Why is Canada's Suicide Rate Higher

[cybercoma]

See, this is what I mean about stats. And the end of all this gibberish is there some sort of logical conclusion, or is this just a game people play with statistics? As I said earlier in this thread, with all this monkey-garble and a myriad of numbers to play with, you can reach any conclusion you want. And what's more, the average reader can't argue with you because they haven't been trained in monkey-garble. I've always been highly suspicious of arguments that rely on insider language because they have the automatic failsafe -- you (the reader) have to accept my conclusion because you're too dumb to understand monkey-speak.

This line of argument would hold that newspaper articles are of the same calibre as peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. In the latter, academics discuss the issues in the "jargon" of their disciplines.

While waldo didn't go into details explaining the limitation of this statistical analysis, he did communicate quite clearly that the post-1999 statistics may take into consideration other properties that the pre-1999 statistics do not. Nevertheless, the statistics from 1974-99 clearly indicate a downward slope in the linear regression model. This indicates a decreasing suicide rate during that timeframe and the numbers used are consistent.

If we are to make any claims about the affect of gun legislation, whether it be about the benefits or the limitation of it, we need data that pre-dates the gun legislation. With that information, waldo can run the regression model for a set number of year prior the legislation (should be at least 8) and a separate model for the years following the legislation. Comparing the difference between the slopes of the models would suggest the effect of gun legislation.

As with all complex models, the are many factors that we cannot account for. However, if there's a correlation, that's enough to suggest that there is at least some effect of one item, gun legislation, on the other, suicide rates.

[prairiechickin]

So that would include pretty much all of modern science then.

I don't pretend to understand advanced physics, so I rely on the peer-review process to keep the physicists honest. I'm fairly well read across most of the other sciences so the language doesn't intimidate me. My beef is with the social sciences, and I use the term 'sciences' only because its a common term, not because they are real sciences. I don't worry about biologists tinkering around since they tend to stick to biology, and outside of gardening their work doesn't directly affect me. I don't worry about geologists since they are too tied up looking under the earth to bother anyone. Same with astronomers. Where I get concerned is when social scientists use this gibberish to justify public policy that may very well affect my personal life. Such as this thread, where certain people are arguing that the invasion of my personal space (that was entailed by certain gun control measures) is warrented and justified by their maipulation of numbers, and so shrouded in monkey-speak I can't understand the argument moreless mount an effective response.

[Guest Manny]

I don't pretend to understand advanced physics, so I rely on the peer-review process to keep the physicists honest. I'm fairly well read across most of the other sciences so the language doesn't intimidate me. My beef is with the social sciences, and I use the term 'sciences' only because its a common term, not because they are real sciences. I don't worry about biologists tinkering around since they tend to stick to biology, and outside of gardening their work doesn't directly affect me. I don't worry about geologists since they are too tied up looking under the earth to bother anyone. Same with astronomers. Where I get concerned is when social scientists use this gibberish to justify public policy that may very well affect my personal life. Such as this thread, where certain people are arguing that the invasion of my personal space (that was entailed by certain gun control measures) is warrented and justified by their maipulation of numbers, and so shrouded in monkey-speak I can't understand the argument moreless mount an effective response.

Yes, I see your point and there have been several debates on this. Because social science and psychiatry are not necessarily "true", in that different persons respond differently to situations. That's where the statistics come in, to try and look at averages and trends. It's not unlike nuclear physics however, which is based on "cross sections", statistical data and averages. The problem with human beings is for every rule there's an exception and we have to decide if that's important to us. Like, fear of bogey men for instance.

[waldo]

Such as this thread, where certain people are arguing that the invasion of my personal space (that was entailed by certain gun control measures) is warrented and justified by their maipulation of numbers, and so shrouded in monkey-speak I can't understand the argument moreless mount an effective response.

you have no trouble stating "manipulation of numbers" while acknowledging your lack of understanding - beauty. Whatever response you feel is warranted, your self-acknowledged 'well read self' should, at least, allow you to present alternative countering study/assertion based upon whatever depth you feel comfortable presenting and relying upon... others, if they feel inclined, my choose to actually look at your presumed countering assertion.

[Guest Manny]

This line of argument would hold that newspaper articles are of the same calibre as peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. In the latter, academics discuss the issues in the "jargon" of their disciplines.

