Washington Should suicides be included in gun-death statistics?

[Erock]

Medical Examiner Investigator here.

Fact: omitting suicidal gun deaths from national gun death statistics is exactly as biased as omitting the "suicidal" qualifier for that number and lumping the two together. No judgement here, but let's not pretend those are different.

The Centers for Disease Control gather death statistics of every kind from death certificate data. A death certificate is an official document which reflects the outcome of either a forensic medicolegal death investigation or the assessment of the subject of death's primary care provider in a statement of cause and manner of death.

There are innumerable causes of death, but finite—and few—manners of death.

Where any problem actually lies is in the attempts of legislators of ANY KIND (both sides do this) to require additional information on a death certificate to further an agenda. In my time, I've seen liberal types try to have the type—and brand—of firearm used in any death listed on the DC. I've seen conservative types want the welfare benefits/public assistance status of a decedent listed on drug-related deaths. Those agendas are equally biased, unscientific, and generally garbage in nature, as are the humans that believe they aren't. Period.

TL;DR—Don't screw with the science. Ever. Meddling at that level is bias beyond belief, and if you think your side is right, whichever that is, you're wrong. Do what you want with the data, however, but be smart enough to know the difference. Humans are gonna whine. They're gonna portray data in a way that confirms their bias. It has always happened, and it always will.

 

[Tillikum]

Anti-gunners refer to the phenomenon as "gun violence". Adding in suicides causes a 200+% increase in "gun violence deaths", grossly exaggerating the situation. No, suicides should not be included, but good luck changing the method of reporting.

 

[Member 52301]

I am curious about whether suicides should be included in gun death statistics? That's not even similar to nut jobs killing your family at Walmart.

If you look at injuries, not deaths, you get a different picture.

View attachment 606358


https://everytownresearch.org/gun-violence-america/

Suicides should not be counted into that group of gun deaths. I have always felt that way too.

Cate

 

[Burnhaven]

Some would commit suicide without a gun. How many would do that we don't know. But I think, despite the media frenzy, Neil Tyson was on to something. Banning fatty foods would reduce heart disease. Requiring six months of drivers training every 5 years would probably reduce automobile deaths ( on and on and on )

[B]Neil deGrasse Tyson[/B]‏

In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings. On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose… 500 to Medical errors 300 to the Flu 250 to Suicide 200 to Car Accidents 40 to Homicide via Handgun Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.

 

[Neostratos]

So take away suicides, and 14,000 deaths out of 333 million people is a small number.

Consider that preventable medical errors persist as the No. 3 killer in the U.S. – third only to heart disease and cancer – claiming the lives of some 400,000 people each year. Why isn't there a national emergency about that!

I'm not worried about 's Iranians or Russians or Chinese. That's the fake news. I'm worried about the white-coat snake-oil pushers, minions of the biggest badasss drug cartels that exist! - Big pharma.
These are the bubblegum liars that have been taking out my family!

 

[Neostratos]

I think a lot of these little psychos who shoot up innocents are suicidal. You can't possibly expect to come out of something like that alive. I'm thinking most of them die in a hail of police gunfire, which is probably what they wanted.

Most all are on psychotropic drugs.
There's mounting evidence that the FBI finds these nuts on social media sites, and sets them up for their false flag shooting. Then the shooter is inevitably killed. Dead men can't defend themselves.
In the most recent shooting in El Paso as in many others, witnesses saw multiple shooters dressed in black. They left only their dead patsy.

 

[Burnhaven]

In discussing this on a Facebook politics forum one thing I keep hearing over and over is that the other things that kill people such as heart disease and automobiles have been and are being researched in an ongoing basis to find better solutions , and they argue that research is prohibited politically on the topic of gun violence...
they also can't imagine what compromises the gun owner community has made over the years...

Don't shoot the messenger I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

One thing that I have trouble with is certain terms that are in common use that I disagree with.
Terms like :
Assault Rifle / Weapon...
High Capacity magazine...
Gun Violence...

By disagree with I am saying that :
These terms place a arbitrary , artificial and often false perception on certain items or issues.

