Whose Rights Are More Right?

First I am going to warn you, this is outrageous and I know it.  I am not making a case for or against abortion.   I am going to draw a parallel to illustrate something. Bear with me, I am not trying to change anyone's views on women's rights.  I am trying to make a point that there are many people in the United States that truly believe to their core that abortion IS murder.  Just for a moment try to put on glasses that allow you to see through their eyes -- for a moment. It won't kill you!

Let's examine two really emotional topics and I will draw a parallel just to see if you can try it on, if even briefly to gain perspective.  I am hoping that maybe if you read this and really try, that you might at least get an idea of how "the other side feels".  The outrageous comparison? 

 Guns and abortion…

I know, pretty raw stuff.  Ironically, these two issues are often diametrically opposed to one another in our society -- a person who staunchly believes what a woman does with her own body is her right is more likely to support gun control measures.  A person who believes in the right to own and bear arms is more likely to believe that life begins at conception.  Interesting yet impossible to truly correlate and the two don't really correlate but they can be compared and contrasted to attempt to understand why people feel the way they do.  It also shines an interesting light on our society's hypocrisy. 

From the perspective of "one side" to own and bear arms is a Constitutional right.  It is endowed by our Founding Fathers and clearly stated in the Constitution. This group feels as though they should not be punished for the bad behavior of others and it opposes any added gun control measures; guns don't kill people; people kill people.  It was not them involved in Newtown, Aurora or Idaho.  This group is also more likely to look at abortion as murder, that life begins at conception and if not that, at least at viability. They view abortion as murder. Let that sink in for a moment. This isn't a judgment on their part it IS what IS for them. When they demonstrate and picket a clinic they are doing it to save lives -- it for them is no different than a left-wing group picketing a horrible factory that is guilty of human rights violations and works children 18 hours a day. Therefore, as they see it, there is a complex hypocrisy in the "other side" wanting to "protect their children" from guns but also being willing to "murder" well over a million babies every year. They don't understand why you don't protect the child's right to life before it is born but will enlist the World Health Organization if you hear of a factory in Bangladesh that uses 8 year old girls in a sweat shop. A child is a child is a child…to them.

We are all familiar with Roe V. Wade.  In it "Jane Roe" fought for the right for women to legally terminate pregnancies - she had been raped and did not want to bear the child that was conceived as a result of that rape.  The battle lasted longer than 9 months and she did have the baby but she continued the fight. Until then abortions, when they happened, were illegal and at times done in horrible places with little or no medical training and women attempted at times to do it themselves.  In part the argument to legalize abortion was to support and save women from "back ally" procedures.  They argued regardless of the legalities involved, horrible abortions would continue to happen and women would die or be damaged for life.
The stats (with estimates because several large states including California refuse to report abortion stats to the CDC) are as follows:

Total number of abortions in the U.S. 1973-2011: 54.5 million+

 234 abortions per 1,000 live births (according to the Centers for Disease Control)

Abortions per year: 1.2 million

Abortions per day: 3,288

Abortions per hour: 137

9 abortions every 4 minutes

1 abortion every 26 seconds

Equals the population of Dallas, Texas (2010 Census)

1% of all abortions are "late term" abortions.  Late term is generally defined as over 24 weeks. At this stage the fetus is viable -- meaning it can survive outside its mother's womb.  This equates to 12,000 abortions of viable fetuses.

We are not as familiar with the 1938 ruling of United States vs. Miller or the more recent District of Columbia vs.HhHe Heller. In this case, the plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right. The Supreme Court further strengthened the 2nd Amendment with McDonald vs. City of Chicago in 2008.

When gun control measures are suggested often we hear "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".  In essence, like abortion, regardless of the legality of it, people who want guns will still get them.

Let's look at gun deaths in the United States.

Guns kill approximately 30,000 people annually in the United States. Just under 11,000 are homicides, roughly 19,000 by suicide and about 750 are accidental shootings.

.00009 people per 1000 people

Gun deaths per year: 30,000

Gun deaths per hour: 3.42

Gun deaths per minute: .057

Gun deaths per second: .00095

Less than the population of Bozeman, Montana

Guns kill 2.5% of the "population" that is being aborted.

