Nepal is ranked 7th on the list. One might be led to conclude that this law is ineffective, if not counter-productive.
The gun thing is just crazy. It's one of those subjects where everyone can paint on their own philosophy. So it winds up in every discussion. That makes it a great weapon for those who want to maintain the status quo. They throw the gun debate into the mix in full knowledge that it will shut down any other meaningful discussion, thereby preventing anything from changing. In terms of suicide, guns just make attempts more likely to succeed. I'd rather focus on preventing the attempts from happening in the first place.
Laws against suicide are a little silly imho. Someone willing to kill themselves is operating at a level beyond criminal laws. Nepal probably needs to keep suicide legal for purposes of inheritance, so that surviving families don't suffer. Laws that penalize suicide risk encouraging non-suicide suicides that endanger other people such as "suicide-by-police".
Laws against suicide are a little silly imho. Someone willing to kill themselves is operating at a level beyond criminal laws. Nepal probably needs to keep suicide legal for purposes of inheritance, so that surviving families don't suffer. Laws that penalize suicide risk encouraging non-suicide suicides that endanger other people such as "suicide-by-police".
This. I don't have muh to add besides what you've already written. The 'norms' of life are so fiercely protected, as to alienate all other views of it.
"Meanwhile, rates of suicide deaths are rising in the U.S. The rate jumped 24% from 1999 to 2014, from 10.5 to 13 per 100,000 people, according to an April 2016 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
"While depression is the mental illness that is most strongly associated with suicidal thoughts, it doesn’t often lead to suicidal acts. Recent research has shown that it is other mental illnesses, like anxiety disorders, problems with impulse control and addiction, that are actually more strongly linked to suicide attempts. Most first suicide attempts occur within a year of the onset of suicidal thoughts." [Emphasis added]
"Another study from the same NIMH group has found that, among severely depressed subjects, spending more time awake between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. (as measured by a sleep study called polysomnography) is linked to increased risk of suicidal thinking the next day."
"Computers analyzed more than 30,000 different risk factors, including traditional ones like age and mental-health history. But some surprising issues—such as gastrointestinal problems, infections and injuries like rib fractures—were tied to increased risk."
"In a study published in 2010 that followed 157 people who had visited a psychiatric emergency room, subjects are asked to classify words into categories. The study found those subjects who were quickest at classifying death and “me words” into the same group had three times the rate of suicide attempts in the next six months compared with those who were quickest at linking life and “me words.” (A past suicide attempt is the strongest predictor of a future one.)"