Why is Canada's Suicide Rate Higher

[waldo]

I have coupled that currently available 2000-2008 Statistics Canada data with your linked website's 90s (1991-1999) data - with overall data, a scatter plot and applied linear regression trendline plot presented - here: even including the clear 1999 outlier, I trust you recognize what a downward sloping trendline means, hey?

I am typing as slow as I can for you....are there more or less suicides by means other than firearms since 1990? You are swimming upstream here, because Canada's population has increased, the gun registry and other restrictions have gone into effect, and some yahoos are selling exit bags on eBay.

population increase - no problem, at least with respect to the Statistics Canada 2000-2008 data I'm offering within our 'co-operative pooled' data resource. Per your linked source, the 1991-1999 data is not identified on a per-population level... clearly population increase didn't factor into your statement, your assertion - of course not. However, in your shifting the goal-posts back-pedaling mode I will offer you another downward sloping presentation of Canada's declining 2000-2008 suicide rate (per 100,000) - here: Don't hesitate to pony-up a similar per 100,000 population rate for your 1991-1999 linked data... I mean, since you've now shifted the goal-posts, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... I mean, since you've now shifted the goal-posts, hey?

The goal post is firmly affixed in concrete, and you keep banging your head into it. As stated by your own government agency responsible for such things:

4.1 Suicide and Firearm Suicide

In Canada, about 80 percent of firearm-related deaths are suicides (Hung, 1997). The total number of suicides, including those committed with a firearm, rose consistently during the 1960s and most of the 1970s. In the late 1970s, suicide rates leveled out and decreased modestly, and fewer people used firearms to commit suicide. Researchers also noted considerable regional variations in these trends (Department of Justice, 1996: 45; Hung, 1997a).

In the 1970s, firearm suicides represented 35.6 percent of the total number of suicides in Canada. That figure fell to 32 percent in the 1980s and to 27.8 percent in the first six years of the 1990s (Department of Justice Canada, 1996:46; Hung, 1997). In 1995, almost a quarter of the 4,000 people who committed suicide in Canada used a firearm.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html

If firearms related suicides declined but rates rose or remained level, clearly other methods were employed.

Edited January 11, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

subsequently you were countered with two separate data sources that countered your claim. As is your way, you attempt to weasel out... suggesting a balance between your "common sense" and my agenda! So, let's continue: available data from the Statistics Canada database runs from 2000-2008... I have coupled that currently available 2000-2008 Statistics Canada data with your linked website's 90s (1991-1999) data - with overall data, a scatter plot and applied linear regression trendline plot presented - here: even including the clear 1999 outlier, I trust you recognize what a downward sloping trendline means, hey? How do you like those agenda apples!

Very nice.

pw

If you do the same with the American stats, you'll notice they're trending upwards.

BC doesn't want to compare that information though.

[bush_cheney2004]

BC doesn't want to compare that information though.

The comparisons are complete...Canada has a higher suicide rate...because Canadians are happier.

[cybercoma]

population increase - no problem, at least with respect to the Statistics Canada 2000-2008 data I'm offering within our 'co-operative pooled' data resource. Per your linked source, the 1991-1999 data is not identified on a per-population level... clearly population increase didn't factor into your statement, your assertion - of course not. However, in your shifting the goal-posts back-pedaling mode I will offer you another downward sloping presentation of Canada's declining 2000-2008 suicide rate (per 100,000) - here: Don't hesitate to pony-up a similar per 100,000 population rate for your 1991-1999 linked data... I mean, since you've now shifted the goal-posts, hey?

I provided that data in my earlier post. I figured out the per 100,000 rate from 1991-2008.

[cybercoma]

rates rose or remained level

Rates rose?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20130&view=findpost&p=750330

No they didn't.

[bush_cheney2004]

Rates rose?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=20130&view=findpost&p=750330

No they didn't.

Yes they did....rates wobbled a bit up and down, all while firearms use to do the deed declined. What's interesting is that firearms are far and away the most lethal method, so the other choices really had to pick up the slack. That would be hanging, suffocation, and poisoning.

[cybercoma]

There's no point having any sort of discussion with you if you're just going to make up your own "facts".

[bush_cheney2004]

There's no point having any sort of discussion with you if you're just going to make up your own "facts".

I suppose if you averaged from 1763 - 2011 you might have a point, but not sure what it would be. Clearly suicide rates increased and leveled off, but firearms use went down. I leave the math to you and waldo....never a good idea.