(Note: There are roughly the same number of gun-related homicides as there are late term abortions.)

The socially conservative right sees women "murdering" (their words not mine) 1.2 million babies every year.

The socially liberal left sees guns (not the people holding the guns) kill 30,000 people every year.

A pro-life person -- doesn't see a vast difference in the death of an aborted fetus and the shooting death of a five year old.  To them, they were both people and both are tragic.  The pro-choice person sees a huge difference and does not see the fetus as a life when it is still within the walls of a woman's body.  It is her life to either give birth to or abort --  it is not "alive" although it has hands, feet and a heartbeat. There isn't an across the board agreement of when "life" begins.  It is her choice.  Each side will not accept that the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the rights for each of them. 

If one argues against abortion the pro-choice side automatically goes to Roe v. Wade and says "the Supreme Court already decided". We are done here and it is carved in stone.  But when the 2nd amendment supporter argues for the right to bear arms the anti-gun person (who is more likely to be pro-choice) dismisses the multiple times in the last century that the SAME Supreme Court has upheld the right to posses and bear arms.  They act as if it is undecided.  Roe v. Wade is untouchable but Miller, Heller and all the other 2nd Amendment cases are somehow written in pencil and are subject to continued challenge.  Hypocrisy? Yes. Again, I am NOT arguing for or against abortion here -- the hypocrisy is that when the pro-choice person is challenged they rely on the Supreme Court decision.  When that same person pushes for gun control they dismiss the Supreme Court decisions.  Why is the Supreme Court only right when you agree with the decision? It doesn't work that way.  We can't pick and choose.

As is made clear in this outrageous narrative, this nation is populated with people who have hugely divergent beliefs.  One cannot get more divergent that pro-life/pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment/gun control.  But we all have to live together.  One side feels that "our children are being slaughtered."  The other side feels that "our children are being slaughtered."  Interesting huh? So what is the answer?  Are one group's rights more right?  They each seem to think so.  But the fact is that they are not.  The US Supreme Court has upheld each group's rights and those rights affect the population. Each right should be used wisely.

Thoughts on Divine Forgiveness

Thoughts on Divine Forgiveness

I had an epiphany on Sunday.  One of the issues that I have long had with Christianity is "forgiveness". That if one confesses with his mouth and proclaims Jesus as his Lord and Savior that he is forgiven.  I have known some great Christians and I have known some slime-balls. These are people who stand up on Sunday, thump their Bible a bit and then Monday through Saturday live in the gutter.  In fact some of the most abhorrent people I have ever met -- are deeply involved in church.

First I had to separate religion and faith/spirituality.  That was simple.  Religion is of man -- Spirituality is of God. I have a great relationship with God.  I believe in God and I believe that Jesus Christ was His Son.  I am okay with that.  There is one other stumbling block I have with Christianity and that still needs some pondering.  I can't accept that while Jesus Christ might be MY path to God that there are not other paths as well.  I can't believe that God is that limited, that small. He wants to be available to ANYONE who seeks Him.  I can't believe that just because you are born into another culture and another faith that you cannot connect with God.  He would not turn His back on anyone who was simply born in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and didn't have access to the teachings of Christ. I believe that God connects with cultures in ways that they can accept and understand Him. So for Christ to be the ONLY way (even though He might be MY way) -- it just not reasonable to me.  But that one is not resolved and therefore is NOT part of my epiphany.

