Cornflower, I've been severely depressed. If I'd had a loaded weapon beside the bed, I'd not be typing this. Even the effort of going and jumping in front of a bus can be too much for the very badly depressed. Add the effects of alcohol or dope and you can see where it ends.

Anything that makes the task a little more complex is a good thing, I reckon.

This thread has swung way off topic, but I have to say that I'm once again in agreement with Antiseptic here.

Yes, suicide has been enormously difficult to research since Durkheim's seminal study. Indeed, the authors of the report I cited acknowledge that any suicide research carries inherent limitations - the biggest being that its prevalence is too low for much in the way of statistical inference.

However, if you reduce the number of guns by 50% and the suicide rate by guns subsequently falls by 80%, you have a strong correlation between the availability of guns and people killing themselves with them. Of course, that doesn't establish a causal relationship in itself, but it certainly warrants further investigation.

Cornflower, would you acknowledge that, as a gun enthusiast, you're not exactly an unbiased commentator? The fact that you've successfully hijacked this thread to your favourite cause would support such a contention, IMHO.

TBC you must not be a member of thugs and mugs, but your words anti my union very much lost left are theirs .
'Any chance you come from WA? have a big gut small brain made up by a big mouth?
If you do not know what so called union I talk of you are no Unionist.
Lets see Victorian ETU is getting there.
But not them care to Comment Friend Mate Everyone has Unhappiness in their past.

C J Morgan, "Cornflower, would you acknowledge that, as a gun enthusiast, you're not exactly an unbiased commentator? "

Back to your old tricks I see. If anyone criticises anything you approve of they soon know through your reversion to name calling and diverting the debate by claiming they are 'for' one side or another. Predictable.

As you very well know my interest is in correcting errors of fact and ensuring that the national mental health initiative gets the kudos it deserves. That is crucial for ensuring that advances in men's health, especially in mental health are not lost. You and I have had that argument before where you declared that men should solve their problems in a pub like you.

You posted the link to a sensationalist article about research that was easily proved to be flawed. In fact the two economists who wrote the research paper admitted as much through listing limitations which they later 'forgot' when making their findings. Particularly, they failed to consider the results of the national health initiative and they pretended that substitution of suicide method did not occur.

You should re-read my earlier posts and the research itself because your grasp of the problems in the survey method are made obvious through your example. But then you are out to label, not understand.

I have already noted the coincidence of that 'research' report you hyperlinked being sensationalised without any apparent critical analysis by some sections of the media at the time of the hung parliament. It doesn't take much intellect to see that the report and the media treatment of it could impact on the independents, especially Katter who originally advised Howard against his $1billion failure. If you want to discuss the hung parliament what about discussing this coincidence and the interests involved. It is certainly something that Media Watch should address.

Antiseptic,
A flaw in the research methodology is that substitution of suicide method was not considered, nor was the positive effect of the national mental health initiatives - men helping men, that sort of thing.

Whatever you say, Cornflower.

The fact that you're a gun enthusiast has nothing to do with you derailing the discussion about a hung parliament into one about gun control and mental health.

If you'd like to do the right thing and start up your own topic along those lines I'll be happy to correct your misunderstanding of research methodologies. However, I'm not going to indulge your contravention of the forum rules any more in this thread.

On topic, I think Katter's nutty as a fruitcake, and if he's a gun nut as well that only reinforces my assessment. I can understand why people are concerned about him being anything more than a sideshow freak to the Parliament.

The real irony here is that while Abbott loves decrying the Labor party for being the tool of the unions, he completely ignores his coalition partners' affiliation/sellout to the Farmer's Federation/agribusiness campaign contributors.
Why do you think the key independents (state and federal) are all refugees from the National Party?
These guys are smart enough to know that big money and campaign contributions are no substitute for votes.
The old Country Party represented not only farmers, but also the country towns that supported -and were supported by- the small farmers.
Who represents these folk now?
Bloody independents, that's who.
The clear lesson here, for any MP smart enough to learn is:
constituents first, party policy second.