When having a discussion about firearms or violence...use of these terms can :
Place one or the other person on the defensive or even cause them to become further entrenched in their views.
Cause a "bird walk " on the discussion , when folks get to arguing over those terms instead of talking on the original subject.

I do my best to use the actual names of things....yes I know that my views here are not popular , nor in common use...but at least I am clear in my meaning .
Andy

 

[titsonritz]

Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe any of this gun control BS has anything to with saving lives...

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe any of this gun control BS has anything to with saving lives...

Best Horshack voice inserted here...
Ohh...Ohh Mr. Kotter , Mr. Kotter...

I know the answer....and no I don't believe it will save lives.
Andy

 

[Aero Denezol]

Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe any of this gun control BS has anything to with saving lives...

Exactly. It's all demagoguery and politicking. Just trying to scare people and gin up the base.

 

[11Charlie]

Please raise your hand if you're stupid enough to believe any of this gun control BS has anything to with saving lives...

If you get someone to raise there hand please please please do me a favor and throat punch them for me!!!

 

[Xaevian]

In discussing this on a Facebook politics forum one thing I keep hearing over and over is that the other things that kill people such as heart disease and automobiles have been and are being researched in an ongoing basis to find better solutions , and they argue that research is prohibited politically on the topic of gun violence...
they also can't imagine what compromises the gun owner community has made over the years...

Don't shoot the messenger I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.

The gun owner community has never compromised. We have never received anything in return for infringements. A compromise would be like: in exchange for banning bump stocks, supressors are removed from NFA, or in exchange of universal background checks, the right to carry or purchase arms is extended to any state. The idea and concept of compromise is that all sides give something in exchange for something they want.

As to the subject of research, root cause analysis is never a goal when it comes to firearms (or any other social issue). Instead, the focus is always narrow, limited, and shallow. Even the claims heard here so often about "mental health" don't dig deep enough. If you really try to find the "why" for things like violence, homelessness, drug use, etc. people will start to get somewhere in trying to actually make a difference. Unfortunately, making a difference is never the goal. Instead, people would rather feel like they are doing something as opposed to actually doing something.

 

[BSG 75]

In discussing this on a Facebook politics forum one thing I keep hearing over and over is that the other things that kill people such as heart disease and automobiles have been and are being researched in an ongoing basis to find better solutions , and they argue that research is prohibited politically on the topic of gun violence...

Don't shoot the messenger I'm just reporting what I'm hearing.

That often-repeated claim is false. The Dickey Amendment stated "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

It didn't ban research, only funding "research" that is thinly-veiled advocacy for gun control. The Dickey Amendment was an unfortunately necessary response to the shenanigans going on at the time when pro-gun control "scientists" were using taxpayer dollars to fund junk science "research" that promoted gun control.

In other words, the CDC interpreted the law to kill all research because the only research they were interested in doing was pro-gun control research. They allowed their biases to infect the scientific process. They wanted to allow their personal feelings and ideologies to influence their research to the point where they were simply looking for proof of what they believed all along.

And, as we saw last week, when they found evidence to the contrary, they sat on it.

The CDC felt like they were barred from doing any research because, in their mind, the only real research to be done was work that would feed their confirmation bias.

But it wasn't really a ban. It was a fence. "Do unbiased research and don't promote a political position." That's all it said.

Look, if the CDC wants to do research, go do it. We'll address the research as it comes, but do good work and create sound methodologies and so be it.

The Real Reason Gun Research Is Dead At The CDC

It seems the Dickey Amendment did kill gun research at the Centers for Disease Control, but not for the reason some like to think.

bearingarms.com

One of the leading researchers into "gun violence" is Dr. David Hemenway, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. If you see some study being touted in the news media as proof of the effectiveness of gun control, it is likely Dr. Hemenway is a co-author. In this 2013 interview Dr. Hemenway described his goal of stigmatizing gun owners and gun ownership:

​

"Another area we talk about where social norms have changed is smoking. What a magnificent change we've had in smoking in the United States. We need to see a social norm change on gun violence. Instead of it being the mark of a real man that you can shoot somebody at 50 feet and kill them with a gun, the mark of a real man is that you would never do anything like that. You'd show that you were stronger than they were and smarter and not just that you had some weapon. The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery and so I'd like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren't anybody to be looked up to. They're somebody to look down at because they couldn't defend themselves or couldn't protect others without using a gun."

