Why is Canada's Suicide Rate Higher

[cybercoma]

Suicide rates per 100,000 are up significantly since the 1960's in Canada

Now you've moved the goalposts to the 1960s. You're a joke.

Show me the data for the suicide rate from the 1960s until today then because the only thing you've provided was data between 1991-2008. Yet you're making claims about data 3 decades prior now.

The suicide rate in the 1960s and 70s was quite high in Quebec during the Quiet Revolution. Unusually high actually. That seemed to fit with the definition of anomic suicide. I'm not sure what the national data looks like, but I imagine the circumstances in Quebec would be reflected in it.

So put up the numbers. I suspect that you're wrong.

Here's a related news article that repeats everything I've been saying:

High suicide rate linked to Quiet Revolution

Psychologists have long been at a loss to explain why Quebec's suicide rate is one of the highest in the world, but it's possible the phenomenon is an indirect consequence of the Quiet Revolution, former premier Bernard Landry speculated yesterday

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=13660d06-de2d-416c-b1b1-d0f968ea6a84&k=59659

Edited January 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Of course, I wouldn't expect an American to understand anything about Quebec society.

Edited January 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[prairiechickin]

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.

Clearly you've had training in statistics. I haven't, and have no desire to learn. All I can see from "waldo's regression", whatever the hell that is, is that the line was headed downward from 1990 on, which was five years before registration. All I can tell from your paragraph here is that you're making a lot of assumptions. I don't know stats, but I have done a fair amount of historic economic analysis, and I know one can wiggle those numbers around to support nearly any argument. Hence my distain for stats, which provides a lot more wiggle room with a lot more obtuse language that necessarily leaves the average reader incapable of assessing its validity. So I wasn't interested in joining this debate, I just thought the links provided by The Squid suggested this topic was much more complex than you were allowing, and I wondered why you chose to ignore that particular post.

[cybercoma]

I didn't see it the first time around, so thanks for reposting it.

[prairiechickin]

You're welcome, that's all I was trying to do. I don't know why waldo got in such a flap.

[cybercoma]

You're welcome, that's all I was trying to do. I don't know why waldo got in such a flap.

Eh... these conversations can be confrontational, so you begin reading everything as though it's a fight.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now you've moved the goalposts to the 1960s. You're a joke.

Show me the data for the suicide rate from the 1960s until today then because the only thing you've provided was data between 1991-2008. Yet you're making claims about data 3 decades prior now.

Why? You have already declared that goalposts were moved, despite the documented record for suicides in Canada.

The suicide rate in the 1960s and 70s was quite high in Quebec during the Quiet Revolution. Unusually high actually. That seemed to fit with the definition of anomic suicide. I'm not sure what the national data looks like, but I imagine the circumstances in Quebec would be reflected in it.

I agree...you aren't sure of anything here.

So put up the numbers. I suspect that you're wrong.

Here's a related news article that repeats everything I've been saying:

Nope..I'm not wrong. The record shows that firearms were used less and less. I don't know why you keep denying that.

Edited January 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

I don't know what the national data is since the 60s because you've yet to provide it. Still waiting for you to support your new position, since waldo and I have thoroughly destroyed everything else you've said up to this point.

[bush_cheney2004]

but why stop with the 60's...

I have already proposed going back to 1763 if need be.

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

No, as there was never any such restriction. Clearly Canadians have been committing suicide before 2000 or 1991. Now they do it more than the Americans, because they are happier.

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't know what the national data is since the 60s because you've yet to provide it. Still waiting for you to support your new position, since waldo and I have thoroughly destroyed everything else you've said up to this point.

Yet you can't find data for the 1960's? Interesting....I just found several sources with Google.

My position remains unchanged...Canadians use other methods other than firearms in greater frequency...more than before.

Edited January 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[cybercoma]

I'm sure you did. What you haven't done is substantiate your claims.

Edited January 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm sure you did. What you haven't done is substantiate your claims.

OK boss...here I be substantiatin' 'fo ya cuz yu ain't figgered it owt yit:

* Rich et al. analyzed suicide rates and methods in Toronto and Ontario for five years before and after the enactment of the 1977 gun control legislation. [20] It was concluded that gun control legislation may have led to a decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by other "immediately fatal" suicide methods.[21]

* Lester and Leenaars examined data on rates of suicide and firearm suicide for an eight year period before and after the passage of the 1977 firearms legislation to assess its association with suicide rates. [22] The authors concluded that there was a significant decreasing trend after the passage of the legislation on the firearm suicide rate in Canada and firearm suicides as a percentage of all suicides.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/suicide-eng.htm

[cybercoma]

The following report shows the suicide rate from 1979 to 1998 hovering right around 15. They even state specifically that "The rate remained fairly stable between 1979 and 1998,

reaching a high of 18 in 1983."

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

Waldo and I have already shown that there has been a downward trend in the last decade. The suicide rate is now hovering down around 10-11.

So, looks like you're wrong again.

I'll get back to you when I dig up reliable stats from 1960-1979.

[cybercoma]

OK boss...here I be substantiatin' 'fo ya cuz yu ain't figgered it owt yit:

* Rich et al. analyzed suicide rates and methods in Toronto and Ontario for five years before and after the enactment of the 1977 gun control legislation. [20] It was concluded that gun control legislation may have led to a decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by other "immediately fatal" suicide methods.[21]

* Lester and Leenaars examined data on rates of suicide and firearm suicide for an eight year period before and after the passage of the 1977 firearms legislation to assess its association with suicide rates. [22] The authors concluded that there was a significant decreasing trend after the passage of the legislation on the firearm suicide rate in Canada and firearm suicides as a percentage of all suicides.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/suicide-eng.htm

That's all very nice, but what does the 1970s gun legislation have to do with the legislation passed in the 90s?