[waldo]

population increase - no problem, at least with respect to the Statistics Canada 2000-2008 data I'm offering within our 'co-operative pooled' data resource. Per your linked source, the 1991-1999 data is not identified on a per-population level... clearly population increase didn't factor into your statement, your assertion - of course not. However, in your shifting the goal-posts back-pedaling mode I will offer you another downward sloping presentation of Canada's declining 2000-2008 suicide rate (per 100,000) - here: Don't hesitate to pony-up a similar per 100,000 population rate for your 1991-1999 linked data... I mean, since you've now shifted the goal-posts, hey?

I provided that data in my earlier post. I figured out the per 100,000 rate from 1991-2008.

I initially wasn't sure what your data source was... I notice now that you actually included a reference to Statistics Canada on your graphs - great, our sources align. For completeness, I've reworked the rate/per 100K population trendline plot to now also include your 1991-1999 rates per 100K, coupled with the earlier referenced 2000-2008 rates per 100K population data - here: Of course, BC_2004 will deny these results, just like all the others.

[waldo]

There's no point having any sort of discussion with you if you're just going to make up your own "facts".

and yet BC_2004 will never, ever, acknowledge his failed claim... no matter how many countering data references are thrown at him. I stated his sham intent in starting this thread earlier; I expect you also realized his game from the onset, but it's worth highlighting once more. Obviously he was miffed over the, 'Why American's Are Fat" thread... particularly when the American obesity epidemic theme started being discussed. Starting this thread was simply another example of a long history of petulant behaviour, nothing more, nothing less.

[prairiechickin]

Not huge? Try insignificant....

Gun control as a policy to try and stop suicides most likely doesn't work. Although, I have never seen any gun control advocate try and justify gun control as a means of suicide prevention. I think you may be blowing some smoke here...

A couple interesting reads on the topic:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2006/rr06_2/rr06_2.pdf

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/index.html

From the above paper:

Just wanted to bump this since CC seemed to have missed it. Contrast with this....

[prairiechickin]

And people are less successful with other forms of suicide, hence the rate has been dropping.

You want to flaunt the failure of the gun-control program but refuse to reconcile your remarks with facts, such the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians finding that "since the implementation of Canada’s gun registry in 1995, there has been a significant reduction in firearm-related suicides and intimate partner homicides."

Further to that point, "In another study of about 400 women who used transition house or victim services in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, Doherty and a partner found that the presence of a gun made most of the women in that situation afraid to seek help. It is interesting to note that domestic homicides in the province are disproportionately common in rural areas, likely related to the presence of hunting guns in more rural than urban homes. Also interesting is that most murder-suicides occur in a rural area of the province."

The Canada Safety Council found that "a home where there are firearms is five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide than a home without a gun."

And finally, "The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." (source)

[waldo]

Just wanted to bump this since CC seemed to have missed it. Contrast with this....

if you have points to make/register, if you believe the 2 linked firearms-suicide references counter something said, why make one/others wade through documents to attempt to... make your undeclared points for you? State your points/concerns, specifically in terms of the documents you presume to leverage. I note one of those documents is dated - 1998.

[prairiechickin]

if you have points to make/register, if you believe the 2 linked firearms-suicide references counter something said, why make one/others wade through documents to attempt to... make your undeclared points for you? State your points/concerns, specifically in terms of the documents you presume to leverage. I note one of those documents is dated - 1998.

Re-write this in comprehensible English and I might respond.

[waldo]

Re-write this in comprehensible English and I might respond.

it's quite comprehensible... your response simply shows you either haven't bothered to read the actual documents you presume to draw attention to, or you haven't the wherewithal to actually articulate whatever you presume to leverage from the documents. Again, you draw attention to two linked documents but apparently can't be bothered to actually state what points you presume to draw upon within those two linked documents.

[prairiechickin]

it's quite comprehensible... your response simply shows you either haven't bothered to read the actual documents you presume to draw attention to, or you haven't the wherewithal to actually articulate whatever you presume to leverage from the documents. Again, you draw attention to two linked documents but apparently can't be bothered to actually state what points you presume to draw upon within those two linked documents.

cybercoma made a number of points that seemed to suggest a correlation between the gun registry and a drop in gun-related suicides. The Squid countered with several studies that contadicted this, or at least suggested the subject was much more complex than cybercoma suggested. I simply juxtaposed the two posts because cybercome either did not see The Squid's post, or chose to ignore it. Either way, I was wondering how she reconciled the two.

