GUNS, YOUNG PEOPLE AND SUICIDE

Last year, nearly 40,000 people died in the U.S. from the use of firearms. Among those deaths, roughly 60 percent were suicides. And among those were more than 1000 young people between the ages of 10 and 19; nearly three children or teenagers every day.

As a quick internet search will show you, there's a lot of information available to parents, teachers and other concerned people about how to reduce the risk that a child will commit suicide. Unfortunately, many of these well-meaning and supposedly authoritative sources gloss over or fail even to mention the single biggest step to take to reduce the number of suicides by young people.

That step is--get guns out of their homes.

Young people and guns--a lethal combination

Credit: publicdomainpictures.net

New research from the Boston School of Public Health (BUSPH) shows that on a state-by-state basis, every ten percent increase in gun ownership increases the youth suicide rate by 27 percent. That means that young people in states like Alaska, with the highest rate of gun ownership, were five times more likely to kill themselves than young people in states like New Jersey with the lowest percentage of guns in homes.

The rate of gun ownership varies greatly from state to state. The 10 states with the highest rates averaged more than one gun for every two households (52.5%), while the 10 states with the lowest gun ownership averaged just one gun per every five households.

Remarkably, gun ownership outweighed every other factor--poverty, race, educational levels, family structure, mental illness, drug and alcohol use, you name it--contributing to youth suicide. "This study demonstrates that the strongest single predictor of a state's youth suicide rate is the prevalence of household gun ownership in that state," says Michael Siegel, a community health researcher at BUSPH and the study's co-author.

The bottom line is clear. If you want to reduce the number of children and teenagers who kill themselves, the first and most significant thing to do is to get guns out of their homes.

-----

You can find the full study here.

-----

Young people in the U.S. are far more at risk from gun-related violence of all kinds than youth in other countries. You can read a zerospinzone post about that here.

-----

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up to follow or receive email notifications of new posts from zerospinzone.

THE AMERICAN CENTURY: AN OBITUARY

 It’s difficult to pinpoint precisely when ‘The American Century’ died, but close observers place its passing somewhere between the 9^th and 16^th of July, 2018 after a long Illness. Cause of death has been tentatively listed as complications due to ‘heart failure.’

Credit: USAF

Born in 1941, it was christened by Time/Life media founder Henry Luce just as the United States was emerging from a Depression decade marked by isolationism and severe economic hardship, and mere months before the nation would be plunged into the Second World War. The fresh and timely concept was quickly adopted, for better or worse, by key architects of the coming transformation of America’s postwar foreign policy into one of internationalism, intervention and global leadership.

            Reflecting the optimistic side of a victorious and expanding middle-class society, ‘The American Century’ grew to express a strong belief in sharing the benefits and bounty of a booming domestic economy along with the energetic promotion of democratic-capitalist ideology abroad. Despite debilitating setbacks and growing pains in the late 1960’s and 1970’s as a consequence of deep racial conflicts at home and the country’s failed policies in Southeast Asia, belief in the concept rebounded strongly in the 1980’s and 1990’s, particularly during the nation’s brief appearance as sole global hegemon following the fall of the Soviet Union.  

The 9/11 terrorist attack on the homeland, however, coupled with disastrous and inconclusive interventions abroad and a serious economic debacle in the early decades of the twenty-first century drained its reserves, leaving it much more vulnerable than many knew to the next new contagion that might come along.  Ironically, the fatal infection came from within in the guise of a virulent campaign to “Make America Great Again,” against which the national immune system proved ineffective.

With an alternative and distorted image of both the postwar world  and American values in mind, and in the service of his own much narrower and darker nationalist vision, once in power Donald Trump moved rapidly and effectively to devalue, reverse and ultimately erase the very policies Luce and other leaders of that era had spent decades putting in place to stabilize a troubled world. 

In rolling back America’s leadership promoting worldwide democracy, and in erecting barriers to free trade and the easy movement of goods, ideas and people across boundaries, demeaning and demonizing allies and carefully-constructed institutions like NATO and the EU, Trump offered in their place only a world of competition, conflict, contention—and often chaos.

 If Luce’s “Century” represented an overly optimistic missionary American spirit, often blind to its own failings, Trump’s stands for its opposite, one which is fearful, suspicious of others, anxiously hoarding its own resources, and hostile to realities which might challenge its own preconceptions. Rather than celebrating and spreading America’s political norms and the nation’s ideals of inclusion, equality and opportunity—even if imperfectly achieved—Trump celebrates their disruption, while actively generating and directing the resentments of those left behind against minorities and real or imagined aliens or other foreign elements.

   

The final blow came with Trump's public attacks on  core institutions and allies and his embrace of old foes. When the call came from Helsinki this week, it only confirmed what many had already suspected. The decedent's last words were incoherent--disjointed phrases about a missing server--and it was noted in passing that a Do Not Resuscitate order was on file. 

Les Adler
Emeritus Professor of History
Sonoma State University

------------------

A slightly different version of this commentary was also published on OpEdNews.

---------------

If you enjoyed this post, please sign up to follow or receive email notices from zerospinzone.blogspot.com.

