The News Thread

[rms]

I couldn't help but post this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...identally-shoots-bar-patron-in-denver/9830760

and they wouldn't let me in for smoking a little devil's lettuce smh

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Just saw that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the baker in the gay wedding cake case. Unfortunate that the ruling looked very pussy-footed outside of Thomas and Gorsuch (well, and Ginsberg and Sotomayor but fuck them of course). All it really establishes is that offending someone in the course of applying law is justification to ignore law. Just watch later in the week when the tables are flipped on the conservatives and the "Muslim ban" is struck down because Rudy Giuliani said those two words once.

 

[Dak]

Isn't saying "if you have someone hurting themselves, taking away the tool doesn't solve the problem" what keeps those in your profession employed?

If someone is actively suicidal (or homicidal for that matter), or even if they have a potential plan, we try to assess for access to means and work to get them to voluntarily hand over whatever those means are to either relatives, friends, or authorities. If they are active and refuse to cooperate they can be involuntarily committed to the hospital. But that's at the individual level, in a time of crisis.

Discussions about attacking statistics happen at the the macro level, and the "solutions" happen at the macro level, and psychologists (or family, or whoever) are left working with the actual suicidal individuals (those who go into therapy anyway - rural males are some of the least likely persons to A. Consider therapy B. Have access) of handing over other means. When it gets to that point.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

People pretend that the male:female suicide ratio exists because "gun culture" magically brainwashes men into using guns because it's tough and manly or some stupid shit...

I've never heard that before, at least not from anybody that I wouldn't consider listening to. Lemme guess, someone along the lines of that's "feminist" who made the MRA documentary, became indoctrinated, and then renounced feminism? Somebody, who I might add, quite obviously suffered from a very clear lack of understanding of what feminism actually is? Tangent, but half-relevant. tl;dr: Those sort of things don't come of the mouths of public health officials whose voice on this actually matters. Don't be like King Cuck Tucker Carlson and start trotting out Miss "Ask-Your-Baby-For-Consent" to the pony show.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I've never heard that before, at least not from anybody that I wouldn't consider listening to. Lemme guess, someone along the lines of that's "feminist" who made the MRA documentary, became indoctrinated, and then renounced feminism? Somebody, who I might add, quite obviously suffered from a very clear lack of understanding of what feminism actually is? Tangent, but half-relevant. tl;dr: Those sort of things don't come of the mouths of public health officials whose voice on this actually matters. Don't be like King Cuck Tucker Carlson and start trotting out Miss "Ask-Your-Baby-For-Consent" to the pony show.

Google "suicide male female ratio guns" for a start.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...e-why-do-more-men-than-women-kill-themselves/
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303182
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3539603/

One constant finding in suicide research is that men are far more likely to kill themselves than women. Why? It’s mostly because they’re far more likely to use a gun to do the job. In any given year, men account for about 80 percent of all suicides, and the lion’s share of those deaths are gun-related.

...

In America, where the chances of finding a gun in the home (the place where, incidentally, most suicides occur) are about as good as finding a carton of milk in the fridge, there’s no better predictor of suicide than simply having access to a firearm. In a year-long study of new California gun purchasers, suicide was the leading cause of death, accounting for 25 percent of that group's fatalities. Although women aren’t as likely to go out and buy a handgun, when they do, they’re more likely to turn it on themselves; for the ladies subset of those deceased California gun owners, for instance, over half of these women were suicide victims.

...

Again, however, coroners see far more male decedents who’ve died by their own hands than females. This gender disparity has puzzled researchers for years, and it’s more complicated than it appears at first glance.

...

Some social scientists think it’s a matter of social learning. In TV shows and movies, men are usually depicted as shooting or hanging themselves, whereas women are shown cutting their wrists or overdosing. It’s not a hard-and-fast formula, but it’s clearly apparent in film.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive analysis of the relationship between firearm ownership and gender-specific suicide rates among the 50 US states. We found a strong relationship between higher levels of firearm ownership in a state and higher firearm suicide rates for both genders. Among male individuals, we also found a significant association between higher firearm ownership and higher overall suicide rates, but this relationship did not hold for female individuals.

...

There are at least 2 potential explanations for our observation of an increased suicide rate by any method among male persons in association with higher state-level firearm ownership prevalence. First, it may be that at least some suicides are impulsive and that the ease with which a person can obtain a highly lethal means of suicide (i.e., a firearm), the more suicides will be completed.6,25 The impulse to attempt suicide may wane relatively quickly, such that the lack of ease in finding a lethal means may allow enough time to pass so that the suicidal impulse subsides or intervention occurs.6,11

The finding that males have higher suicide rates than females is one of the best empirically documented social facts in suicidology, but the underlying reasons continue to be debated; maybe women have a lower desire to die than men do (cf. above) [33].