[cybercoma]

and yet BC_2004 will never, ever, acknowledge his failed claim... no matter how many countering data references are thrown at him. I stated his sham intent in starting this thread earlier; I expect you also realized his game from the onset, but it's worth highlighting once more. Obviously he was miffed over the, 'Why American's Are Fat" thread... particularly when the American obesity epidemic theme started being discussed. Starting this thread was simply another example of a long history of petulant behaviour, nothing more, nothing less.

Hahaha that regression makes BC_2004's argument look so ridiculous.

[waldo]

cybercoma made a number of points that seemed to suggest a correlation between the gun registry and a drop in gun-related suicides. The Squid countered with several studies that contadicted this, or at least suggested the subject was much more complex than cybercoma suggested. I simply juxtaposed the two posts because cybercome either did not see The Squid's post, or chose to ignore it. Either way, I was wondering how she reconciled the two.

I see - I've just had a quick look at your profile and note a heavy emphasis around gun registry related threads; that you have strong anti-registry position. I am surprised you would just do a drive-by within this thread without attempting to make your own points... from the two documents you presume to leverage (one dated 1998).

[cybercoma]

Just wanted to bump this since CC seemed to have missed it. Contrast with this....

Gun control leads suicide victims to choose other methods, which as I pointed out from the studies dramatically increases the failure rate. For gun suicides, 9 attempts out of 10 are fatal, that is reversed for all the other types combined. Gun control, of course, shouldn't be the only method for preventing suicides, but it does have an effect on the rate. Domestic violence researchers, as well, have shown it reduces threats, coercion, and domestic homicide, especially in rural areas. So the null hypothesis that gun control does nothing is wrong.

Edited January 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Oh and I'll admit I was taking liberties with the data by making assumptions; however, if you look at waldo's regression again, try to visualize the data leading up to 1997. Although the legislation was passed in 1995, it didn't come into effect until 1996. The effects of the registry legislation wouldn't be recorded in these statistics until at least 1997. If you visualize the data in this way 1991-1997, you can see that the regression would actually have a positive slope. This is why the studies from 1998 are meaningless. Admittedly, without much more data pre-dating 1991, the increasing trend is only an assumption. One would need suicide rates per 100,000 from at least the mid-80s to make that conclusion. There are studies that seem to corroborate this suggestion though. In any case, you can see how it appears that the trend may have indeed been an increasing suicide rate prior to the registry, while the overall trend line and more specifically the trend since 1997 has been a decreasing suicide rate. It decreased so dramatically, in fact, that it makes the overall trend a negative slope.

Edited January 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

Re-write this in comprehensible English and I might respond.

He writes it that way intentionally....I call it the waldo waltz. See various global warming threads.

[bush_cheney2004]

Suicide rates per 100,000 are up significantly since the 1960's in Canada, despite any attempt to pretend that recent flat or downward trends is a better circumstance. Since the percentage of suicides by firearms for the total age-sex data domain are down (for various reasons including legislated firearms restrictions), it is obvious that other methods have been employed for nonlethal and lethal suicide attempts to fill the gap.

[waldo]

He writes it that way intentionally....I call it the waldo waltz. See various global warming threads.

oh my! One would think you're taking this personal, hey? Is there a problem... did your charade blow up on you? As for climate change related threads, y'all come back now, ya hear?

[waldo]

Suicide rates per 100,000 are up significantly since the 1960's in Canada, despite any attempt to pretend that recent flat or downward trends is a better circumstance.

let's see... this is your third shift. 2000-2007 didn't quite work out for you - then you shifted to "from the 90s"... now, it's "since the 1960's". (by the by, what you're calling "recent" is, in fact, a downward trend right from the beginning of the data presented to you... a downward trend within the 90s... a downward trend within the 00s and, of course, a downward trend from 1991-2008. Almost a full 2 decades of a downward trend in Canada's suicide rate. Would you like segmented out per/decade trending plots, hey?

but why stop with the 60's... after all, you said you can claim anything! Hey now, weren't you the guy who just a few posts back tried to shift and back-peddle around presumptions of a changing population? Wonder if Canada's population has increased since the 60's? Any other changes since the 60's?

hey now, are you going to change the thread title to reflect "since the 60s"?