Let's talk forgiveness.  Imagine that someone rear ends you in traffic.  The damage is not great but there IS damage.  The person who hit you is sorry and you are willing to let go of your initial anger at having your car damaged and your day disrupted.  You have FORGIVEN this person for their mistake. That said, you are still going to require some restitution for the damage to your car.  It was their fault!  Forgiveness is an emotional thing.  It is about letting go of resentment and anger.  Maybe your friend owes you a lot of money and has for a long time.  You can be angry at him -- stewing about it and getting wrapped around the axle about it.  Of course the anger is ONLY affecting you -- your friend lives in another state and is totally unaffected by your daily resentment.  So you decide to forgive him emotionally and let go of the anger.  After all, if his situation was different and he made changes, then he would pay you back.  But nothing has changed and he has not paid you back and has made no effort to.  But you have forgiven him emotionally.  He owes you no penance and he doesn't have to be punished.  That does not mean he doesn't have to pay you back.  Restitution and punishment are different -- there is nothing punitive in restitution.  God forgives and thus has let go of punishing you for your sins.  That does NOT mean at some point in this life or the next that you do not have to pay restitution for whatever damage you have done.  It is God's will and God's decision in deciding what your restitution looks like.  The idea of Hell is punitive -- that you will be eternally punished for your sins.  Read Dante's Inferno and you will get a great idea of what it MIGHT look like!  But I don't think God wants to waste souls and energy on punishment.  It is like putting someone in prison for property damage when it might be better to let the person work and pay of his debt and restore what he has damaged.  When the gal who started the Hayman Fire was sent to prison I thought it was a waste.  She should have been sent out to the forest she destroyed and made to work, clearing and planting…that would have been restitution. What good was putting her in prison where we had to house, feed and care for her on the tax payer's dime?  I would have preferred that she get out there and work to make what she damaged whole again -- or at get as close as possible.  I will stay off the tangent that this could lead to…

In my mind Hell is reserved for a select few from two camps.  The first being such damaged souls that there is no changing them -- there is no hope.  They are those who are born or have become evil.  There aren't many but there are some.  God knows who they are.  The second group is those who are totally unwilling to be remorseful.  I don't mean that people have to formally confess to anyone in a church or anything.  But these are people who "take" and don't have any consideration for those they take from nor do they feel sorry for anything they have done to hurt or damage others. They let others pay the price.  I think these are few as well -- but the number may be growing in today's society.  God knows who they are too -- so I don't need to concern myself with them other than to avoid them when I meet them.

So in conclusion -- yes God forgives all those who genuinely seek His forgiveness -- but that does NOT mean you are off the hook!  You will make restitution and it won't be Hell.  It will be making the world a better place, in some way restoring the balance of "goodness" that your "bad deed", or sin if you will, got out of balance.  It is really a big picture thing -- much like the Navajos and their idea of Beauty.  The word Beauty to them really means balance in all things.  Your "divine" restitution might come in this life or another and it might benefit the individual you hurt or it might not.  They have their own path and their own story and that damage might be a lesson or part of their "bigger picture".  That part is up to God.  That does not mean that in this life you don't have to pay for the guy's bumper you hit!

Ray Lewis - Redemption and Reality

On a dark night in Atlanta thirteen years ago, Ray Lewis was in the back of a limousine speeding down an street, leaving the carnage of what would become a notorious murder scene. Today, this very day, Ray Lewis prepares to play his final minutes in the NFL as one of the most storied, celebrated and iconic players in league history. Is this fair?  Is this justice?  Has there been redemption? What is the story here?

There are two clear story lines when the name Ray Lewis is uttered.  To explore one means you have to ignore the other -- they are incongruent, incompatible and until now to have both be "true" about a single person, impossible.  Ray Lewis has done the impossible. I am not talking about a 17 year career as a hard hitting line backer -- 17 years for most in the NFL is truly impossible.  I am referring to the absolute reinvention of himself. What's undeniable is that as well as Ray Lewis played the game of football, he played the game of redemption even better.

"He's a remarkable case study of worst-to-first," says Vada Manager, a corporate strategist and a former Nike executive who helped guide the company's strategy during Kobe Bryant's rape accusations. "There aren't many athletes who have done what he's done in rebuilding his image from where it was to where it is today."

Here is what we do know. Ray Lewis was in the Buckhead District of Atlanta partying with friends following a Rams win over the Titans in Super Bowl XXXIV.  It was well into the dark morning hours. At that time in his career Lewis had been recognized as a Pro Bowler but was not in any way the icon he is today.  He and his buddies got into a heated argument with another group in an trendy bar; it turned into a brawl.  Lewis and his buddies left the scene in a limo as Jacinth Baker and Richard Lollar, both in their early 20s, lay in their own blood, dying of stab wounds. Lewis and company were not seriously injured and suffered no stab wounds.

