But Criminals Don't Follow Laws!

[crashhelmet]

I've been trying to research this in between my stuff to do here at work to either see if I'm right, or see if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. I just need to focus more attention to this.

What I found, was that prior to 1999, there was no database at all to track Murder-Suicides in the United States.
According to Murder-Suicide in the United States: 1999 - 2009
The study done by Peter Marzuk, cited in the Shinju report, was done by:

Epidemiologists Marzuk, Tardish
and Hirsch introduced a crude estimate of murder-suicides based on a short (1 week) survey
of murder-suicides in the 1980s (1). The authors used a Time magazine 7-day survey of
firearm murders that found 11 murder-suicide events (one event=one suicide and at least
one murder). That number was extrapolated to a year (1,000 to 1,500 dead annually) and to
the percentage of murders that were part of a murder-suicide (5%). FIGURE 2.1 was
constructed based on 5% of murders at the state level

The same study shows:

Between 1999 and 2007 in the United States (US) there were 6,003 murder-suicide
events, 154,755 murders and 279,540 suicides (see TABLE A.3 for more descriptive statistics
on murder-suicides from 1999 to 2007). The average annual rates per 100,000 were 0.23 for
murder-suicide, 5.86 for murder, and 10.85 for suicide. This paper describes temporal
relationships among the three events while taking into account unemployment and median
household income using US data by month.

So his numbers were on target. Or at least it would appear that nothing has changed in the ~20 years since he published his findings.

For the entire study:

Seven thousand four hundred forty-six (7,446) murder-suicide events
were captured for the United States (US) between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2009.
A total of 15,748 individuals died and 1,314 were injured in those events.

One line in this article that stuck out was

Murder-suicides only make up
approximately 4% of murders and 2% of suicides annually. Interestingly however, the results
from the current study were altered considerably once murder-suicides were aggregated into
murder and suicide counts (results not shown).

These numbers may be being looked at from different angles. The report I cited mentions often that distinguishing between a legitimate murder-suicide and murder that results in suicide isn't always factored in.

Interestingly however, the results
from the current study were altered considerably once murder-suicides were aggregated into
murder and suicide counts (results not shown). Only one cluster with all three events was
found when murder-suicide was aggregated into murder and suicide. Additionally, there were
clusters of murder/suicide in Washington state, murder and suicide clusters in Indiana and
Illinois, and 2 suicide clusters in California when previously there were no clusters in those
areas.

Is the Columbine massacre considered a murder-suicide in this study? It's not specifically mentioned in it at all. Would someone that goes "postal" be counted as well? Or is this simply someone that kills their spouse and then themself?

The number of victims is a little more than double the number of events. That doesn't leave much room for multiple victim events.

If we're comparing based on the number of events of murder-suicide vs the total number of suicides, I'm wrong. According to the information in these studies, they're pretty much equal.

If the numbers are, in fact, skewed because of the lack of classification, I may be right or I may still be wrong. As I said, more attention is needed and it's difficult to give while I'm working.

For those that want to do more reading, there is also:
American Roulette: Murder-Suicide in the United States

[Andara Bledin]

This does nothing but back up the fact that I said

You... quoted a single point of reference and then claimed that the single point somehow supports your statement regarding that point versus another point despite the fact that it does nothing of the sort.

I don't even know how you could come to that conclusion.

Murder/Suicide in the US was factored at 0.2-0.3 for every 100,000 people for 1992. Reports done for both the US and Europe came out to a rate of 0.2-0.3, which is the same rate. The rate of shinju in Japan was factored at 0.29, which, last I checked, is the same as 0.2-0.3.

In other words, for whatever reason, the per capita rate of people killing others and then killing themselves seems to be an unusually consistent figure despite any other circumstance. Just like I said the first time around.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

Except that your second statement is still unsupported, that is.

