Guns And Suicide
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-19/guns-and-suicide
In 2010, more than 30,000 Americans died from gunshot wounds, and about two-thirds were self-inflicted. More people used a firearm to take their own lives than every other method combined. For most, if not all victims, suicide reflects a treatment failure -- someone in distress who didn’t get the right kind of help when they most needed it. People determined to take their own lives can find a way, but research shows that having easy access to a gun boosts the likelihood that an attempt will be successful. Diane and guests discuss who is at risk for suicide, and what can be done to reduce that risk.
Guests
Dr. Matthew Miller
associate director at Harvard Injury Control Research Center and associate professor of health policy and injury prevention at Harvard School of Public Health.
Dr. Jana Martin
clinical psychologist and leader of public education efforts with the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Alan Newman
associate professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical Center.
Lucinda Bassett
author of "Truth Be Told: A Memoir of Success, Suicide and Survival" to be published March 2013.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Thank you for this show today.
We had a suicide in our family in the year 2000 and I was one of the people that found my brother-in-law. My brother-in-law did not die using a gun, but this show is still very powerful to me.
I am amazed how much suicide affects my life all these years later, and my sister, and her children.
I really think we do need a culture change in the way we talk about depression and guns. Your speaker used the analogy about drunk driving and how it is now socially acceptable to take someone's keys and to tell them they are not fit to drive.
This show is one more step toward helping us to think about depression and suicide in new ways. Why are we afraid to ask if someone is suicidal? Why are we afraid to intervene?
The facts about guns today were eye-opening, and has made me even more anti-gun. Thank you again for this show.
I suffered depression during many years in which I begged God to take me in my sleep, so I wouldn't wake up again to a miserable life. During that time, I was prescribed antidepressants that did NOTHING to solve the problem.
At the same time I was being medicated SYNTHETIC Thyroid hormone for my Hypothyroidism, while my body could not convert the INACTIVE hormone (T4) to the active one (T3).
Once I found a doctor that switched me to the NATURAL Thyroid hormone (which includes both forms), then my depression disappeared for good without any antidepressants.
It is IMPERATIVE that doctors test the Endocrine system before prescribing synthetic antidepressants with horrible side effects.
This discussion proceeded under the assumption that suicide is always bad and always to be prevented. This is not true.
I found it very interesting to hear that only 10% of people who try to commit suicide and survive will go on to commit suicide. The loss of a friend and loved one is devastating, and the impacts on survivors are long-lasting. There are real, long-term costs of having easy access to guns, and keeping them in homes. My brother, a high school teacher, shot himself just before his 43rd birthday with a handgun that my other brother, who had young children at the time, had given to him for safekeeping. My brother had been troubled about changes at work, but he had a best friend he talked to every day and a wife who loved him. They owned their own home and were otherwise financially secure. He and his wife had just gone out for their regular Friday night chicken dinner in the small Wi town where they lived. My brother went into his basement workshop, had a lot to drink, and shot himself in the head. If my brother had not had access to that handgun in that moment of despair, would he be alive today? It took five years for my 75 year old mother, my surviving brother, and me to accept what had happened, get our own lives back in order, and move forward with life. We were fortunate that my mother was such a resilient person, or I don't think our family could have regrouped. She kept his hat on a doorknob in her bedroom for the rest of her life. His wife never remarried. Anyone who keeps a gun in their home and thinks this couldn't happen to them should think again.
Massachusetts passed a major gun control bill in 1998. At the time, there were 1.5 million licensed gun owners in the state. Just a few years later, that number had dropped to only 200,000. But the suicide rate increased and is now the highest it’s been in over 20 years. (Gun violence also increased, but that’s another story...)
Even a dramatic reduction in the number of homes with guns doesn’t reduce the rate of suicide.
I recently heard a doctor state what is one of the problems. He stated that the body is admirably designed to hand physical stress, but not mental stress.
Every society in history has had its stresses of course. But we have taken mental stress to levels unprecedented in history. It's a constant onslaught of "take it to the next level", "gotta have it yesterday", and the one that probably takes first place "we gotta be able to compete".
Our ancestors, in their rush to progress, have left us a legacy that is not sustainable. As we continue to "progress", problems such as suicide will only increase.
Have we reached a point where "the living will envy the dead?"
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"Suicide is way up because disappointment and desperation are way up in a USA where life is ever more a hopeless and unfair struggle, with predators all around."
And we're supposed to be the nihilists?!
