police crime scene body
(AP Photo/Mark Thiessen)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Robert B. Young, MD

I routinely castigate lousy research by prejudiced academics who make their careers publishing poorly designed, illogically interpreted studies claiming that guns are bad and that widely restricting their ownership will solve society’s problems. I get tired of it, like anyone would covering the same fake news over and over. So it is really refreshing to review the rare study that gets it right from start to finish.

“Effect of firearms legislation on suicide and homicide in Canada from 1981 to 2016”  was published June 18 in PLOS One by DRGO member Cailinn Langmann, MD. PLOS One is an open access, but peer reviewed online journal. Dr. Langmann has reviewed a number of others’ work for DRGO, correcting their misattribution and bringing light to the world. Here, he takes them on with his own work.

I encourage you to go to the article itself, but here’s the summary. Canada has “progressively” taken the lead over the U.S. in piling up increasing restrictions on gun ownership, notably in federal laws from 1991, 1994 and 2001. Dr. Langmann looked at homicide and suicide rates from 1981 through 2016, which gave unequivocal before, during and after comparisons.

The results: “No associated benefit from firearms legislation on aggregate rates of . . . suicide” was found for either males or females, though there were increases in rates of hanging suicide and poisoning. “No beneficial association was found between legislation and female or male homicide rates.” On the other hand, “an increased association with suicide rates was found with rates of low income, increased unemployment, and the percentage of aboriginals.”

All his data is public and readily available online, unlike the common problem with other researchers generating data but unwilling to share it in order for others to confirm its validity and appropriateness. There is no researcher-defined case control nonsense here—Langmann analyzes his data as a whole, over time (including sub-sections defined by the three points of new laws), and by age groups and sex. He chooses his topics for regression analysis well, uncovering significant associations with unemployment, poverty, pre-existing high suicide rates, and prevalence of Native Canadians.

The approach is important, too, because its validity underlies the results’ validity. Biased researchers focus only on the rate of use of firearms in suicide and homicide. And (surprise!) “gun deahts” decline with less availability of guns. But they pay no attention to the only changes that matter, overall suicide and homicide rates because of all the ways people can choose to end their lives or others’.

A valuable side-result of work that does, like Langmann’s, is to substantiate the societal reality of means substitution. Yes, the degree of lethality of methods matters a great deal at the decisive moment—it is important to find just ways to separate suicidal individuals from guns (and high places, etc.) when there is an acute risk.

Each life counts, and saving one is a great thing. But on a population basis, there is no difference with or without firearms over time. Rational thinkers know this anyway, because there are other countries with little civilian gun access in which suicide rates dwarf ours.

Add to this finding the fact that violent crime does generally rise in the absence of firearms owned by civilians and their consequent inability to defend themselves.  Just look at the United Kingdom, or any of a number of long-time Democrat-controlled American cities where gun control has resulted in too many (criminal) guns on the street versus none in victims’ hands. Guns owned responsibly are not a cause of suicide, homicide or other violent crime.

Let’s wrap up with Langmann’s own conclusions:

  • It’s true “gun control methods to reduce suicide by firearms may have benefits”—but only in reducing suicide by firearms, not overall.
  • “No associated reductions in homicide with increasing firearms regulations suggests alternative approaches are necessary to reduce homicide by firearm.” These would include:
  • “Steps to reduce youth gang membership and violence through diversion and educational programs”;
  • “[C]ommunity based suicide prevention programs such as training of family physicians in the detection and treatment of depression and [non-judgmental] discussions about firearms, campaigns aimed at increasing awareness about depression, and follow-up of individuals who attempted suicide”; and,
  • “Outreach to groups for which access to care may be a particular issue, such as Aboriginals”.

The truth is out there, for those who have eyes to see it. Just follow the science—the good science, like this.


DRGO Editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.

This article was originally published at drgo.us and is reprinted here with permission. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. The only change that will effect the situation in a positive way. Is one that Liberals find abhorrent. Being held to the standard of Personal Responsibility. Because it just can’t be their fault.