Major depression forms the background of more than half of all suicides. Women are twice as likely as men to experience major depression, yet women are one fourth as likely as men to take their own lives. One of the possible explanations to this paradox may be that men highly value independence and decisiveness, and they regard acknowledging a need for help as a weakness and avoid it. Women appreciate interdependence, and they consult friends and readily accept help. They consider decisions in the context of a relationship, take many things into consideration, and they feel freer to change their minds [34,35].

The explanation of the gender-related differences in suicide attempts is based on Breed’s 5 “components of a basic suicide syndrome”, which appears to be a satisfactory model for explaining male suicide. The same factors affect the sexes differently, but the content and structure of the roles are different. Failure is obvious for males, but the female role is diffuse and lacking in standards for both the success and failure [36].

Some theories try to explain the gender paradox in suicidal behaviour. The first one is related to the method: men tend to use violent methods that are more lethal. The second one is about the differences in the prevalence of depression and alcohol abuse between the genders. It also includes the fact that women more frequently seek treatment, and this may prevent suicide. The socialisation theory suggests that both genders tend to adopt self-destructive behaviours according to their cultural backgrounds; therefore, suicide attempts (but not necessarily the committed suicides) would be “more acceptable” among females [24,35,37].

The higher rate of suicide attempts among women is probably related to the fact that depression occurs more frequently in this group, whereas the higher rate of suicidal death among men is probably associated with the choice of the method. Women prefer less ultimate means, such as exsanguination and abuse of hypnotics, while men are apt to use firearms or jump from a height [19]. In other words, males prefer more lethal methods (e.g. hanging) while the methods favoured by females tend to be less lethal (e.g. overdose). Furthermore, women may intentionally use less lethal suicide methods to draw attention to their situation, and do not intend to die. Males are more prone to aggressive, antisocial and externalising behaviours – they are likely to make more impulsive, lethal, active and determined suicide attempts [29]. In addition, nonfatal suicidal behaviour (e.g. suicidal ideation and nonfatal attempts) is associated with “femininity” and that of killing oneself is considered “masculine” and “powerful” as a rational response to adversity. Therefore, due to social pressure, males may be protected against nonfatal suicidal behaviour, but are more likely to resort to more lethal means of suicide in order to reduce the likelihood of surviving [38].

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Yes, and none of them argued what I just made that joke about in your initial post.

 

[Einherjar86]

If someone is actively suicidal (or homicidal for that matter), or even if they have a potential plan, we try to assess for access to means and work to get them to voluntarily hand over whatever those means are to either relatives, friends, or authorities. If they are active and refuse to cooperate they can be involuntarily committed to the hospital. But that's at the individual level, in a time of crisis.

Discussions about attacking statistics happen at the the macro level, and the "solutions" happen at the macro level, and psychologists (or family, or whoever) are left working with the actual suicidal individuals (those who go into therapy anyway - rural males are some of the least likely persons to A. Consider therapy B. Have access) of handing over other means. When it gets to that point.

So the answer is "yes."

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Yes, and none of them argued what I just made that joke about in your initial post.

The first and third made explicit references to cultural effects on gun ownership and the implication it has on sex-based suicide success disparities. Are you asking for a verbatim quotation of my initial post?

 

[Dak]

So the answer is "yes."

No, the answer is: things are far more complicated than a slanted birdseye view can hope to comprehend. That we wouldn't support gun clinging for active suicidal persons is something I figured you would be antagonizing via principle, but that would require specific case consideration.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, the answer is: things are far more complicated than a slanted birdseye view can hope to comprehend.

This isn't an answer to the question I posed, though.

 

[Dak]

This isn't an answer to the question I posed, though.

I would say "no" then, because people aren't committing suicide because they aren't seeing a therapist, and even mere access considerations (cost, locality, etc) mean that psychologists (or psychiatrists, or MFTs, etc.) can't "solve" many of the personal problems. Looking at suicide data, it's also pretty clear that suicide rates are highest in states with A. Poorer economic outcomes and B. Larger tracts of very rural/remote spaces. While those contribute to access issues, therapists have no ability to change the economy or population dispersion, etc. But neither do public health professionals.

Targeted policy proposals are at least a start, but the data on their efficacy is mixed. Here's some research on "red flag" laws (seizing guns from those identified as at risk), which is the most targeted policy option in relation to gun suicides:

https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ps.201700250

Indiana’s firearm seizure law was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides in the ten years following its enactment, an effect specific to suicides with firearms and larger than that seen in any comparison state by chance alone. Enactment of Connecticut’s law was associated with a 1.6% reduction in firearm suicides immediately after its passage and a 13.7% reduction in firearm suicides in the post–Virginia Tech period, when enforcement of the law substantially increased. Regression-based sensitivity analyses showed that these findings were robust to alternative specifications. Whereas Indiana demonstrated an aggregate decrease in suicides, Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased nonfirearm suicides.