Thes are indisputable facts but there is still much we don't know – the cause of the fight, the person (or persons) holding the knives, Lewis' knowledge of and involvement in the events. Lewis and his two companions were charged with murder. To avoid being prosecuted Lewis was allowed to make a deal.  The murder charges against him would be dismissed, he would not be tried if he tesitfied against his to cohorts, Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting. What Lewis would agree to admit to was a simple misdemeanor of obstructing justice.  

Lewis's testimony proved to be worth little as both Oakley and Sweeting were acquitted of the murder charges. Civil suits against Lewis, filed by both victims' families were settled out of court for a still undisclosed sum of money and a $250K fine was levied against him by the NFL. He was also handed a one-year suspension from play by the NFL -- that turned out to be toothless as he was allowed to suit up and play in the very next season and go on to play in that year's Super Bowl and be named the game's MVP. His career as an icon had just begun.  He would go on to be invited to 13 Pro Bowls and now is being allowed to retire as one of the greatest defensive players to ever line up.

The public figure we now know as "Ray Lewis" was just getting started.  He went on to become a leader of his defense with Biblical fervor.  He has created an image of the "chosen one" to carry the message to his teammates of God's glory, his power and his grace.  While some may doubt Lewis' authenticity -- he believes what he says and his followers flock to his side. He is force.  What has been and is still missing in the equation of redemption is one fundamentally required element: Confession.  Without confession one cannot be saved.  In this case a safe, private confession is meaningless.  While he and his God may see it as his key to the Kingdom I would doubt Oakley and Sweeting's families see it that way.  I don't see it that way.

I was caught up in the Ray Lewis phenomenon. I watched the NFL Network's "A Football Life" focusing on Lewis that ran last fall and thought to myself "what a guy!" I had no knowledge of the events that transpired that tragic night in Atlanta over a decade earlier.  I was moved by him. "We've got to savor these moments!" "I couldn't see that when I was 24, 25! That's why God had to incarcerate me, so I could see how great his blessing was for me! So I had to come from a jail cell to the Super Bowl!"  His bragging about time in a jail cell is about as trite as Johnny Cash singing about Folsom prison.  Johnny Cash never went to prison or shot anyone like his songs lead us to believe and Lewis never really did time. Lewis did have a wakeup call following that night in Atlanta. He did change. He is great at what he does. But he fell short of redemption by keeping his secret.

A well known publicist notes that there are three consistent factors necessary for any public figure to change public perception, and Lewis choreographed all three perfectly:

1. Winning is redemptive. The public is forgiving, the public will give you second chances, the public has a short memory if you WIN! Lewis won immediately after the Atlanta incident, and while he hasn't been back to the Super Bowl since, he's continued to play at the height of his profession for more than a decade.  Had Lewis been stuck on a losing franchise we might not even be talking about him.

2. Rehabilitation begins at home. Lewis has been the consummate teammate; he has been a family man and as we saw in "A Football Life" has rekindled a relationship with his astranged father -- the first male in his family to do so thus ending the string of father's abandoning their sons.  He is authentic. Lewis is believable. He hasn't been involved with any problems since then.

3. Charity and image are essential. Lewis has been a vocal force for charity, and he's also shown a more deft touch to his public image, as with his humorous NFL ad with Tom Brady this season.  He has walked the talk.  He has done a lot of good -- regardless of how you or I feel about him his contributions have mattered.

Of course, even if every athlete involved in scandal knows (or is taught) the three steps to redemption, not every athlete has the opportunity, the drive or the personality to be able to pull it off. We can consider Pete Rose, whose achievements are forever tarnished by the scandle of his gambling while playing. Then we look to Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, both stained by allegations of steriod use. None of these players has the opportunity to "win" again at their chosen profession -- thier careers were over. All three have chosen, or have been forced to choose, an adversarial or indifferent stance.  They did not have the three essential elements available to them.

Michael Vick was given a serious second chance but could not pull the "winning" rabbit out of his hat.  He tried. We tried but the ingredients were just not there.  Lance Armstrong has now been stripped of titles and banned from his sport.  Armstrong does have the huge success of raising awareness and money for cancer research to support him but even in his confession, which a step further than Lewis has gone, he was not believable nor did it feel like there was regret in his words.  His was a calculated image rebuilding strategy which may or may not have worked.  Time will tell.