"The most rage I ever express is @DRShow because this forum is hijacked, and the show is not what it used to be (serves public less and less, privileged interests more and more). ... The few with the most money want the public space to be a perpetual catfight, and those who admire them hasten to make it so. "
I think that translates to ... everyone on the board used to agree with me so it was better then, and as long as everyone agrees with me the show is good and the board is useful.
Most leftists are big on "right to die" ... but not by gun. So let me get this straight, it's ok for Dr. K (were he still with us) to stick a needle in your arm, but not ok to pull the trigger yourself? Because of the mess? If you believe in individual freedom and the right to end your life as long as you are compos mentis, as I do, why should your choice of methods be limited?
A previous poster stole my thunder ... "never let a good crisis go to waste" is what is driving this show. Nothing more.
gary k wrote: "Our ancestors, in their rush to progress, have left us a legacy that is not sustainable."
Which ancestors? Those radical right wing extremist founding fathers or those "progressives" of the twentieth century.
Simply absurd and angry response. Trying to make me feel scared that I may injure my children is despicable. Some of us get training and have understanding of our lives and our decisions.
I would like to say I appreciate those who clone my words, even out of context. That way you make my point again.
Reactionary is an accurate descriptive word for those a little slow on the intellectual draw, those who " get their marching order from the fascist propaganda network." You're insuring me against suicidal depression with every post. Now I can haul those food boxes and firewood and kerosine cans to the trailer park with gusto. The rain is over and I'm loading the truck.
Hate is a great motivator, no doubt about it.
Agreed. All those who knew the suicide's problems, and did nothing, blame the gun.
Assisted suicide?
http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/gun.gif
Your guest seems to be making an assumption that removing/securing firearms in a home will lower the suicide rate, although, I don't dispute that I question if it wouldn't be just as easy to slam your car into a bridge embankment, ETC..?
I recall the CDC reporting that accident poisoning deaths every year eclipse firearm suicides, maybe we should start there?
It is ironic that assisted suicide is legal and encouraged in some states, I suppose a firearm is more violent and messy.
Apologies if this has been mentioned.
"Successful" and "suicide" are two words that don't belong in the same sentence.
After 25 years of chronic pain, and having spoken with 200+ other sufferers nationally, it seems to me that this is not only of the major factors, but it is aggravated by the fact that it is in general poorly managed as well as misunderstood. The good news is that there are very good treatments now, there is still hope. Having the regrettable experience of dealing with several suicides, it seem that chronic pain causes the depression that causes the act. Unfortunately there is very poor public understanding of treatments, and doctors regularly under treat pain.
As far as the guns, if you made them all disappear, they would overdose on pills etc. this is something that people will find a way if that is what they are set on doing.
Think about it. You have a sick and dying pet that you have to put down. Do you shoot the cat or take it to the Vet to chemically put down. Other then the pet not having a say in the decision, its assisted suicide in that sense.
I appreciate your comment. It is vital that people find a competent health provider for what their problem may be. To many people obtain poor medical advice and never bother with a second opinion.; Its unfortunate that you and I and others suffered greatly when proper advice would have made a significant difference. Glad to hear your better.
February 19, 2013 - 11:13 am
"ecgberht2 wrote:
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"Suicide is way up because disappointment and desperation are way up in a USA where life is ever more a hopeless and unfair struggle, with predators all around."
And we're supposed to be the nihilists?!
"The most rage I ever express is @DRShow because this forum is hijacked, and the show is not what it used to be (serves public less and less, privileged interests more and more). ... The few with the most money want the public space to be a perpetual catfight, and those who admire them hasten to make it so. "
I think that translates to ... everyone on the board used to agree with me so it was better then, and as long as everyone agrees with me the show is good and the board is useful.
Most leftists are big on "right to die" ... but not by gun. So let me get this straight, it's ok for Dr. K (were he still with us) to stick a needle in your arm, but not ok to pull the trigger yourself? Because of the mess? If you believe in individual freedom and the right to end your life as long as you are compos mentis, as I do, why should your choice of methods be limited?
A previous poster stole my thunder ... "never let a good crisis go to waste" is what is driving this show. Nothing more.
February 19, 2013 - 11:13 am"
Pancake made an observation which can stand or fall on its own.
Where do you get off "translating" that into a bunch of OOYAH assertions that are mostly wrong and inane to boot?? AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANYTHING BUT YOUR DEMENTIA DRIVEN DELUSIONS!!
And if I were you, I'd be real careful using "compos mentis" non or not.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Guns make suicide easier.
I have been depressed for most of my 50 some years. I now know that it is hereditary and somewhat environmentally influenced. I have been through countless hours and dollars worth of counselling. I have concluded that I need medication to maintain some sense of normalcy.