So recent research shows that there can be suicide offset. Where there wasn't suicide offset, the numbers still don't look that impressive. 7.5% out of, based on an educated guess, ~600 suicides, is ~45 suicides prevented per year out of over 1000 per year for the state in total. It makes sense they wanted to report the %.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

The first and third made explicit references to cultural effects on gun ownership and the implication it has on sex-based suicide success disparities. Are you asking for a verbatim quotation of my initial post?

That men tend to own guns at a higher rate, tend to be more effective at committing suicide, and therefore often choose guns as an effective suicide method is not even close to what you said in your initial post. The closest article to what you were getting at was the first, but it's also a blog post for a pop-science magazine written by a New Zealander.

 

[Einherjar86]

So we have two unfortunate scenarios:

because people aren't committing suicide because they aren't seeing a therapist, and even mere access considerations (cost, locality, etc) mean that psychologists (or psychiatrists, or MFTs, etc.) can't "solve" many of the personal problems.

and...

If you have a kid hurting themselves, taking away the tool doesn't solve the problem.

In both of these cases, neither applied process "solves" the problems people are dealing with. Seems like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If this is true, then does it not make sense to at least make it more difficult for the troubled individual?

I suppose I'm just not seeing what your gripe is about the article's statistics when it seems very clear that you have no proposal. It sounds like you're making a fuss because you don't like analyses that extrapolate conclusions from complex scales. I don't think the article suggests anywhere that it offers a wholesale solution to the problem; but groups like the NRA would have us believe that arming as many people as possible would provide a wholesale solution (or even the best possible solution). Clearly that's not true, based on the stats the article cites.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That men tend to own guns at a higher rate, tend to be more effective at committing suicide, and therefore often choose guns as an effective suicide method is not even close to what you said in your initial post. The closest article to what you were getting at was the first, but it's also a blog post for a pop-science magazine written by a New Zealander.

"gun culture" magically brainwashes men into using guns because it's tough and manly

Males are more prone to aggressive, antisocial and externalising behaviours – they are likely to make more impulsive, lethal, active and determined suicide attempts [29]. In addition, nonfatal suicidal behaviour (e.g. suicidal ideation and nonfatal attempts) is associated with “femininity” and that of killing oneself is considered “masculine” and “powerful” as a rational response to adversity. Therefore, due to social pressure, males may be protected against nonfatal suicidal behaviour, but are more likely to resort to more lethal means of suicide in order to reduce the likelihood of surviving [38].

I don't see much of a difference between my statement and that example of a sociological argument, outside of my obviously silly tone.

 

[Dak]

In both of these cases, neither applied process "solves" the problems people are dealing with. Seems like we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. If this is true, then does it not make sense to at least make it more difficult for the troubled individual?

Good therapists help their clients problem solve. However, some problems are intractable to individual level problem solving, other than an Acceptance approach (and yes, that was capitalized for a reason). Red flagging and background checks are the best policy options we have for detecting troubled or troubling persons (who are having catastrophic-consequent problems with problem solving) with reasonable levels of specificity and sensitivity, but my point with my link is that even red flagging has it limits, and obviously someone who has zero criminal background will not trigger on a background check. There are precious few people against criminal background checks, and only a slightly larger group against some form of red flag laws.

I suppose I'm just not seeing what your gripe is about the article's statistics when it seems very clear that you have no proposal. It sounds like you're making a fuss because you don't like analyses that extrapolate conclusions from complex scales. I don't think the article suggests anywhere that it offers a wholesale solution to the problem; but groups like the NRA would have us believe that arming as many people as possible would provide a wholesale solution (or even the best possible solution). Clearly that's not true, based on the stats the article cites.

No, it's not that I don't like analyses that extrapolate from complex scales, it's that "gun suicides" or "gun homicides" aren't a complex scale at all. It's a simple descriptive statistic with incredible complexity generating the statistical hit. We make fun of the "Let them eat cake" quote, but "well take away the guns!" is an appropriate equivalent. It shows the same level of ignorant detachment from the underlying issues.

I'm for businesses running criminal background checks. I would love to see high quality international standards in crime reporting and an international database. I think there is the possibility of reasonable red flagging. I don't think that arming *everyone* (as in, 100% of the population) is a solution. But A. Neither does the NRA and B. Crime and Suicide levels have low base rates across the population in nearly every country. It's very difficult to affect low base rate events outside of very local, very targeted interventions (and the effects of those, due to the low base rate, are even more miniscule) . Vox of all outlets acknowledged this. Punishing the majority for a super minority problem is the level of bartalk analysis that got Trump elected, it's just that in the case of anti-guns the bar has less cigarette smoke, if you will.