Lewis is doing everything he can to make the Atlanta incident a footnote to his story, not the first line, and he's well on the way.  How can a double murder be a footnote? How have we let him do that? He understands how redemption works in America and we have been willing lemmings. It has been a tireless PR campaign for Lewis and he has done a smashing job.

Lewis has publicly put Atlanta behind him. When a USA Today reporter asked him about the murders this week, Lewis replied, "You want to talk to me about something that happened 13 years ago right now?"  My response to Lewis would have been -- "Yeah it's about time."

In March of 2012, he spoke to students at Harvard University, a speech that forms the backbone of his NFL Network documentary. "The first night I was in jail, a whisper came to me, and it said, 'Can you hear me now?' " Lewis said. "That's when I knew that no matter where I was, by any means necessary, I had to prove to myself, to my family, to my fans. … I gotta get something done. If y'all [that accused him of murder] are that bold to put my reputation on the line, I'm that bold to fight for it."  But all his fighting was really for himself.  It was HE who reaped the greatest benefit.  It is confusing that the public is so willing to forgive him when he is the largest beneficiary of his makeover.

"I'm always disturbed in my spirit about how people look at me from that incident," Lewis continued in another interview. "Those families that were affected will never know the truth. And that's sad."

But why will they never know the truth? Isn't it within his power to tell them? Of course it is; he was there. So Ray, step up and change that. "I would like for him to tell one day exactly what happened," Lollar's aunt, Cindy Lollar-Owens, told USA Today. But for Lewis that day will not come until he has lived his dream first.  Telling too soon might have derailed his career and forced him to pay a price he was unwilling to pay.

There is the flip side of this with its own set of facts:  Lewis was never convicted of any crime. No existing evidence suggests that he was materially involved in the deaths of Baker and Lollar. The evidence that might have connected him is mysteriously absent -- no blood soaked clothing. It did exist at some point in time -- but it was never recovered. He was allowed to make a plea deal and that is a regular and normal part of our legal system.  It happens all the time.

While I am a Believer and Lewis promotes himself as a follower of Christ, when the Bible discusses confession in Romans 10:9 and 10:10 the perpetrator of a sin gets off pretty easily. Romans 10:9 states: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  That's it. It does not say you must hold a press conference nor does it even say you must confess your sins -- only your faith in Jesus Christ! In Romans 10:10 it says, "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."  I find this severely lacking and it just isn't good enough.  So Lewis has lived by the "book" both the book of man's law and the book of God's law.  It has worked perfectly for him.

In conclusion, I cannot convict Ray Lewis of any crime.  I don't know to what level he was involved.  I don't know if he held a knife or if he just held his tongue.  I do believe that he believes what he preaches; he walks the talk.  I do believe he is a changed man and that he would never, not ever, put himself in that sort of situation again, but he did put himself there that fateful night and that he was involved in some part of it by simply being there and not telling about it.  He is undeniably one of the greatest if not THE greatest man to ever play his position.  But the fact remains that he has been able to live a dream while two young men never got the chance to live at all.  The dream was carefully crafted and was only made possible because Ray Lewis was never required to make a confession.  The letter of man's laws and God's law, according to the Bible, say that Lewis is "redeemed".  Why do I feel duped?  Do I want bad things for Ray Lewis? No.  That said, today, Super Bowl Sunday, Super Bowl XLVII -- the Niners versus Ravens -- I want Colin Kaepernick to render Lewis ineffective and I do not want Ray Lewis to put the ultimate feather in his cap by ending his career with a ring on his finger.  The time has come for this storybook to reflect some reality.  Go Niners!

Risk - Reward: The Math is Simple

I prayed for Caleb Moore. In fact I just bowed my head and asked God to take care of him and his family. He was a tough young man and I prayed that he would recover -- I now pray for his soul and the hearts of his loved ones left behind. This accident prompts a question, "how dangerous is too dangerous?"  One must assume that Caleb knew of the dangers.  He competed once with a broken pelvis and tailbone only one day after the crash that caused the injuries; he is a tough young man.  He had to be in amazing pain and yet competed and place in the top three.  Part of what these daredevils thrive on is cheating death.  They live to overcome odds and flirt with physics.