SOME FACTS ABOUT GUNS IN THE U.S.

The debate about guns in the United States is clouded by too much rhetoric and too few facts. Slogans like "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," or More guns, less crime," may sound as though they convey useful information, but in fact they just add further cement to already polarized and fixed positions.

Las Vegas welcome sign adorned with flowers

a week after the October 1, 2017 mass shooting 

Credit: Wikipedia 

Readers may make of them what they will, but here are a few facts about guns and how they are used in the U.S.  They come from a study published in the journal Science on 8 December, 2017.

1. The U.S. is an extreme outlier among developed countries when it comes to guns and violence. The chance of being murdered by someone using a gun is 25 times higher in the U.S. than in other well-off countries, and the rate of suicides by gunshot is 8 times higher. A U.S. male between the ages of 15 and 24 is an astonishing 70 times more likely to die from gun violence than his peer in any of the other highly industrialized countries..

2. Death by gunshot is a major public health threat in the U.S., comparable to the number of deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents. One difference is that taking rational steps to reduce the risk of death or injury from motor vehicles is not highly politicized or controversial. The result is that the number of deaths per miles driven has plummeted by a factor of 25 since the 1920s.

3. You might suppose that the government would be interested in supporting research to understand the causes and possible ways to mitigate this important public-health problem, as it does with many other diseases and conditions. You would be wrong. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, which effectively killed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research program on gun violence.

4.Still, non-government researchers have continued to study gun violence and its prevention. These include researchers at many universities and in at least one state--California.

5. An intensive recent study by public-health and legal researchers at Stanford University, in California, and Duke University, in North Carolina, has established several factual reference points:

     --Add-on sentences for the use of guns in assaults and robberies cut the rate of those crimes by around 5 percent.

     --Laws preventing perpetrators of domestic violence from buying or possessing guns save lives, potentially thousands of them--reducing the murder rate for female intimate partners by 17 percent.

     --States with strict restrictions on carrying concealed weapons have significantly lower rates of violent crime than states with right-to-carry laws. Conversely, states that switch from restrictive to right-to-carry on average see a 9 percent increase in their homicide rates.

     --States with a high percentage of households with guns experience 3.6 times as many civilians killed by police than states with fewer households with guns.

If we have any hope of breaking out of the crippling polarization that prevents rational or even civil discourse on gun control here in the U.S., it must start with facts on which people can agree. Facts do not equal policy. But policy without facts is likely to be bad policy. And when it comes to guns, bad policy can and does cost thousands of lives.

-----

If you liked this post, please sign up to follow or receive email alerts from zerospinzone.blogspot.com.

How much do you know about the state of the nation?

We're constantly exposed to one version or another of the idea of American exceptionalism. The politicians and advertisers remind us over and over again that the U.S. is number one, the richest country in the world, the most powerful, the shining “city on a hill” prophesied by our Puritan founders.

If you’re curious to see how well your knowledge about how the U.S. is doing matches what the statistics say, and if the U.S. still merits that number one spot, take this 20-item quiz.

 1. Among the 23 richest countries (measured by GDP per person), where does the U.S. rank in 
 terms of life expectancy (1 = highest life expectancy, 23 = lowest)?                                                _____                                                               

             2. Among the 23 richest countries, where does the U.S. rank in terms of income

inequality (1 = lowest ratio between top and bottom 20%; 23 = highest ratio)?                                  ____


3. Among the 21 richest countries for which data are available, where does the

U.S. rank on a health-and-social-problems scale that combines measures of

trust, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, infant mortality, life expectancy,

obesity, children’s educational performance, teenage births, homicides, rates of

imprisonment, and social mobility (1 = fewest problems, 21 = most problems)?                                    _____

4. Among the 22 richest countries for which data are available, where does the U.S.

Rank on the UNICEF index of child wellbeing, a combination of 40 measures of

children’s health and wellbeing (1 = healthiest for children, 22 = least healthy)?                                     _____


5. Of the 21 richest countries for which data are available, where does the U.S.

rank in terms of the percent of GDP spent on foreign aid (1 = highest, 21 =lowest)?                           _____

6. Of the 12 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S. rank

In terms of the percent of the population who have been mentally ill in

The past 12 months (1 = lowest percentage, 12 = highest percentage)?                                                ____

7. Of 22 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S. rank in

terms of the United Nations index of illegal drug use (1 = least use, 22 = most use)?                          _____


 8. Among the 23 richest countries, where does the U.S. rank in terms of infant deaths

per 1000 live births (1 = lowest infant death rate, 23 = highest infant death rate)?                                 _____


 9.  Among the 21 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S. rank

In terms of the percent of people who are obese—body mass index over 30—

(1 = lowest percentage of obese citizens, 21 = highest percentage of obesity)?                                     _____


10.  Among the 19 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S.

rank in terms of the percentage of children who are overweight (1 = lowest

percentage of overweight children, 19 = highest percentage of overweight children)?                            _____

11. Among 22 rich countries for which data are available, how do U.S. 15-year-olds

Rank on an international test of math and reading skills (1 = highest, 22 = lowest)?                           _____