I'm with you and Waldo 100%, great job in demolishing the OP's baseless claims. But one problem that seems more prominent today is the politicization of science, where certain groups with a hidden agenda employ pseudo-scientists to massage the data, or present data which has an inherent bias, and use media to market the idea. People are aware of this manipulation and it has led to distrust of science. It makes it much harder to confirm what is true or scientifically valid. So ironically while we are in the age of information, we are having more difficulty figuring out whether the information is good or not.

If we are to make any claims about the affect of gun legislation, whether it be about the benefits or the limitation of it, we need data that pre-dates the gun legislation. With that information, waldo can run the regression model for a set number of year prior the legislation (should be at least 8) and a separate model for the years following the legislation. Comparing the difference between the slopes of the models would suggest the effect of gun legislation.

As with all complex models, the are many factors that we cannot account for. However, if there's a correlation, that's enough to suggest that there is at least some effect of one item, gun legislation, on the other, suicide rates.

It would also be helpful to see data on attempted suicides vs. "successful", to know if there were other factors.

[prairiechickin]

As with all complex models, the are many factors that we cannot account for. However, if there's a correlation, that's enough to suggest that there is at least some effect of one item, gun legislation, on the other, suicide rates.

Exactly -- many factors unaccounted for -- "at least some effect" -- pretty fuzzy conclusions from pretty fuzzy data, but this won't stop some politician with an agenda from using this argument to dirctly correlate this conclusion into a bold statement about the gun registry saving hundreds of lives ect. ect. and turning that into real legislation that directly impacts my life insofar as I'm a gun owner. That's what pisses me off. What is a bit of an academic exercise for you is constantly used by gun-control enthusiasts as scientific proof that guys like me must be registered and regulated like I was a sex offender, or at least a potential danger to society simply because I like to eat wild meat. You and people in your field understand the limitations of these statistical games, but the average politician doesn't, and the average Canadian sure as hell does not either. All they know is that (Harper and Gundufson, 2006) said it was true, so it must be true.

[cybercoma]

Your problem is that you have an emotional "beef" with having to register your guns. The demonstrable benefit far outweighs the minor inconvenience of having to let the government know what guns you have. You have to inform the government of what cars, boats, cats, dogs, and homes you own. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to merely informing them of what guns are in the home.

[bush_cheney2004]

How come you only went up to 1999? You should have included all of the data right up until 2008. Then you could have had a linear regression from 1974-2008, covering 34 years of data. As we've seen, the rate continues to drop after 1999.

I didn't do anything but cite the source, which stopped at 1999. You and waldo can's just take discrete studies and paste them together for "regression" over the past 50 years. Doesn't work that way...some of the data is not normalized. Yes, the rate may have declined after 1999, but is also increased during some years, and in any event, is higher than in the 1960's. Canada's suicide rate is higher than then and the methods employed have seen a reduction in firearms and the increased use of other methods.

Edited January 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[prairiechickin]

Your problem is that you have an emotional "beef" with having to register your guns. The demonstrable benefit far outweighs the minor inconvenience of having to let the government know what guns you have. You have to inform the government of what cars, boats, cats, dogs, and homes you own. I'm not sure why there is so much resistance to merely informing them of what guns are in the home.

You're an educated woman, right? You understand the difference between the public and the private, right? Here's the difference between registering my guns and registering my truck. I register my truck so I can drive around on public roads, seems to make sense. If I choose not to drive on public roads I can park my truck in the backyard and nobody will care. I am just one vehicle among many. When I register my guns, I go into a national database that will be used by police, which is not that different from my truck. But if they get called to my house for any reason, they won't care if I have a truck, but they're likely to approach guns at the ready when they see I have guns. And registering my truck doesn't get them in the door, registering my guns means they can demand to check safe storage, meaning they don't need a warrent to enter my home. Kiss that constitutional right goodbye. Registering my guns means they have to be stored in a certain way, and if they're not, I'm charged under the Criminal Code of Canada. And they take my guns away.

Prior to this legislation I could pretty much do anything I wanted in my house as long as I wasn't hurting anybody, manufacturing drugs, or making bombs. This legislation crosses the threshold of my front door, and what's more I'd need a team of lawyers to sort out what's legal and what isn't, that legislation is a bloody minefield of clauses of what's legal and what's not. Just look at this most recent example of the fake AK47s, they were legal, now their not.

