Would a "Death with Dignity" ruling reduce gun deaths?
Asked by
LuckyGuy (
43691
)
October 6th, 2015
I just heard that over half of gun deaths in the US are suicides – and those numbers are counted in the statistics quoted for gun violence.
“Of the almost 31,000 firearm deaths in the United States during 2005, 55 percent were suicides, according to stats from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
That is a shockingly large number! For the sake of this question let’s say 30% of the deaths were related to depression and 25% were people who just had enough and were ready to end their suffering.
Could the sponsors of a comprehensive “Death with Dignity” law claim the law’s passage simultaneously reduced gun violence by 25%?
Are there reputable studies on this, preferably overseen by the likes of NIH or CDC (Not NRA, not Anti-Gun, not political groups, etc.)?
Do other countries that claim low gun deaths not include suicides?
If a country has no guns but has an annual suicide rate of 16,000 (population adjusted) should that be included in the data?
I don’t want this to become an argument for or against guns. I am just trying to understand the data.
Because without data all you have is an opinion.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
22 Answers
I would think that it would but do not have the statistics to back it up. Given the choice between blowing my brains out and going out peacefully in my “sleep” I think I would choose the latter.
Yes. But that would let the bastards win in grinding you down.
@rojo If it ever got so bad that I decided to end it, I too would prefer the DWD route.
I also heard that a shockingly large number of car accidents are potential suicides. I wish I had the data.
Those suicides are not those covered by Death With Dignity laws, which are more about people with terminal illnesses that still have all their faculties.
The best way to reduce that horrific suicide number is to get rid of easy access to guns. That would be a big help in reducing the ten veterans a day that are committing suicides.
And, it would prevent incidents like the 11 year old kid that killed his 8 year old neighbor yesterday.
@LuckyGuy When I read your response my first thought was suicide by Driving While Drunk, particularly with your next statement. My initial reaction was WTF! but re-reading it I got the correct interpretation.
I just found another stat: in 2010 there were 31,076 gun deaths, 62% were suicides.
If the guns were magically gone would we suddenly get 19,000 (62% of 31000) more fatal car accidents and “accidental” drug overdoses?
Everyone would like death with dignity. The name itself is misleading.
It most definitely take some ammo away from the anti gun nut people.
If I had a painful terminal illness I would prefer a more gentler way than blowing my brains out, but if my only option is a bullet or endless suffering than a bullet it is.
Anyway to answer the question, a suicidal/depressed person is not supposed to be eligible for assisted suicide, if there should be such a thing in the first place.
Those striking suicide statistics are there for exactly the same reason as the mass murder records. The gun is extremely effective as well as efficient at what it is designed to do. The question of who’s life is to be extinguished misses the point. If you’re serious about killing yourself or others and live in a land of 250–300 million guns, what other results are we to expect? My argument here is not about advocating for the confiscation of guns. It’s too late. My point is that the demand here is apparently insatiable since there is absolutely no indication of any reduction in the manufacture or sale of weapons. The casualty statistics MUST rise, and the pressure for the expansion of open carry laws WILL increase as gunplay becomes ever more routine, and we return to the days of the frontier. We in this country made the mistake of thinking the horrific firearms statistics characterizing the inner cities of the country would remain confined to the ghetto. It appears we are to undergo a reversal of what amounted to the settling of the country where a place was regarded safe or civilized when the local ordinances prohibited the possession of guns, and the laws were enforced. The fact is that guns are so comparatively cheap and numerous as compared to 1870, that no legal remedy is going to save us. How’s that for optimism?
@flo Unfortunately, not everyone would like to go peacefully. There really are people out there that want to go out with a bang for a big impact on those they leave behind and/or the media.
Maybe, in the case of terminal illness but, not everyone that wants to check out has a terminal illness. People kill themselves for a lot of reasons, health, age, financial. This recession has seen a major spike in middle age suicide and the highest rates of suicide occur in teens, young adults and then again in peoples 60’s.