The NFL is in the midst of the "safety" talk.  I find it very hard to believe that today's NFL player does not know acutely know of the inherent dangers of his sport.  In times past the ignorance had some innocence; there may have even been decpetion. But today I tire of the frequent laments about how dangerous playing professional football is.  Ya think? Most have been playing since pee wee. It is hard on your health to repeatedly slam into other massive men.  If that is not obvious to them when they sign up then they are truly ignoramuses.  Professional football players are richly rewarded for being willing to expose themselves to the risk.  That is in part what they are paid for.  They know that an NFL career will not last the 30 years they might have as a computer programmer -- so they make more money in a shorter time span.  If they are smart they can live forever on a five year career. They can easily earn more in a single year or maybe two of play than I can earn in a lifetime.  I was born a woman; I didn't even have the opportunity.  I am educated and have outstanding, valuable experience. Society does not value me in the same way.  We don't pay for me to risk danger.

Risk is rewarded. Our troops get rewarded with "hazardous duty pay" when they are willing to expose themselves and risk their lives for the freedom of people they have never met.  Their rewards pale in comparison to that of an NFL linebacker but their pay is still connected to exposure to risk.  It is why a crab fisherman in the Bering Sea can make enough to buy a house in two seasons of fishing -- if they bring in a healthy payload.  Risk - reward. We get rewarded for two primary things.  First for being successful -- sometimes this is luck and sometimes it is brilliance sometimes a combination.  The second is being willing to expose oneself to danger.  It is an ancient equation.

Three people are killed by bulls each year in rodeo and an average of 20 people are killed in performance equestrian or rodeo events.  Tell me the last name you remember the name of a person who was killed in rodeo?  Lane Frost maybe? That was July 30th in 1989.  If we are to apply the averages for "death by bull" that was 23 years ago and that means that 70 men have been killed by bulls since then.  Do you know a single name on that list? I didn't think so. That is more deaths during "work" than the entire history of the NFL.  Also the suicide rate in the NFL is lower than the general US population and their average lifespan is longer -- I did the research. The media would lead you to believe otherwise. But bull riders are different.  They KNOW what they do is dangerous. They accept it. They embrace it.  I once heard a joke that goes like this.  If you want to know when you are a bull rider then fill your mouth full of marbles.  Each time you ride a bull spit one out.  When you have lost all your marbles, THEN you are a bull rider!

Based on this this is a pattern of "we need saftey measures" vs. "do it anyway", the more eyeballs on the sport of course the more attention it gets -- both good and bad.  But aren't the eyeballs there in part because of the danger?  If we bubble wrapped our NFL players and the X-Games made the landing area a big air cushion like stunt men use -- would we watch?  Would they even want to play?

A single mediocre NFL player makes more than 100's of professional rodeo cowboys combined.  These men hitch rides, owning nothing but a saddle or a bucking rig, sleep six or eight to a motel room and scrap enough money for food and a cold beer before hitting the road again for the next 8 seconds in another dusty town. What a life, eh?  They are chasing a high and that high is directly connected to the danger.  Few of them achieve riches and most end up with a permanent injury of some sort and a life of chronic pain.  Many would do it all over again if they could turn back the clock.

If you watched the Olympics last year and then compared ANY of the gymnast's routines to those of even 20 years ago, the stunts and the limits they pushed made the old routines look mundane, boring, dare I say easy?

So in conclusion, precautions and balancing risk versus reward is certainly important. When anyone examines a challenge they must calculate what safety precautions they must take in order to live to tell about it. They also want to push the edge of the "possible" and do the impossible and often don't want to be limited by safety measures.  Human beings have always desired to push limits, explore uncharted waters and go where no man has gone before. If we did not we would never have landed on the moon, Lewis and Clark would have never reached the Pacific and our land would never have been settled by wandering souls from across an ocean following the stars.