The raw numbers from the article I linked need context. Annually, Indiana reports ~1000 suicides. The national rate of suicide by firearm is ~60%. So in raw numbers, we can estimate ~600 suicides by gun. Red flagging reduced gun suicides by 7.5% or ~45. So targeted policy reduced gun suicides in the non-offset scenario by 45 people in a population of ~6,700,000. But then, we were only talking about ~600 out of ~1000 occurrences in a population of 6,700,000. So let's pass laws that affect 6,700,000 (just looking at one positive outcome state) people to maybe save an additional 555 people? That's beyond absolutely atrocious specificity.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a lot of apologizing for the justification of your job at the expense of the "technocrat."

My primary criticism had to do with your dismissal of a certain group for trying to guarantee their own employment, when in fact all jobs ultimately seek to secure their own employment. You want the answers to lie in one-on-one therapy, and that keeps your profession employed. If the bottom line is securing a paycheck, you're no better than the technocrat.

 

[Dak]

That's a lot of apologizing for the justification of your job at the expense of the "technocrat."

My primary criticism had to do with your dismissal of a certain group for trying to guarantee their own employment, when in fact all jobs ultimately seek to secure their own employment. You want the answers to lie in one-on-one therapy, and that keeps your profession employed. If the bottom line is securing a paycheck, you're no better than the technocrat.

I don't understand how you think I was justifying my job. I specifically said therapists can't solve macro-problems (with therapy anyway). I was justifying not passing gun laws that affect everyone to maybe save a handful of people.

 

[Einherjar86]

You did specifically say that--later.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy involved in calling out others for securing their own employment when that's also what you're doing by suggesting that the more appropriate solution lies in therapy as opposed to "top-down" measures.

Let me also add that I'm not suggesting therapy isn't a viable solution in many cases, or that top-down measures are. Neither was my point. My point was simply that if we're measuring the legitimacy of methodologies by what

keeps them employed

then you can't claim therapy to be more legitimate than any broader sociological approach.

tl;dr your comment that statistical whackamole keeps technocrats employed struck me as hostile irrelevant to the overall argument. Basically a cheap shot.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I don't see much of a difference between my statement and that example of a sociological argument, outside of my obviously silly tone.

There's not a huge difference, but it's a distinction I would consider important. Gun culture is referenced there, but they're not exactly blaming gun culture for the violent male suicides; rather they're saying that men tend to more aggressive, impulsive, and anti-social and therefore they're likelier to use a gun, or, when unavailable, another violent mean. Gun culture, violent suicide, and the use of firearms in suicide fits under the cultural umbrella of masculinity in this context.

 

[Dak]

You did specifically say that--later.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy involved in calling out others for securing their own employment when that's also what you're doing by suggesting that the more appropriate solution lies in therapy as opposed to "top-down" measures.

Let me also add that I'm not suggesting therapy isn't a viable solution in many cases, or that top-down measures are. Neither was my point. My point was simply that if we're measuring the legitimacy of methodologies by what then you can't claim therapy to be more legitimate than any broader sociological approach.

My point was not that therapy was more valid than broader sociological efforts, but I can understand how my aggregate statements could be interpreted that way. I later explicitly said that the suicide numbers are significantly driven by macro-factors, and macro level solutions are needed. But again, people aren't committing suicide because they have a gun, or because they aren't seeing a therapist. Statistics like "gun crime" or "gun statistics" used as justification for policy never bother to identify the cause, or the multiplicity of causes. It's shitty science at a minimum.

To be more clear on the inability of therapy to solve these problems: Across theoretical approaches for individual therapy for non-serious mental illness (eg, excluding schizophrenia for example), success rates for clinical populations - people who at least thought therapy might be helpful and sought services - success rates are around 35%. Couples therapy/family therapy rates are somewhat lower (possibly because at least one attendant doesn't really want to be there). Mandating therapy or something is certainly not an effective option. Edit: And again, of course, therapy can't fix an economy or case of isolation.

My point was that therapists don't have as much concern about negative externalities, offsets, or causing adverse impacts across a whole population to barely move the proverbial needle on a column or row of spreadsheet of data arranged in next-to-useless categories. Public health policies should be concerned about that, but the policies that get advocated for don't seem to reflect such a concern, nor an appreciation for what constitutes meaningful changes.

tl;dr your comment that statistical whackamole keeps technocrats employed struck me as hostile irrelevant to the overall argument. Basically a cheap shot.

It's hostile to shitty macro approaches. It's similar to how macro economists manipulate inflation or employment numbers to a point of uselessness. EG, it might make their numbers look less worse to remove food an energy from the CPI, but that doesn't change the increasing chunks those two things take out of the individual or corporate budgets.

violent suicide

This is precisely what I was just talking about.