CA. just passed right to die legislation, Gov. Brown signed the bill in the last couple days here.
I am thrilled. If I were to check out early I’d go for an overdose of narcotics or death by carbon monoxide. Peaceful and non-messy. If people want to shoot themlelves that;s their choice, just don;t take me with you. The real issue is these crazy random shooters that take out innocent others instead of just blowing their own brains out.
This is very interesting. It reminds of several years ago when real estate plummeted and foreclosures were the news of the day. I argued that the reports should have to specify how many foreclosures were primary residences, and how many were second/investment properties. I knew a whole bunch of people who dumped their investment properties.
Suicide should not count as gun violence in my opinion; although, I am going to say that fewer people would succeed in their suicide attempts if guns were not available.
I think right to die laws would reduce gun suicides only a fraction. I’m pretty sure the people who use guns to kill themselves tend to be men who are not terminally ill. They are men who are usually depressed. That’s my guess with what I do know about suicides, but the data might prove me wrong.
Yeah, no, right to die laws don’t just let people kill themselves. They exist for those who have terminal illnesses and who don’t want to wither away and suffer through what the illness would eventually do to them. If you don’t have a terminal illness, you’re not allowed to use assisted suicide.
So, the short answer to the question is: No, it wouldn’t shrink the numbers in any significant way.
I find it quite amusing that the biggest concern regarding 16,000 people committing suicide is that it’s making the gun death figures look bad.
@Lightlyseared I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying.
I think it’s more interesting that a site full of liberals who tend to want stricter gun laws are willing to say that the gun violence statistic might be overstated in America. That statistic serves those who want to make guns more difficult to acquire.
The only thing that will reduce gun violence in the U.S. is the magical disappearanc of all guns—no, make that weapons—from the face of the earth.
My understanding is that the California law the Governor signed requires two physicians to agree that an individual desiring suicide has six months or less to live and that they are not mentally ill. Severe depression is a mental illness. Even if there were no guns, there are many ways for one to kill themselves; an ex-girlfriend intentionally took an overdose and my sister hung herself.
Hundreds of thousands of people need professional help with their illness, but the number of psychiatrists and psychologist is insufficient to meet this need and many mentally ill could not afford this help is it were available. If state and federal governments provided funds for such services, the number of professionals would increase. Sadly, funding is being decreased, not increased.
Gun violence is gun violence. Either way, someone has to clean the brains/blood off of the wall.
My friend had to clean up his father’s brain and blood splatter after his father’s suicide. I bet he would categorize suicide by gun as gun violence.
I’m willing to bet that the vast majority (well over your estimate of 30%) of the suicides are mental health related. I have never heard of a person of sound mind and terminally ill body killing himself by gun. I have a very hard time believing that DWD has anything to do with a reduction in gun deaths.
“Three states have concluded that not all suicides should be prevented. In Oregon, Washington and Vermont “Death with Dignity” laws allow terminally ill, mentally competent residents to ask for prescription drugs to hasten their deaths. Such laws have no discernible effect on unassisted suicide: from 1999 to 2010 suicides among those aged 35–64 increased 49% in Oregon, which has allowed terminally ill patients to end their lives since 1997, compared with a 28% increase nationally.” Link
@LuckyGuy
Aren’t there statistics from Oregon, Washington and Vermont (the three states with a track record from DWD laws) which could shed some light upon whether your premise has any validity or not?
I have no idea where to look for those numbers but I would think that if your premise is correct that it should be reflected in some way by those numbers.
At the very least, there should be SOME REDUCTION in the suicides by gun, no matter how little. I doubt it would be as high as 30% but would certainly love to be surprised.
As others have mentioned, many of those gun suicides are due to depression and easy availability of guns rather than a diagnosed terminal illness.
Still, it would be interesting to take a look at gun suicide statistics in states with DWD laws. And those states where those laws have been in effect the longest should have the greatest percentage of reduced gun suicides if your premise is correct.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