[crashhelmet]

OK. I've read it. The entire study is on Shinju, suicide with multiple people. In which the study says that:

Marzuk et al. reviewed the studies on suicide published in the United States over the past 30 years and found that the incidence of murder-suicide was 0.2 to 0.3 per 100,000 per 100,000. The overall suicide rate, which has been fairly stable over this period in the United States, was about 12. They estimated, therefore, that the portion of murder-suicide among all suicide was about 1.7 to 2.5 percent.

This does nothing but back up the fact that I said

But you know what? Their suicides typically only take out the one that's suicidal. Very, very seldomly does it take another life with them. not like here in the U.S. where we have high numbers of murder suicides.

[crashhelmet]

I was originally saying that a study that's nearly 20 years old is probably pointless now because things have changed so much. You didn't like that, so I asked for the study then, with which you scoffed at the idea of having to present it.

If you are going to cite something as your "rebuttal" then you can provide the source for it. otherwise, it looks like nothing more than a strawman or a failed attempt to hold a healthy debate.

As I said, I can cite personal experience and knowledge and it's just as valuable as you saying there was a study without giving any proof.

Thank you for posting the study. As I said before, I will provide either my agreement or rebuttal towards it after I'm finished reading it.

[Andara Bledin]

So, since you have nothing to back up your own assertion, you devolve to the personal attack. Research and avoidance of unsupported declarative statements make for stronger debate.

CULTURAL DYNAMICS AND THE UNCONSCIOUS IN SUICIDE IN JAPAN

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

My comment was the rebuttal. You're the one that claimed that Japanese suicides involve fewer murders than US suicides. You come up with a citation.

^-.-^

You cited a source. I can make up bullshit "studies" too.

I can also cite personal experience from living in Japan for 2 years as well as multiple trips there as a better knowledge and understanding of their culture than your possibly non-existent study.

[Andara Bledin]

My comment was the rebuttal. You're the one that claimed that Japanese suicides involve fewer murders than US suicides. You come up with a citation.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

Of course. We'll just go with the gut feeling based on no data at all over the potentially out-of-date information.

That makes so much sense.

^-.-^

Fine then. Please provide the source of your study and I will base an agreement or rebuttal off of it.

[Andara Bledin]

I won't bother to ask for the source of that study because a lot has changed since the mid-90s. The drug culture, the psychiatric field, the common mentality of our society, as well as others has changed so much.

Of course. We'll just go with the gut feeling based on no data at all over the potentially out-of-date information.

That makes so much sense.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

It keeps coming back to this false and dangerous dichotomy.

If someone wants to kill others as an act of outrage/protest/notoriety, they will find the most convenient means and they will make their goal a reality. Taking away one of what are actually dozens of choices will just make them move on to the next choice.

The whole idea that they'll be stopped at the very first hurdle and just give up is naive and belies a complete lack of understanding regarding human nature.

I'm not talking about homicidal psycho/sociopaths. I'm talking about people that snap because of a singular event and get that one single idea, fueled by emotion. The ones that "Go Postal." Not the ones that keep manifestos, plot, plan, and organize some major event the likes of Aurora or Columbine.

This is not actually true.

A study of suicide and murder/suicide undertaken in the mid-90s found that the percentage of suicides that include the murder of another person (either wholly unconsenting or two young to do so) was fairly consistent.

Apparently, despite differences in means, motive, opportunity, attitude, and general suicide rate, the same percentage of those will be murder/suicides regardless of any other factors.

The primary difference is in the relationship of the parties; In the US, the majority are husband killing wife then self. In Japan and the UK, the majority are mothers killing their children.

^-.-^

I won't bother to ask for the source of that study because a lot has changed since the mid-90s. The drug culture, the psychiatric field, the common mentality of our society, as well as others has changed so much.

[Andara Bledin]

And if we limit their access to those tools, their decisions are either stopped or changed. Without a gun, that worker fired after 27 years at the post office might just go home and hang himself or stick his head in the oven. Not grab a gun, go back to the Post office and shoot everyone.

It keeps coming back to this false and dangerous dichotomy.

If someone wants to kill others as an act of outrage/protest/notoriety, they will find the most convenient means and they will make their goal a reality. Taking away one of what are actually dozens of choices will just make them move on to the next choice.