Guns, Mass Killings and Suicide

This has been an exploration in some of the worst humanity has to offer.  It has not been fun. It has been exhausting and I have had to walk away from it more than once.  It however, is important. I have explored mass killings across the last century all over the world.  I have tried to understand the differences between events, nations and motivations. The aftermath of the collection of killings in 2012 from Aurora to Idaho to Newtown has spurred massive reaction.  Some now embrace guns even more to protect themselves from these men and others think disarming everyone would solve the problem.  Notice I said, "men".  It is indeed a uniquely male behavior.   Others believe that we have a mental health awareness issue in the United States coupled with lack of good treatment -- It is true that nearly all killers of this kind are mentally unstable. Others claim that if we had God in our society we would be better off.  In part this is correct -- but it will surprise as to why.

I also took time to reach beyond the United States and see what the world is doing.  I wanted to see if what is happening here is unique to our society -- I wanted to know if something was really "wrong" with Americans.  I found that we are fairly normal as a nation.  In sorting and sifting through data I found an alarming trend -- nearly all of the killings that fit the profile of Newtown, Aurora and Columbine end in either suicide or suicide by cop.  Given a little more time before apprehension, probably all of them would end that way.  No one has talked about this as a suicide mission. 

In my very first written response to this last event in Newtown I pointed the finger at mental illness rather than guns. It is accurate to do so. I was tempted to say that if we had better skills and willingness to identify and profile mentally ill young men we might be better off.  That might be true to an limited extent -- in a nation that celebrates "being different" I asked how different is too different.  I also pointed out that living in a free society we embrace risk.  We are not going to stop these events with better mental illness treatment or taking guns away from law abiding Americans.  What we can do is explore them and realize that while they are horrific, awful and heartbreaking they are not new and they are not "American".

To profile this person one must approach it as an individual who is suicidal and thus include in research global suicide trends.  This was also grueling and not particularly enjoyable. These types of killings are what could be classified as "revenge killings". They are mostly carried out by young adult males who feel they have been marginalized by society and are mentally challenged in some capacity.  Their targets are either people they are acquainted with or know and who have "hurt them" as in Columbine or they are people who represent (to them) people who have or might hurt them. These killings also have another characteristic.  They can be carried out in part for attention.  Because these men feel invisible they carry out an act so grand and so awful, even when they die, they will never be forgotten.  There is a sick glory in that for them.  We are a nation craving fame and we see horrible people becoming famous for no reason.  Were that not so none of us would have ever heard of a Kardashian or someone named "Honey-Boo-Boo".  When people like that get famous for essentially being idiots a socially outcast young man might look for his own way to be famous. How an event like this could not make national headlines is unimaginable.  Right now there is a mentally unstable young man who is seeing all the coverage of a formerly invisible young man he identifies with.  He too can be remembered for eternity.

I have heard people too say "we have taken God out of our society" -- in a way they are correct.  The United States is not a deeply religious nation any more. They are saying we have taken morals out, we have taken the best good vs. evil example we have out when we no longer yearn for heaven and no longer fear hell; we have taken "rules to live by out".  Laws are not the first line of defense of moderating behavior. Illegal or legal isn't what controls human behavior -- it is a deeper, inner set of values that make people behave.  There are a million times we could all break the law (there is no way to watch us all, all the time) and NOT be caught -- but most of us don't.  Not because it is an illegal act -- but because it goes against our moral fabric. 

What is missing in all of the outcry I have heard to date is a hard analysis of these events.  Who commits them? Why do they commit them?  It is also very important to note that not all mass killings are the same.  School-place and workplace killings have the most in common. Then there are politically, religious and racially motivated killings.  Each type of killing, including the weapon used in the killings matters.  They are different.  So now we dive into the data and attempt to analyze it.  Hold on to your hats this is fascinating but difficult.

First let us take a look at gun deaths by nations.  This is where the anti-gun folks think that the United States has an epidemic of gun-deaths.  We do rank number ten on the list but you will notice that the vast majority of our nation's gun deaths are not homicides.  Note the nations that rank ahead of us and their relationship between guns and homicide.