So, short answer is, registering my truck and my guns are two very different things and this distinction seems to be lost on the non gun owning population. And its not quick and easy, it costs hundreds of dollars to file applications and take training that I had 30 years ago. But mostly its because that legislation crosses my front door, and not since Trudeau made the remark about the state having no business in the bedrooms of the nation has Canada gone back into Candian homes in such an invasive manner.

[waldo]

I didn't do anything but cite the source, which stopped at 1999. You and waldo can's just take discrete studies and paste them together for "regression" over the past 50 years. Doesn't work that way...some of the data is not normalized. Yes, the rate may have declined after 1999, but is all increased during some years, and in any event, is higher than in the 1960's. Canada's suicide rate is higher than then and the methods employed have seen a reduction in firearms and the increased use of other methods.

caveats/concerns surrounding combined sources have been acknowledged - your broad-based reference to 'normalized' has no direct bearing since you're not directly aware of what normalization has been performed on any Statistics Canada databases.

without regard to any, as you say, 'pasting together', whatever data you have presented has been analyzed in its isolation - analyzed to show your assertion has no basis... you can't support "it" (caveat: "it" is a shifting claim, based upon you moving the 'data domains' as each of your respective, per domain assertions, have been dealt with).

saying something like you just have, "that the rate has increased during some years", is the epitome of manipulation and self-serving pronouncement. Anyone can select self-serving data segments within the greater data complement... anyone can select a self-serving starting point within the greater data complement - it's called (self-serving) cherry-picking. I do believe you've had some experience with that in MLW climate change related threads!

don't hesitate to provide the complete post-1960s data you're basing your latest (shifting) assertion upon... the data you have yet to provide. And while you're doing that, don't hesitate to convey what significance referencing as far back to 1960 has in terms of more recent societal influences and changes. Oh wait, there is no significance... this is simply your means to keep this thread active - to showcase your ongoing charade.

[bush_cheney2004]

caveats/concerns surrounding combined sources have been acknowledged -

Then why did you do it?

without regard to any, as you say, 'pasting together', whatever data you have presented has been analyzed in its isolation - analyzed to show your assertion has no basis... you can't support "it" (caveat: "it" is a shifting claim, based upon you moving the 'data domains' as each of your respective, per domain assertions, have been dealt with).

Far from that, as I "shifted" the data domain to include Canadian suicides going back to the 1960's, my claim is even more apparent, and supported by citations from those who actually researched and published on the topic.

...it's called (self-serving) cherry-picking. I do believe you've had some experience with that in MLW climate change related threads!

Who is more expert at that than you? Hide the decline!!!!

Oh wait, there is no significance... this is simply your means to keep this thread active - to showcase your ongoing charade.

And it is working quite well...as I welcome the real world impact on Canadian gun owners as cited here by another member. I don't know why the greater than USA suicide rate with or without guns is such a threat to your ilk/agenda, but I am very happy that I stumbled on this. Remember, Canadians are happier...except for you.

Edited January 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

Here's the difference between registering my guns and registering my truck. I register my truck so I can drive around on public roads, seems to make sense. If I choose not to drive on public roads I can park my truck in the backyard and nobody will care. I am just one vehicle among many. When I register my guns, I go into a national database that will be used by police, which is not that different from my truck. But if they get called to my house for any reason, they won't care if I have a truck, but they're likely to approach guns at the ready when they see I have guns.

No you dont, you register your truck to show ownership.

The police may very well have some interest in that truck. But having the registration in your name will stop that.

Cannot quibble with the rest.

[waldo]

Then why did you do it?

complimentary to the isolation review of your own data and related assertion... your own assertion that can't be supported by your own data.

Far from that, as I "shifted" the data domain to include Canadian suicides going back to the 1960's, my claim is even more apparent, and supported by citations from those who actually researched and published on the topic.

no - you shifted because you simply wanted to continue your petulance. You shifted because each of your isolated data domains presented, that you presented, couldn't support your assertion.

again, what relevance does 1960s data... even 1970s data have in relation to today's relative circumstance? Answer: again, no significance - other than allowing you to perpetuate a false claim.

Who is more expert at that than you? Hide the decline!!!!

standard denier retort... one where I won't even bother to link you to the appropriate MLW posts that completely show your agenda around the continued use of that phrase.