The whole idea that they'll be stopped at the very first hurdle and just give up is naive and belies a complete lack of understanding regarding human nature.

But you know what? Their suicides typically only take out the one that's suicidal. Very, very seldomly does it take another life with them. not like here in the U.S. where we have high numbers of murder suicides.

This is not actually true.

A study of suicide and murder/suicide undertaken in the mid-90s found that the percentage of suicides that include the murder of another person (either wholly unconsenting or two young to do so) was fairly consistent.

Apparently, despite differences in means, motive, opportunity, attitude, and general suicide rate, the same percentage of those will be murder/suicides regardless of any other factors.

The primary difference is in the relationship of the parties; In the US, the majority are husband killing wife then self. In Japan and the UK, the majority are mothers killing their children.

^-.-^

[crashhelmet]

I said this:

They can still buy a gun if it makes them feel safer. But they should also call the police, get support from friends/family/coworkers, go to a shelter if needed.

There's a lot you can do during that time.

And some of you keep focusing on the part I bolded. You all seemed to ignore the part I underlined

If you're in fear for your life/safety, don't sit in an empty house like some horror-movie cliche. Don't walk around alone at night. Have someone escort you to your car after work. Have someone stay with you. Stay with someone else. Leave town. Buy a dog. Do something, anything, while you wait for that background check to clear if you feel the need to own a gun to protect yourself.

Hell... Take the time so spend down at a firing range to learn HOW to properly use a gun.

This "OMG I NEED A GUN" mentality is exactly what's wrong with our society in the whole gun debate.

[crashhelmet]

NOT from a store. This is my point. There is no contradiction because I specified which were stores and which were not from stores.

STORES can ONLY sell firearms to people with NICS checks or CCW card holders. (the CCW is proof that you've been checked)

I'm not arguing stores here. I'm arguing your denial of the fact that people can buy through independent parties without any kind of background check. Most commonly at Gun Shows.

I'm not talking about someone walking into their neighborhood gun store and buying without a check. I'm not talking about someone going to a gun show and buying from a dealer. I'm talking about someone buying a weapon from Joe Carpenter, selling from his private collection.

[crashhelmet]

In a defense vid I saw (hosted by a Sworn LEO) hollow points are actually considered "safety rounds". Cos regular bullets (I call them paper punchers) are more apt to go right through your target and hit someone else too!

A perosn shot with a FMJ round is more likely to survive, especially if the round passes through. A JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point for those that don't know the acronym) are designed to expand on impact. Where a FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) would leave an exit hole, a JHP would leave a gaping hole and do equal damage to your innards. it's why they're banned by the GC.

Thing is you keep going to the gun in this. Not everyone picks guns.

Consider this - japan has one of the highest suicide rates. On wiki (take with salt) it's reported as "the leading cause of death in men aged 20-44".
In 2009 the death rate was 23,472.

That's pretty fucking high.

But it's not guns they're turning too. It's trains, jumping, OD etc.

You're right. The extremely high suicide rate in Japan is very, VERY low when guns are factored in. That's because they have STRICT gun laws and outright bans.

They also have a culture that works their people to alcoholism, suicide, and other mental issues.

But you know what? Their suicides typically only take out the one that's suicidal. Very, very seldomly does it take another life with them. not like here in the U.S. where we have high numbers of murder suicides.

So the real reason people use guns? People use the tools they already have. Nothing more than that.
The tools don't MAKE them take action - they just grab the tools they have when they CHOOSE to take action.

And if we limit their access to those tools, their decisions are either stopped or changed. Without a gun, that worker fired after 27 years at the post office might just go home and hang himself or stick his head in the oven. Not grab a gun, go back to the Post office and shoot everyone.

I suspect part of the issue is that people see the gun use here and think "Oh if the gun hadn't existed this wouldn't have ended this way!" but that's really not true. If someone is that desperate they'll just use whatever tool they have.

Read my last reply for this too.