What you're telling me is unless the study can conclusively PROVE the drug CAUSED the cancer risk, that you'd gladly take that drug, and be happy that the drug trials merely showed a 'correlation' but no 'cause.' I highly doubt that. What rational people would do (assuming the drug came to market) is weight that massive increased cancer risk with the benefits of the drug. If it was for pesky headaches, only idiots would take the drug. If the drug cured HIV, maybe some would take it.
What they show is the ratio - [people dead by suicide]/population goes UP for gun owners."Successfully" doesn't belong in the same category as "more likely". What these studies prove is that guns provide a clear and easy path for those who wish to end their lives to do so. They do not show that people are more likely to attempt.
Attempts isn't the relevant stat. It's DEAD PEOPLE/population. Those who use guns are more likely to be dead after the attempt. About 98% of those who try overdoses are not dead after the attempt. Most of those who try and fail do not later successfully kill themselves. They get treatment, help, the crisis passes and they move on with life. With a gun, there is usually no ability to get treated because they are DEAD.The odds are about 25:1 for unsuccessful attempts. That means for every 2 people who killed themselves, 50 people tried. About half of all successful attempts are completed with a gun, so out of 50 suicide attempts (and 2 completions), 1 was the result of a gun. What that tells me is that guns are quite effective as a chosen method... not that they have anything to do with an increased incidence of attempts, i.e. you aren't at any higher risk of committing suicide if you don't already want to commit suicide.
Gun owners are more likely to DIE from suicide than non gun owners. That's what the studies show.It is a dishonest conflation to say increased ability to do the deed is the same as increased desire of doing the deed, which is why it's inappropriate to call it an "increased risk."
You can use Google and follow links. The cites were there. If you care, you can find the papers. If not, fine. Whatever.No, I mean the actual papers. I want access to the papers themselves. Methodology. Raw data. Not a two liner half assed abstract.
Again - the statistic of interest is #Dead by suicide/population. The ratio is higher for gun owners than for non-gun owners. The ONLY question is WHY. If it's not the gun itself, then something about gun owners other than the gun causes this result.They aren't at greater risk of suicide; they are more likely to successfully complete their attempt. To claim they are at greater risk of suicide is to imply causation without separating attempts from the total number. I mean, if we assume gun ownership leads to a greater risk of being in the subgroup "completed suicides", then we must also conclude not owning the gun leads to greater risk of being in the subgroup "suicide attempt".... do you believe not owning a gun makes someone more likely to attempt suicide? No, you don't, but if we apply this take on statistics to the 25:1 ratio, this is the only conclusion. So, you see, the reasoning must be flawed somewhere.
If you can find any stat that identifies that cause other than guns, please let me know.
The link had many cites to papers other than by Hemenway.When Hemenway does a study comparing gun ownership across country lines instead of state lines, I would love to see it.