    • The lack of personal responsibility is the cause of most of our problems in this country today. Spineless politicians who always excuse bad behavior and make excuses for lawbreakers don’t have a clue. Our educational system is turning out indoctrinated citizens who vote for these gutless politicians. Our mass media no longer informs the public with the facts as they are. The mass media either skews the facts or doesn’t report facts that don’t fit the narrative and their agenda. How do we turn this around when there are so many who are so ignorant about what’s going on?

    • They change how easy it is for felons to perform the crimes. I wouldn’t say gun laws do nothing.

      • Guns laws do MUCH and are EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE.
        A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
        He only controls the good guys, which is his true agenda.
        The bad guys with guns are merely the politicians’ Useful Idiots.
        Do much; very effective. Just not what a good person would hope for, expect.

    • In Canada the right to own firearms is a privilege not a right. We DON’T have a constitution as such. We have a bill of rights and freedoms with no amendments cuz we got it right the first time. I have 47 years of law enforcement experience and I don’t own a firearm. In general I don’t have an argument against for long guns for hunting and target shooting. The ownership of restricted and prohibited firearms and devices should be limited to collectors and legitimate target shooting.

  2. They change nothing but the ability of normal people’s ability to defend themselves. Oftentimes against the same people who draft those laws!!!

      • Exactly, Dave. Most popular are restrictions in which the person restricted has to pay for that “service”. NICS is a good example. When I wish to purchase a gun, I have no need for a background check on myself. The check is presented to the public as an enhancement to their safety, not my own. So, the public goes along, and never after care that absolutely zero enhancement to their safety occurs, since it is not costing them anything. If a background check benefits the public, then the public should pay for it. After watching millions of dollars of their tax money disappear with no result, the NICS checks would have disappeared 25 years ago, very possibly along with the politicians who proposed them.

    • Yep. It cost millions of dollars, and didn’t contribute to even a single, solitary criminal conviction during the whole time it was in operation. An absolute failure — so of course the progtards want to resurrect it.

  3. surprise! people who want to commit suicide, are going to commit suicide. people who want to commit crimes, are going to commit crimes.

    and people who want to ban guns, are going to try to ban guns. even when it means ignoring the truth.

    • In Japan who has a higher suicide rate than us per capital just hang themselves or jump from high places. If it is going to happen it is going to happen.

  4. I still don’t understand why people keep doing and funding these ridiculous studies. They’re a waste of time and effort. The fact of the matter is that gun ownership has a net effect of ZERO on suicide rates. This is a fact that we’ve known for a VERY long time. How do we know this to be an indisputable fact?


    • The studies are done because special interests convince Congress to pay for them. IOW, as usual, follow the money. If you have just completed the reporting on a multimillion dollar “study”, then you are likely to already have another starting. All you need for a lucrative career is to make sure your studies demonstrate the correct results. Thus, you get hundreds of studies, all giving the same answer, that everyone knows is wrong.

      • Am I the only one disturbed & saddened by the fact that the American People, collectively, are stupid enough that we pay money for people to tell us patently ridiculous BS that isn’t supported by a single fact, then we scream that from the mountain as gospel.

        • You’re definitely not the only one. It’s a gigantic scam, and it’s nauseating.

          The same thing is underway with the “defund the police” nonsense. That money that’s supposedly going back into the community is going straight into the pockets of BurnLootMurder and a whole raft of social justice organizations that will churn out even more of the corrosive Marxist stupidity we’re currently dealing with.

        • Ing says: August 7, 2020 at 18:16 “The same thing is underway with the “defund the police” nonsense. That money that’s supposedly going back into the community is going straight into the pockets of BurnLootMurder and a whole raft of social justice organizations that will churn out even more of the corrosive Marxist stupidity we’re currently dealing with.”

          The problem is, we are not “dealing with” the marxist stupidity, we, collectively, are standing by and watching it happen.

          Local democrat (communist party USA) politicians are allowing, aiding, and abetting the marxist violence.

          We have no way to “deal with” the violence without the local politicians throwing the book at us. They would love for some of “us” to provide needed response. It would be all over the “liberal” media about “radical right wing terrorists”.

          Be Prepared for when pot boils over…

  5. “You can’t come in here with that. Didn’t you see the no firearms sign?” , ,”Yes I did but the picture is of a Berretta and this is a 1911.”

