AP Photo/Danny Johnston
A semi-automatic handgun and a holster are displayed at a North Little Rock, Ark., gun shop.
A semi-automatic handgun and a holster are displayed at a North Little Rock, Ark., gun shop.
In the late 1950s in England and Wales, people
began switching from heating their stoves with a gas containing carbon
monoxide to one that didn’t. Over the next two decades, the suicide rate
dropped—a decline attributed in a landmark study to the decline in death by carbon monoxide poisoning.
Forty years later, the Sri Lankan government began to restrict the use
of extremely toxic pesticides that had been commonly ingested to commit
suicide. The suicide rate in that country dropped by half. In the United States, gun ownership dropped over a 22-year period ending in 2002, and the suicide rate declined, too.
When people talk about preventing suicide, the
conversation usually centers on detecting and treating suicidal
behavior, but a growing body of evidence points to a far simpler and
more effective way to save thousands of lives: simply remove the means
by which people commit suicide. In the United States, that means
firearms; half of all suicides are committed with a gun.
But despite dovetailing streams of evidence
from history and public health research that removing guns from the
houses of people at risk of suicide could save thousands of lives, some
critics have been unpersuaded. Skeptics argue that perhaps gun owners,
and the people who live with them, are just more suicidal than the
regular population.
A new study published by Dr. Matthew Miller,
associate professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public
Health, offers powerful evidence to the contrary, showing that while
rates of suicide attempts are virtually identical in states with high
and low gun ownership, the number of gun deaths from suicide are four times higher in states with high gun ownership,
where about half the people live in homes with guns. Overall suicide
rates are also higher, but the rate of suicides that did not use guns
was not.
“If you look back to cigarette smoking and
lung cancer and the history of the resistance that was put up and the
uncertainty that was manufactured by the cigarette industry, it is
almost like a blueprint for many of the arguments that pro-gun forces
have made in the US,” Miller said. “But the evidence has really gotten
over the last 10 years or so to be overwhelming.”
Suicide comes with a stigma that means it
rarely gets the attention it deserves, as the 10th most common cause of
death in the United States and the second most common cause of death of
people under age 40. My colleague, Leon Neyfakh, wrote an important
story earlier this year calling attention to the remarkable fact that there are nearly twice as many gun deaths by suicide than by homicide, and three out of every five people who are killed by a gun are dying by their own hand.
Far from advocating for the abolition of gun
ownership or even gun control, researchers such as Miller argue that
lives could be saved by removing guns from the home when a family member
is depressed or angry or at risk of self-harm. That’s because suicide
attempts with other means are often unsuccessful.
In the new study, published in August in the
American Journal of Epidemiology, he and colleagues point out a striking
statistic. In 2010, 22,000 people attempted suicide with a gun, and all
but 2,000 were successful. If one out of every 10 of those people used
something other than a gun, about 1,900 additional people would have
lived.
“This is not about legislating our way out of
it,” Miller said. “If I have a kid who is moody and having problems or a
husband or wife who just lost a job and is being issued divorce papers,
or just going through a rough time, the best thing I can do to reduce
that person’s immediate risk of death from suicide” is to take guns out
of the house.
What’s needed now, Miller said, is more research on suicide and guns. President Obama called for $10 million be spent on public health firearm research in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, and Miller thinks it is important that the brunt of the public health burden, suicide, receives a good share of that funding.
“My feeling is the stigma that attaches itself
to suicide is something that has kept us from speaking more objectively
and commonly about the ways to prevent it,” Miller said. “The idea that
you can prevent it is now seen as entirely within the mental health
arena, and that’s problematic, because there are many good reasons to
try to prevent mental illness and treat it, including reducing suicidal
behavior. But we haven’t really been very good at doing that.”
No comments:
Post a Comment