I don't know why the greater than USA suicide rate with or without guns is such a threat to your ilk/agenda, but I am very happy that I stumbled on this.

the only part of this thread that addressed any comparative relationship (Canada vs. U.S.) was your initial OP - based upon some 'blogger' presenting you a short-term 7-year data reference... highlighting the suspect nature of presuming to trend based upon such a short time frame seemed to be enough to get you to drop this premise - which you never went back to throughout the rest of this thread. Perhaps you have a more representative longer-term period to draw upon... I mean, after all, you've already shown you can quite readily shift, to "post 1990", to "post 1974", to "post 1960"! Surely, you can shift to find more comparative and representative data beyond a mere 7 year timeframe, hey?

as for your claimed "stumbling upon this"... you stumbled as far as trying to find something to counter your extreme sensitivities brought upon by the 'Fat Americans and U.S. Obesity Epidemic' thread.

[cybercoma]

I didn't do anything but cite the source, which stopped at 1999. You and waldo can's just take discrete studies and paste them together for "regression" over the past 50 years. Doesn't work that way...some of the data is not normalized. Yes, the rate may have declined after 1999, but is also increased during some years, and in any event, is higher than in the 1960's. Canada's suicide rate is higher than then and the methods employed have seen a reduction in firearms and the increased use of other methods.

Ok. Here's a study that shows you're wrong. It has consistent data from the 70s to the 00s and focuses on the effects of gun control.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2004004/article/8042-eng.pdf

Edited January 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

While we're at it, this is the study that shows the attempts vs completed suicides in Canada from 79-99.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2001002/article/6060-eng.pdf

[bush_cheney2004]

complimentary to the isolation review of your own data and related assertion... your own assertion that can't be supported by your own data.

It's not "my data". It's Canada's data...sorry if you can't stand it.

no - you shifted because you simply wanted to continue your petulance. You shifted because each of your isolated data domains presented, that you presented, couldn't support your assertion.

No...when crybabies insist on more data, I am happy to comply.

again, what relevance does 1960s data... even 1970s data have in relation to today's relative circumstance? Answer: again, no significance - other than allowing you to perpetuate a false claim.

They constitute the baseline from which we can confidently report that Canadians are offing themselves at a higher rate, and they are doing it differently because of restrictions on firearms, namely more hanging/overdose poisoning/suffocation.

standard denier retort... one where I won't even bother to link you to the appropriate MLW posts that completely show your agenda around the continued use of that phrase.

Shall I post the YouTube video just for fun. Don't worry, we found the decline you desperately tried to hide.

Perhaps you have a more representative longer-term period to draw upon... I mean, after all, you've already shown you can quite readily shift, to "post 1990", to "post 1974", to "post 1960"! Surely, you can shift to find more comparative and representative data beyond a mere 7 year timeframe, hey?

Already addressed...1763...include beavers.

as for your claimed "stumbling upon this"... you stumbled as far as trying to find something to counter your extreme sensitivities brought upon by the 'Fat Americans and U.S. Obesity Epidemic' thread.

In this context (suicide rate), FAT IS GOOD!

Edited January 13, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok. Here's a study that shows you're wrong. It has consistent data from the 70s to the 00s and focuses on the effects of gun control.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2004004/article/8042-eng.pdf

Conflicting studies are common, especially in this case. But math doesn't change: fewer firearms suicides with rising or level rates means that other methods are employed more. You can't escape it....not sure why it is important to do so, but it is what it is.

[waldo]

In this context (suicide rate), FAT IS GOOD!

and that about sums up this thread, your contribution and intent. I won't waste another second on it... and suggest others do the same. Even if you had a valid interest in the subject (which you don't), your repeated data domain shifts and backpedaling in the face of repeated successful challenges to you, show that you're not interested in any manner of reasoned discussion or acknowledging you're wrong, on any level. Toying with you was the only reason for playing along... showcasing your charade was gravy... highlighting that you only initiated this thread given your snit over the 'Fat Americans' thread was gold, real gold!

both cybercoma and I have repeatedly shown you haven't... and can't... substantiate anything you claim. You will ignore any presentations made to you and throw back flippant and/or unrelated comments. Given you've stated it several times in the past... self-admitting & self-acknowledging to being a troll, and relishing the role, I will fully acknowledge that I agree with this, your previous MLW self-assessment.