12. Among 21 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S. rank

In terms of the number of births among teens aged 15-19 (1 = lowest teen birth

rate, 21 = highest teen birth rate)?                                                                                                       _____

                                                                                                   
13.   Among the 23 richest countries, where does the U.S. rank in terms of homicides

per million people (1 = lowest homicide rate, 23 = highest)?                                                                 _____

14.   Among the 22 rich countries for which statistics are available, where does the U.S.

Rank in terms of the number of people in prison per 100,000 citizens 

(1 = lowest rate of imprisonment, 22 = highest)?                                                                                  _____

                                                                                                                   
15.  Among the 11 rich countries for which data is available, where does the U.S. rank in

terms of social mobility, measured by how different a son’s income at 30 is from his

father’s income when the son was born (1 = high mobility, 11 =low mobility)?                                      _____

16.   Among 21 rich countries for which data are available, where does the U.S. rate

In terms of the percentage of children living with a single parent (1 = lowest

percentage, 21 = highest percentage)?                                                                                                 _____

17.   Among the 22 richest nations for which statistics are available, where does the

U.S. rank in terms of the number of patents issued per 1,000,000 citizens

(1 = highest number of patents per capita, 22 = lowest number per capita)?                                         _____

18.   Among the 11 rich nations for which statistics are available, where does the U.S.

rank in terms of the proportion of waste that gets recycled (1 = highest proportion

of waste recycled, 11 = lowest proportion of waste recycled)?                                                            _____


19.    Among the 23 richest countries, where does the U.S. rank in terms of carbon

dioxide emissions per person (1 = lowest per capita CO2, 23 = highest per capita)?                         _____

20.   Among the 25 richest countries, where does the U.S. rank in terms of the percentage

of children living in relative poverty--defined as below a country’s median income—

(1 = lowest percentage of children in relative poverty, 25 = highest percentage)?                                  _____

You'll find the correct answers below. 

These statistics (except for # 20, which come from UNICEF) are taken from the book The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger, by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson. They lay out the case for the idea that, among rich, developed countries, it's not the amount of wealth but the degree of equality or inequality that makes the difference between a physically and mentally healthy, happy, well functioning and secure society and the opposite. They find that, among rich countries, those with high levels of income equality, such as the Scandinavian countries and Japan, do well on these measures of individual and social well being, while those with high levels of inequality, such as the U.S. and the U.K., do poorly. They think there is a cause-and-effect relationship between inequality and social problems, and that the most direct way to address this wide range of issues is to take steps to return the U.S. to a more equitable society.

 Correct answers:
1.  20/23 (4^th lowest in life expectancy)
 2.  22/23 (2^nd highest in income inequality)
3. 21/21 (highest level of health and social problems)
 4. 19/22 (4^th lowest on child wellbeing)
5.  20/21 (2^nd lowest percent spent on foreign aid)
 6. 12/12 (highest prevalence of mental illness)
 7. 19/22 (4^th highest in illegal drug use)
8. 23/23 (highest infant death rate)
 9. 21/21 (highest level of adult obesity)
10.  19/19 (highest percentage of overweight children)
11.   17/22 (6^th lowest math and reading skills at age 15)
12.   21/21 (highest teen birth rate)
13.  23/23 (highest homicide rate)
14.   22/22 (highest imprisonment rate)
15.   11/11 (lowest social mobility)
16.   20/21 (In a three-way tie for the highest level of children in single-parent homes)
17.   19/22 (4^th lowest number of patents per 1,000,000 population)
18.   9/11 (3^rd lowest proportion of waste recycled)
19.   22/23 (2^nd highest per capita CO2 emissions)
20.   25/25 (highest percentage of children in relative poverty)

Thinkin' about Climate Change Risks

I recently had the opportunity to interview George Backus, a nuclear engineer, systems researcher and economics expert who leads a team at Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, whose job it is to evaluate and detail the risks to the United States from climate change.

Bachus has a deep and unique understanding of complex systems, not just Earth's climate, but how climate changes could interact with our equally complex -- and probably much more fragile -- economic system.

I recently posted two stories about Backus and his team's work on Suite101: "Rethinking Climate Change Risks -- National Lab's Approach," and "National Lab Calculates State-by-State Climate Change Risks."

Climate change skeptics often argue that the uncertainties in even the most advanced climate models mean we should do nothing about climate change -- no investments, no new regulations, no new laws, no new treaties; just business as usual.

Bachus turns that argument upside down. The greater the uncertainty, he says, the greater the risk. If climate scientists could tell us that sea levels would rise by no more than six inches by 2050, every region could know if it was at risk and take appropriate steps. However, if the best models can do is tell us that a six-inch rise is slightly more likely than any other number, but that the actual change could be anything from one inch to three feet, planners have to take into account the unlikely, but potentially catastrophic impact of that three foot rise.

Like a scorpion, it's the tail end of the distribution of possible climate change outcomes -- the Katrinas and the ten-year droughts, plus their impacts on the economy, jobs and security -- that really stings.

For the details, please take a look at those two stories.

Robert Adler
for the institute

avandia recall