I have come to believe that my depression is a part of my personality. But I also know that it needs to be regulated or I will take the inevitable end. When one is seriously depressed, you (I) truly believe that suicide IS the answer, and that by taking yourself OUT of the scenerio you are doing others a favor....that your existance is troubling and if only YOU were gone then all would be good....I have considered many means of suicide...some just to "tempt" myself....but I can honestly say if I had means to a gun, if my environments, ie my family, my husband, were "gun people"...then I would have killed myself some time ago.
Suicide, death by guns is easy...too easy.
Not that guy again on February 19, 2013 @ 9:22 am wrote: “What we have now is far from absolutist and all or nothing. . . . to say gun rights have not already been infringed upon is a joke. Anti gun rights activists will never stop until guns are confiscated, gun rights proponents need to fight them on every issue as if the second amendment itself hangs in the balance every time, because it does.”
And after falsely denying an absolutist position, the “guy” proceeds to state it. According to him any attempt to provide reasonable regulations on guns is an infringement on the Second Amendment, and must inevitably lead to confiscation. Translation: the only good gun regulation is no regulation. Thanks for proving my point.
Horrors! A thick book on regulations for Dealers, what a terrible infringement! What about books issued to dealers in explosives, to manufacturers whose plants produce toxic chemicals? What about the size of the book the Motor Vehicle Department provides for people who want a driver’s license? How thick are they?
But what about the book given to gun purchasers and owners? After all, it’s the right to “keep and bear arms” that the Second Amendment protects (not the right to make a buck selling them). Unless that “thick” book actually infringes their rights your argument is ridiculous. (And considering the flood of guns bought and owned in this country there appears to be no “infringement”.)
Yup, your position and "motive" is fully understood: to remove all restrictions on the sale or ownership of weapons, so that massacres like those at Newton, Portland, Aurora, and Tucson can continue, since they're so "necessary to the security of a free State". (Second Amendment)
Not that guy again on February 19, 2013 @ 9:22 am wrote:“The Constitution is clear on this despite some efforts to twist it's meaning. As for the Supreme Court, they have been dismantling the Constitution for well over a hundred years. Their rulings on many issues have been nothing short of treason.”
There speaks the voice of ignorance. The Supreme Court decision I referred to was D.C. v. Heller, the one applauded by the NRA, the one that declares there’s an individual right to keep an bear arms. But that right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable regulation, and does not give you the right to buy any arms you wish, anytime you wish, without things like background checks. Don’t believe me? Try purchasing a nuclear armed missile, or a sawed-off shotgun, and watch what happens.
And speaking of the Constitution, pray explain how the Supreme Court has (“for well over a hundred years”) levied war against the United States, adhered to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort? That’s the definition of treason. (Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 1) It doesn’t include anything the NRA, or its fellow travelers, happen to disagree with.
Who’s the one distorting the Constitution? You are, sir.
climatewiz1 on February 19, 2013 @ 10:28 am wrote: “Sorry E.S. but you don't get a pass on that one... You and I both know that "reasonable" gun regulation is a wide, wide river to cross. . . .”
I neither ask for nor require a “pass on that one”. You probably think I object to the D.C. v. Heller decision simply because it declared there’s an individual right unconnected with service in a militia, and therefore I applaud anything that can be used to ban guns. Surprise! You’re wrong about that (as you are about a lot of things).
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s invocation of that word “reasonable” is one of the things I object to. Why? Because as a lawyer I’m quite familiar with how it creates a “loophole” big enough to drive a fleet of trucks through! I don’t like the idea that any of our rights can be limited by laws that are merely “reasonable”. (Actually, it’s more complicated than that, but I don’t want to conduct a legal seminar.)
The trouble is: that’s what the Supreme Court said in Heller, gun ownership (and use) can be subject to reasonable regulations. So, if the NRA wants to rely on that decision, it has to abide by all of it, not just the parts it prefers. (Just as it should quote all of the Second Amendment, and stop ignoring its first half.)
climatewiz1 on February 19, 2013 @ 10:28 am wrote: “I'm not a big NRA fan but if (and hopefully) when, either side presents a 'reasonable' solution I'm sure that most Americans (gun owners and manufacturers alike) will accept it. Until then, you throwing out the broad premise that the NRA and gun owners care more about profits than they do about human life is 'beneath contempt'.”
Fortunately, if one can believe polls, it appears the majority of NRA members don’t agree with its leadership, and have no problem with reasonable gun regulations.
