Liberal Academics Continue Assault on Pro-Gun Research

CNSNews.com ^ | 5/13/03 | Jeff Johnson

[45Auto]

Suicide statistics are a red herring in this. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates whatsoever.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates whatsoever.

You seem to have missed the point too. The question isn't whether there is a correlation between suicide rates and gun ownership rates (I've seen no evidence either way.) The question is whether higher gun ownership correlates with higher gun suicide rates. This is plausible but the article gives no statistics.

[45Auto]

He gives no statistics, because there are no statistics that make the point - either way. And its no good to try to make cross-cultural or cross-national comparisions. My bet is that one can find high suicide rates in countries with more relaxed gun laws and the same per capita rates in countries in which guns are completely banned. The highest suicide rate among gun owners is that of - you guessed it- law enforcement personnel. But there is no way you can make a direct one-to-one statistical comparison between gun owning and suicide rate.

[xm177e2]

Ludwig and Cook admit that, "because the United States does not maintain a registry of guns in private hands and surveys do not provide data for each of the 50 states," it is difficult to compare gun ownership rates to the number of home invasion burglaries.

But the authors claim that "the percentage of suicides with guns has been shown to be a reliable proxy, outperforming such measures as the percentage of homicides committed with a gun, the prevalence of membership in the National Rifle Association or subscription rates to gun-oriented magazines."

In other words, they assume a perfect correllation between gun suicides and gun ownership. I wonder if they (or some other researchers) then use this as evidence that gun ownership leads to gun suicides. It's perfectly circular logic, I wouldn't be surprised if they tried something like this.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If there is no correlation between suicide rate and gun ownership (which I think is the case) then gun suicide rate is an excellent indicator of the rate of gun ownership. Prager's comments are irrelevant. If there were such a relationship, then gun suicide rates would be worthless as a measure. The article does not point out that only if there is no correlation between rates can one rate be used to measure another (without knowing lots about correlations.)

The only thing I have found about suicide rates is a darkness dependency. Suicide gets worse around the 21 of December and is worse the farther north one goes. (There is a cultural thing such as with Japan.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

In other words, they assume a perfect correllation between gun suicides and gun ownership

Actually, they assume no correlation between suicide in general and gun ownership. This seems reasonable. In that case, gun suicides would be proportional (within overall suicides) as gun ownership. If there were a link between gun ownership and suicide rates, then the analysis wouldn't hold.

[Mulder]

"There seems to be almost no benefit from concealed handguns," Donohue told CNSNews.com Monday

Wrong.

The benefit is that millions of Americans can effectively defend themselves from criminals.

[BOBWADE]

ping

[OldPossum]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. Sometimes I don't pick up quickly on PC-speak. The logic just escaped me at the time. Clearly I need to go to a re-training camp.

[45Auto]

The only thing I have found about suicide rates is a darkness dependency

I have heard that the suicide rate in the northern Scandinavian countries and northern Russia and Seattle, Washington, are higher than the rates in more southerly climes. Of course, there are many factors involved and alcohol consumption is part of the overall issue. I have known three people from my profession who did themselves in; none used a firearm. The only possible correlation between gun ownership and suicide is among law enforcement personnel, and even there, I don't think that one can show any statistically significant relationship.

[Publius6961]

When the crime rate dropped slower than this assumption predicted it should, Donohue and Ayres referred to the difference as an "increase" in crime.

Well, Zuit!.
If they can call a reduced increase in appropriation a cut in spending, why not?