[bush_cheney2004]

and that about sums up this thread, your contribution and intent. I won't waste another second on it...

Yes you will...you can't control yourself!

and relishing the role, I will fully acknowledge that I agree with this, your previous MLW self-assessment.

Thank you...as an American, this is the highest compliment.

[bush_cheney2004]

Dueling research papers at 10 paces:

Background

: Despite numerous prevention initiatives, suicide remains the second leading

cause of death in youth aged 10-19. One of the major prevention strategies is the

introduction of restrictive firearms regulations. For example, Bill C-17 was enacted in 1991

to promote safer handling and storage of firearms through mandatory safety courses for all

new gun owners. Examining the suicide rates subsequent to Bill C-17 may shed light on

the possible benefit of these regulations as a solution to this major public health issue.

Therefore, this paper examines the trends in youth suicide from 1979-1999 and the

association with changes in the firearms act in 1991.

Results

: Although the overall rates did not change from 1979-1999 in youth aged 15-19,

there was a substantial change in the methods used. In particular, the rates of suicide by

firearms dropped from 60% to 22% while suicide due to hanging/suffocation increased

from 20% to 60% in this age group over this period of time.

Conclusion

: These results suggest a possible association between changes in the firearms

act in 1991 and the methods used by youth to complete suicide. However, the overall

rates of suicides did not change over this same period. These trends underscore the need

for broader prevention interventions that do not solely focus on methods of suicide but

rather, their underlying causes.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:7xoenNSkNDAJ:journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/download/571/571+canada+suicide+rate+hangings&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShzEmRHvvcE_sH-jX4b2WnMlcXNLdwVIcAlP_mh7hySG-PSUBKAFD2AeewpWp6phbyCVi6G7goGxzikkScZv-4SHCzfH7v32VbfEETViFWXZoERjOFHEFV7AEMarJ3g9alB_91J&sig=AHIEtbS1bgFichaakbVLEQwrgCQ31zAGew

[cybercoma]

I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why that study is not as valid as the other posted studies because somehow you think showing a snapshot of 15-19 year olds in the 90s contradicts the mountains of research we've posted showing the overall suicide rate for more than 3 decades. Obviously you just don't get it and never will.

Edited January 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm not even going to bother explaining to you why that study is not as valid

Because you can't....this is not about which study is more valid than another. Clearly the issue has attracted some attention in your country.

Obviously you just don't get it and never will.

But I do get it....Canada's suicide rate by firearms went down, and other methods went up. Recently, "exit bags" are all the rage for legal unassisted suicide. It wasn't that long ago when it was illegal to commit suicide in Canada, then the law was changed to make attempted suicide illegal, and that has since given way to no criminal liability at all for the subject....DUH!

Assisting suicide remains illegal...for now.

Edited January 13, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Let's keep the party going....more WHO support for the substitution effect in Canada:

Secondly, the opposite slopes seen in the correspondence maps and the degree of displacement indicate that there is a substantial substitution effect: pesticide suicide and firearm suicide are not only associated with new suicide behaviour, but also tend to substitute hanging. The introduction of specific prevention programmes focusing on pesticides or firearms would be expected to reverse this substitution to some extent. In fact, this reversal was observed when firearm availability was restricted in Australia20 and Canada:21 at the same time, the proportion of suicides due to hanging increased.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-043489/en/

[Guest Manny]

highlighting that you only initiated this thread given your snit over the 'Fat Americans' thread was gold, real gold!

You guys did an awesome job!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Makes good sense. Americans believe more strongly than Canadians that theres a magic man in the sky waiting to grant them eternal life in paradise, and suicide is one of the very few things on the list of things that will disqualify them.

Kuwait for example is one of the most religious places on earth...

83 on the religiosity index, and a suicide rate of only 1.9%

The US is 61, and 11.05.

Canada is 49, and 11.65.

Estonian scores the lowest on the religiosity index at 21 and has a whopping 21.40 suicide rate.

It's almost like, evolutionary speaking, our race perpetuates God by killing off more who do not believe. I wonder if it is because they are happy but lack purpose... I'll have to read into this more. I guess a problem with analysing the reason is that to truly know the answer, you'd have to ask someone who did it.

Edited January 14, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist