There are many factors contributing to suicide rate. Other studies have confirmed that.

Or rather -the- end for some.

A lot of GC-style folks insist that making guns harder to access will decrease the suicide rate. They're right, in that the suicide rate for guns will drop; that does not mean, though, that those same people will spontaneously decide to just abort a suicide attempt solely because they can't get a gun.

That's my point when I say that this issue is much larger and more complex than simply "Gunz".

Suicides may be up due to an external factor that has nothing to do with guns. Reducing guns will reduce the suicide rate from what it would be otherwise.

To prove your claim you'd have to take a state that was similar in demographics that hadn't made the change in gun law and compare suicide rates over the same time.

The article's also paywalled, so I have no idea what it actually says.

Missouri
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html

CT
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/09000.html


Also, the article shouldn't be paywalled. It must be a popup. I'm not subscribed, or paid, or whatever. It may be an issue on your end; a popup or something.

Data-driven methods were used to model the effects of permit-to-purchase (PTP) laws on suicide in Connecticut and Missouri.

PTP law enactment associated with protective effects against firearm suicides in Connecticut

PTP law repeal associated with increased risk of firearm suicides in Missouri

Findings consistent with previous research linking firearm availability and firearm suicide risk

The table clearly shows that overall, the increase in firearm suicides in Missouri was part of a trend; extrapolation even based on the control was on the rise. The removal of PTP was only incidental. The same -could- be said of the CT trend, except that again, the trend only follows what was already a pattern at the time. Ignoring the "Synthetic control" part of that graph, as it's functionally based on only speculative datasets, the rise of non-firearm deaths and the fall of firearm-deaths in suicide means rise and fall respectively at almost identical rates. This indicates a direct correlation; fewer firearm deaths, more overall deaths rising at a rate consistent and inversely proportional to lowered firearm deaths.

That is a pretty clear example of "Replacement."

It's not a "speculative dataset", it's a regression which shows what you'd expect in the state all else being equal.

Connecticut shows that there is no replacement going on: for younger ages in particular a fall in gun suicide occurred which was not at all compensated by a rise in non-gun suicide. That's Figure 1.

"Overall this is, because for one aspect of the data it's true."

You're picking people from a 10-year span of life out of a potential 80 years and saying, because there's no replacement -in that one group alone-, there's no replacement at all. I can grant that in the 20-29 data, there's no replacement, but overall there is.

Come on, mate. We were doing good, but now you're going the route of intellectual dishonesty.

This paper shows evidence that it doesn't, and overall, there's no evidence for it.

You're looking at 20-29 and saying "This must apply to all demographics."

I'm looking at the overall data and saying "The 20-29 could be an outlier given the rest of the study."

C'mon, mate. We're never going to make progress if we can't agree on even such a simple thing as "Guns aren't the problem." We're arguing over an object when it comes to saving lives; we should be on the same team here and we're arguing semantics.

... that also would invalidate the premise of other OPs in GD and elsewhere that seek to compare them, yes?

If the states are not good candidates for comparison, then that should be true independent of personal viewpoints, yes?

for economics and demographics.

You can get the rates by adding together the rates in figure 1.

CT Firearm suicide rate for age 20-29 is about 6 per 100,000 in 1995 and about 3 per 100,000 in 2005.

CT Non-firearm suicide rate for age 20-29 is about 7 per 100,000 in 1995 and about 7 per 100,000 in 2005.

The total suicide rate for age 20-29 fell by about 3 per 100,000 over those 10 years.

CT Firearm suicide rate for all ages is about 4 per 100,000 in 1995 and about 3 per 100,000 in 2005.

CT Non-firearm suicide rate for all ages is about 5 per 100,000 in 1995 and about 5.5 per 100,000 in 2005.

The total suicide rate fell by about 0.5 per 100,000.

The highest at-risk of CT suicides isn't the 20-29 demographic but the 1-19 demographic and the 40-60 demographic. That's why I casually disregarded that table; it's very clearly a push-graph, designed to emphasize only one isolated and outlying sample of the demographic.

OK.

It's an Outlier; like a poll saying Trump has a 95% chance of winning. Outliers, when taken from an overall whole and used as isolated certifications as truth, are nothing more than propaganda.

The overall CT data doesn't show any evidence for replacement. Over the 10 year period suicide deaths dropped for the whole population, particularly vs the synthetic control, and very much so for age 20-29, when people typically first get guns.

The overall CT data offers a commensurate rise in non-firearm suicides overall in comparison to an equal decrease in overall firearm suicides. That's -overall-, not just 20-29. Looking solely at the 20-29 data and treating it as proof of concept for the entire rest of the data set is not proper analysis.

To quote a different source,

The overall CT suicide rate decreases by about 0.5 per 100,000 over that 10 year period, and a lot more versus the synthetic control, which is the proper statistical comparison.

Can't believe it took me this long to find...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/252253093/Statistics-Summary

Anyways, as you can see about a third of the way down that summary, the table shows that despite the addition of the BGC law in 1995, the overall occurance for suicides remains roughly plateaued, while only the "suicide by gun" category (outlined in blue) shows any marked decrease in overall effectivity. What this means is that yes, firearm suicides do drop when you institute a BGC system, but those same people are still both willing and able to kill themselves. In fact, the leading cause of suicide in CT is by hanging, with over 61% of suicides occuring in that manner. Comparing the numbers from 2002 to the numbers of 2012, you can see a correlating decrease in gun suicides and an increase in hanging suicides (though slightly fewer in number, likely since it's probably not a 1:1 ratio going from gun to the noose).

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf


That is a replacement effect in action. Instead of using a gun, people are using a noose, among other objects.

They dropped for a while in the Clinton era and began rising in the Bush era

Absolute numbers, of course, are an inappropriate measure, since the population is still growing

and suicide...that's your jump. You have nothing to substaniate that correlation.

And clearly you're not responding to them just as you're not responding to the point I made...

CT laws, once enacted, lowered the gun suicide rate overall. Citing the same study, it can be seen that there is an equal and inversely proportional rate increase in overall suicide rates, barring one very specific subset of citizens (The 20-29.)

The post I linked to, the CT one that you questioned, does not in fact have any statement in relation to strict firearm ownership. The jump is indeed mine, since I saw both headlines; one saying CT's gun laws reduced suicides, and one that says CT's overall suicide rate is up. One of those two things must be false. Hence, this thread (and more particularly the subthread above.)