And please read what I write accurately, and in context. I was not speaking about gun owners, or even all manufacturers. You’re assuming that’s what I meant by the phrase the “NRA and its fellow travelers”, but it’s not. As I later stated, I was referring only to “those who wrap themselves in the Constitution, and exaggerate ‘gun rights’ ”. Certainly that doesn’t describe every gun owner, or even every manufacturer and seller of guns.
But it should be pointed out that most of the opponents of reasonable gun regulations tend to be manufacturers and sellers, while the NRA, and other groups, receive most of their funding from such sources, not just the rank and file membership. Another reason they are “fellow travelers”.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Finally, of course, I was responding to “one time”, who had attacked the motivation or goals of those who support reasonable gun regulation (as “that guy”) also did. Hence my statement: “But let's look at this the other way.”
If attacking the motivation and agenda of those who want and believe reasonable gun regulation (not confiscation) will help make everyone safer is “fair play”, then why not those on “the other side”? May I remind you that over a decade ago Wayne La Pierre (the NRA’s “mouthpiece) supported universal background checks? Now he opposes them. Doesn’t that switcheroo deserve “contempt”? And what about the way he tried to use the Newton Massacre to “push” an agenda of more and more guns?
If the NRA and its fellow travelers can attack the motives of those who favor reasonable gun control, then theirs can be attacked too. What’s sauce for the goose . . . .
climatewiz1 on February 19, 2013 @ 10:28 am wrote: “Unfortunately, almost without exception, suicide touches all of our lives in one way or another. I look at this discussion (and your comments) as another way of politicizing yet another symptom of a society rife with problems”
Pot, meet kettle (as I previously explained). Recognizing that easy access to guns greatly assists suicides isn’t mere “politicizing”. It’s recognizing a serious problem that needs to be addressed. How we address it is the question. Sticking one’s head in the sand, and pretending guns aren’t part of the problem isn’t a valid answer to that question.
As for what is a valid question? Well, that’s part of what the guests are here to debate, and what society is to discuss. That’s what politics is, you know, a discussion by members of society (the “polis”). Sometimes, of course, it can be merely partisan politics, but don’t assume it always is.
climatewiz1 on February 19, 2013 @ 10:28 am wrote: “But wait... wasn't it Rahm Emanuel who said ‘never let a serious crisis go to waste?’.”
Actually no. (You tend to be so literalistic with what I write, it’s only fair I do the same to you.) The actual quote is as follows: “ You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
And put it in context! He was talking about economics (not gun massacres) and how it usually takes a crisis to get anything done, instead of just ignoring the problem or “kicking it down the road”. He specifically mentioned the energy problems of the 70’s as an example: we delayed serious discussion of the issue for decades, until it became a crisis.*
So, not only do you misquote the man, but you distort what he said by ignoring the context. I’d call that “beneath contempt”.
* Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWRma3A5V2Y
P.S. - If you’d consider, and discuss, all of what I write, instead of selected bits taken out-of-context, you might make a cogent response. I long for the day one of my “opponents” will.
Not that guy again on February 19, 2013 @ 9:33 am wrote: “The left will use anything as a prop to push it's big government agenda. Because special laws were needed to protect the lawful manufacture of firearms, it becomes ‘contemptible’ to not allow the second amendment to be undermined by illegal product liability law suits, ‘it's for the children!’ ”
Unlike “the right”, which never (9/11) did something like that? Use the horrific death of thousands “as a prop to push it's big government agenda”, including the Patriot Act, violations of Due Process and the rights of Habeas Corpus by trying to create a legal “limbo” in Guantanamo, or (oh yes) starting a war with a country that had nothing to do with the attack! Yup, plenty of “small government” there.
(And we won’t even discuss things like forced vaginal probes, “legitimate” rape, and the Federal ban on so-called “partial birth abortions”, which was based on the same Commerce Clause “the right” insists can’t be used to support Federal laws when “the left” invokes it.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Sorry, but you’re making a false assumption again: that I approve of using Products Liability law that way. I don’t. My first job was working for the Products Liability defense of Michelin Tire Corporation. (That’s right, “nasty” liberal me actually defended a corporation!) So I know quite a bit about that subject.
While I agree that guns are “imminently dangerous” (the key concern of that area of Law), there’s an important reason why I disapprove of such lawsuits. Guns are supposed to be imminently dangerous. There’s nothing “defective” about them when they are. (In fact, they’re defective if they aren’t.) Products Liability should be used for devices that aren’t normally imminently dangerous, and only become so because of a defect.
But gee, since the Second Amendment allows reasonable gun regulations (as distinct from those lawsuits), isn’t it “contemptible” not to pass such regulations “for the children”? (Or are only conservatives allowed to use that phrase?)
P.S. - Are you by any chance related to egchbert?