Gun Violence: Harvard School of Public Health on Research Around Preventing Violence

Do you really think researchers like Dr. Hemenway produce unbiased research? Do you think taxpayer dollars should be used to help him churn out his low-quality biased propaganda masquerading as "research"?

And do you really waste time debating people on Facebook?

 

[Flymph]

If you get someone to raise there hand please please please do me a favor and throat punch them for me!!!

It would make the math easier to get them to raise both hands for the count, also easier to hit them in the throat.

 

[Burnhaven]

If both sides dig in their heels and won't talk to each other , nothing happens , but that might be considered a win.

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

NO. Suicides are a mental health problem not a gun problem.

 

[BSG 75]

If both sides dig in their heels and won't talk to each other , nothing happens , but that might be considered a win.

The only time anyone has to "dig in their heels" is if someone else is trying to push them around. The other side doesn't dig in their heels because they are the pushers, not the ones being pushed. They are always attacking, we are always defending. They are always trying to expand gun control - oh excuse me "gun safety" - while we are just trying to preserve what's left of our shrinking gun rights cake. They attack, we just want to be left alone.

I and others have debated gun controllers on the Huffington Post and Oregonlive but it is pretty tiresome. Since they usually have no facts, only emotion and misinformation, gun controllers quickly resort to ad hominem attacks, calling us "gun nuts", "gun fondlers", "gun fetishists", "ammosexuals", and often say we must own guns to compensate for having a small penis. You really can't make much progress with people like that.

Then I come here and see fellow gun owners saying we just need to "compromise" (give in) some more, and why the heck does anyone need a metal or plastic tube with a spring inside that can hold 11 or more rounds of ammo anyway, and it's pretty discouraging. Like Neville Chamberlain before them, they think if we just "compromise" and appease the other side a little more (while gaining absolutely no concessions in return), maybe they will leave us alone and we can finally have peace in our time.



It didn't work in 1939, it hasn't worked in California where despite having everything on the gun controllers' wish list they keep pushing for more every year, and it won't work now. "Compromising" (appeasement) doesn't satisfy the gun controllers, it only emboldens and encourages them to move on to the next item on their wish list, then the next, then the next, on and on. As I said before:

Listen, and understand. Gun controllers are out there. They can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until our gun rights are dead.

 

[awshoot]

... the possible elimination or neutering of the electoral college ( National Popular Vote )
and even the possible change from two guaranteed U.S. Senators per state regardless of population.
There, I just poked the hornet's nest ...

There is a good reason we have the EC and a Senate that is not population based. When people feel their government no longer represents them or cares about their issues, when they feel denigrated and backed into a corner with nowhere to turn, you increase the risk of civil strife. Don't be a bully. Instead, take a dose of enlightened self-interest and recognize that in a civil society there is real compromise. Tunring to the topic at hand, as a poster above mentioned, what exactly does the anti2A crowd intend to offer when it talks of compromise, because if it offers nothing, it isn't engaging in real negotiation. It is bullying, and the world hates a bully.

 

[awshoot]

.... and they argue that research is prohibited politically on the topic of gun violence...

You should go back and point out that that talking point is a straight up lie. The CDC was NEVER prohibited form researching gun violence. It was prohibited from engaging in fake research designed to support an agenda. But if it wanted to do real science as opposed to propaganda (like Big Tobacco "Scientists" producing papers on why cigarettes are healthy), it was always free to do so.

Interestingly, after the Dickey Amendment when the CDC did some actual science rather than advocacy, it confirmed that millions of Americans innocently protect themselves annually with firearms. It chose NOT to publish the data: CDC, in Surveys It Never Bothered Making Public, Provides More Evidence That Plenty of Americans Innocently Defend Themselves with Guns