Edited January 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

That's all very nice, but what does the 1970s gun legislation have to do with the legislation passed in the 90s?

Ummm...errr...they are both "gun legislation". Sorry if that upsets your narrow focus. Some of us are older than you.

[cybercoma]

Very good, BC. It's gun legislation. Gun legislation that did nothing for the suicide rate, unlike the gun legislation that was passed in the 90s. Remember when you started this thread and were talking about statistics from the last decade, before trotting out stats from the 90s? Now you're talking about how ineffectual gun legislation was in the 70s. Do yourself a favour and stop trolling because it's making you look very foolish.

[bush_cheney2004]

Very good, BC. It's gun legislation. Gun legislation that did nothing for the suicide rate, unlike the gun legislation that was passed in the 90s. Remember when you started this thread and were talking about statistics from the last decade, before trotting out stats from the 90s?

No, you made the initial mistake of assuming that the data domain was limited by the OP, when clearly there were suicides and gun legislation before the 90's. That's your problem...not mine.

Now you're talking about how ineffectual gun legislation was in the 70s. Do yourself a favour and stop trolling because it's making you look very foolish.

This doesn't make any sense, as clearly the RCMP cites demonstrate otherwise. You are arguing with yourself.

[bush_cheney2004]

Now...as I was saying before being interrupted by the usual hecklers:

Two separate studies, in Canada and Australia, conducted in conjunction with more restrictive firearms legislation, demonstrated that while said legislation showed a decrease in firearms suicide, other methods such as hanging increased. In Australia, the overall rate of suicide continued along an increasing trend, not decreasing until measures specifically aimed to provide support for those intent on suicide were implemented.[16][17][18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearms

[bush_cheney2004]

More fun with numbers...note the increasing trend for suicides by methods other than firearms as the firearms suicide rate declines for the period 1974 - 1999:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NYgn5SMFJAQJ:uwf.edu/hlsd/PMS%2520Available%2520Guns%2520Suicide%2520Homicide%2520Murder%2520Canada.pdf+canada+suicide+methods+firearms&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShzelfryZEapdRHjZPimCDUesWUrqoI0oAEGG5Vaeuc4fzcGk2ymRc3-InIpfqo3VtC0z89hcpt3tc0l8lQ4dRy_Z26GGEw7C7Ocm5SjQiLH1S3RR9yCaoCSZFuGKH0geedocuI&sig=AHIEtbSfTxDSQiq0-ZKIybs4ygSRE9hljw

Edited January 12, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[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?

Remember when you started this thread and were talking about statistics from the last decade, before trotting out stats from the 90s?

No, you made the initial mistake of assuming that the data domain was limited by the OP, when clearly there were suicides and gun legislation before the 90's. That's your problem...not mine.

data domain limited by the OP? The data 'domain' has only changed per your shifting claims and you shifting the data domain... and each of your changes/shifts in claims and data domain was brought upon by the sound/complete debunking of the claims you've shifted from.

[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.

More fun with numbers...note the increasing trend for suicides by methods other than firearms as the firearms suicide rate declines for the period 1974 - 1999:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NYgn5SMFJAQJ:uwf.edu/hlsd/PMS%2520Available%2520Guns%2520Suicide%2520Homicide%2520Murder%2520Canada.pdf+canada+suicide+methods+firearms&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShzelfryZEapdRHjZPimCDUesWUrqoI0oAEGG5Vaeuc4fzcGk2ymRc3-InIpfqo3VtC0z89hcpt3tc0l8lQ4dRy_Z26GGEw7C7Ocm5SjQiLH1S3RR9yCaoCSZFuGKH0geedocuI&sig=AHIEtbSfTxDSQiq0-ZKIybs4ygSRE9hljw

each of your shifts of the data 'domain' from the 00s, to post-90s... to post-60s, was brought upon by the sound debunking of each of your respective domain associated claims. With your latest claim, "since the 60s", you failed to provide substantiation... you provided no data to support said claim that, as you stated as quoted above, "Suicide rates per 100,000 are up significantly since the 1960's".

as you say with this your latest quoted reply, "fun with numbers"... in lieu of you failing to provide specific post-1960s data to directly support your claim, I will quite gladly use this latest data you've provided (1974-1999) to, in turn, present you an associated trendline - here: oh... another negative trend - imagine!

so far, as we've moved along with you shifting the data domain, we've covered off the period from 1974-2008... more than 35 years. Notwithstanding your claim doesn't stand-up for this period, one wonders what salient point you might presume to make with a 35 year old data reference, let alone the relevance from drawing even further back, right to, "since the 60s". Oh wait, that's right, you have no real point - other than to showcase your petulance.

[cybercoma]

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.

[waldo]

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.

my only reservation in combining outright is that, typically, Statistics Canada data is processed and presented as 'age-specific'; i.e., StatsCan leverages it's other available databases (like Birth, Death and Vital Statistics databases), in combination with its mortality databases, to follow a standard statistical process and present per population results (i.e., per 100,000 population), that adjusts the population for considerations of higher versus lower proportions of young versus old persons. As I read BC_2004's latest study presenting 1974-1999 data, the study authors acknowledge using a StatsCan mortality database, without regard to any other databases... presumably without regard to concerns of age-specificity.

in any case, it was an easy/quick step to combine, outright - here: of course, we see a rather significant increase in the negative trending slope - oh my!

[prairiechickin]

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.

[Guest Manny]

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.

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