      • Umm, maybe because the Italians invented it with the safety in the wrong place, and charged a shit ton for it, then got DOD to buy them. Taurus improved it, then sold them for less than half of the cost. The guy who designed the sign icon must have been a Beretta customer 😁

      • The company I used to work for had signs with revolvers. Never stopped me from carrying my Semi Auto for 15 years. They never found out I carried at work until the day I quit. Needless to say the Plant Manger, HR Manager and Security Manger were more than surprised. They all learned a valuable lesson that day on the weakness of their security. I still left on good terms with all involved. Signs don’t stop people from carrying firearms for good or bad reasons.

    • I think most of us realize and agree with what you say.

      The left doesn’t care what we know or say and don’t care about the Constitution as a whole and 2A in particular.

  6. Liberals and laws are like marxists and communism: they keep thinking “it’s going to work this time…”

  7. I am a professional lawyer and I can tell you with confidence that the laws about weapons, as practice shows, are written only on paper. They do not affect the criminal situation, regardless of what research shows. In general, few legal laws in practice have an impact on people’s behavior. It upsets me and I decided to radically change my profession. I want to build data-driven systems to make better data decisions. I’ve even found a service https://www.sopservices.net/ which help me write a quality goal statement. I hope this will help me in applying.

  8. 考试口语困扰了很多同学,由于考试紧张加上自身英语口语水平的差距,不少同学都在考试口语面前败下阵来,别担心,在线英语培训永远是同学们最坚实的后盾,下面我们就来说一说,考试口语应该如何提高。

  9. UICELL Conference Proceeding is published by University of Muhammadiyah Prof. DR. HAMKA (UHAMKA). p-ISSN: 2615-4269; e-ISSN: 2615-2576. It includes all papers presented at UICELL Conference. The articles in this electronic proceeding may have different format from the print versions. Each of the article is subject to minor spelling and grammatical error. Article copyright (c) rests on the authors

  10. 비대면폰테크 전국폰테크 폰테크신규개통 아이폰신규개통 서울폰테크 인천폰테크 부천폰테크 폰테크매장 구로구폰테크
    천안폰테크 대구폰테크 제주폰테크 전남폰테크 경기폰테크 경북폰테크 경남폰테크 광주폰테크 폰테크출장 당일폰테크
    대전폰테크 강원폰테크 전북폰테크 충남폰테크 부산폰테크 울산폰테크 충북폰테크 세종폰테크 구리폰테크 아이폰폰테크
    춘천폰테크 원주폰테크 강릉폰테크 충주폰테크 제천폰테크 청주폰테크 아산폰테크 서산폰테크 안양폰테크 안산폰테크
    전주폰테크 군산폰테크 익산폰테크 목포폰테크 여수폰테크 순천폰테크 포항폰테크 경주폰테크 광명폰테크 시흥폰테크
    안동폰테크 구미폰테크 경산폰테크 진주폰테크 통영폰테크 거제폰테크 창원폰테크 수원폰테크 성남폰테크 서귀포폰테크

  11. 폰테크
    비대면폰테크 전국폰테크 폰테크신규개통 아이폰신규개통 서울폰테크 인천폰테크 부천폰테크 폰테크매장 구로구폰테크
    천안폰테크 대구폰테크 제주폰테크 전남폰테크 경기폰테크 경북폰테크 경남폰테크 광주폰테크 폰테크출장 당일폰테크
    대전폰테크 강원폰테크 전북폰테크 충남폰테크 부산폰테크 울산폰테크 충북폰테크 세종폰테크 구리폰테크 아이폰폰테크
    춘천폰테크 원주폰테크 강릉폰테크 충주폰테크 제천폰테크 청주폰테크 아산폰테크 서산폰테크 안양폰테크 안산폰테크
    전주폰테크 군산폰테크 익산폰테크 목포폰테크 여수폰테크 순천폰테크 포항폰테크 경주폰테크 광명폰테크 시흥폰테크
    안동폰테크 구미폰테크 경산폰테크 진주폰테크 통영폰테크 거제폰테크 창원폰테크 수원폰테크 성남폰테크 서귀포폰테크


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here