Table 1.1

NATIONS IN THE WORLD WITH THE HIGHEST 

GUN-RELATED DEATHS

Nation                  Deaths/100K    # HOMICIDES     % HOMICIDES

El Salvador          50.36                     50.36                    100%

Jamaica               47.44                     47.44                    100%

Honduras            46.70                     46.70                    100%

Guatemala          38.52                     38.52                    100%

Swaziland            37.16                     37.16                    100%

Colombia             28.11                      27.10                    96.5%

Brazil                   19.01                     18.10                    95%

Panama               12.92                      12.92                   100%

Mexico                11.14                      10.00                    90%

United States     10.2                        3.7                        36%

Fifty-six percent (56%) of ALL gun deaths in the United States are SUICIDE.  Look at the list in the picture -- sit and think a while.  The nine nations that lead the US in gun-related death are not nations most of us would trade places with.  They are tough places to live. They are clearly dangerous.  Your quality of life would most certainly be far inferior to your quality of life now -- even if you are on welfare and food stamps in the United States.  Notice -- they have virtually NO suicide death by firearm because nearly 100% are homicides -- they have plenty of firearm related death.  In the beautiful, tolerant and glorious United States of America over 60% of all gun deaths are suicide -- so the vast majority of the gun-related deaths in the U.S. are not crimes.  This only amplifies the reality -- It is not a "gun control issue" in the United States - maybe it is a MENTAL HEALTH issue in the United States.  Stick with me -- the exploration into suicide rates will make sense.

Now let's examine whether or not the U.S. does have a suicide epidemic; let's dig deeper and look at worldwide suicide rates -- regardless of method.  The US ranks number 38th out of the 107 ranked countries in the world for suicide.  So this is where the mental health lobby jumps in.  To see that in the United States that 60% of all gun deaths are suicide seems alarming -- it would seem that maybe the suicide rate would go down if we had fewer guns. Read on.  Note below that not a single one of the nations listed with higher gun-related deaths (and remember that with most of these countries nearly all of their gun-deaths were homicides) has more suicides than the United States.  Not a single one of them.   Following are the most recent suicide numbers of various nations up to the United States at 38th:

Table 1.2

SUICIDE DEATHS BY COUNTRY (per 100,000 people)

RANK     COUNTRY        MALE     FEM.       AVERAGE           YEAR

1             Lithuania         54.6       11.6         31.6                     2011

2             South Korea     41.4       21.0         31.2                    2010

3             Guyana            39.0       13.4          26.4                    2006

4             Kazakhstan      43.0       9.4            25.6                    2008

5             Belarus            No Gender Data     25.3                     2010

6             Hungary           37.4       8.5            21.7                    2009

7             Japan               33.5       14.6          23.8                    2011

8             Latvia               33.8       4.0            17.5                    2009

9             China              *No Gender Data     22.23                  2011

10           Slovenia          29.3       3.0             17.2                    2010

11           Sri Lanka         No Gender Data     21.6                   1996

12           Russia              No Gender Data     21.4                   2011

13           Ukraine            37.8       7.0            21.2                   2009

14           Serbia/Mont.   28.4      11.1           19.5                    2006

15           Estonia              20.6       7.3          18.1                    2008

16           Switzerland       15.7       6.5         11.1                     2007

17           Croatia              30.2       10.0        19.7                    2002

18           Belgium             26.5       9.3         17.6                    2009

19           Finland              25.7       8.1         16.8                    2010

20           Moldova             30.1       5.6         17.4                    2008

21           France               23.5       7.5         15.0                    2009

22           Uruguay             26.0       6.3        15.8                    2004

23           South Africa       25.3       5.6        15.4                    2005

24           Austria                20.9       5.7       12.8                     2009

25           Poland                 28.0       3.8       15.4                     2010

26           H.Kong(China)   19.0       10.7       14.6                    2009

27           Suriname            23.9       4.8       14.4                     2005

28           Czech Republic   22.1       4.1       12.8                    2010

29           New Zealand      20.3       6.5        13.2                    2008

30           Sweden               21.4       9.2        15.3                   2011

31           Cuba                    19.0       5.5       12.3                   2008

32           Bulgaria              18.8       6.2        12.3                   2008

33           Romania             21.0       3.5         12.0                  2009

34           Norway               17.3       6.5         11.9                  2009

35           Denmark             17.5       6.4         11.9                  2006

36           Ireland                19.0       4.7         11.8                  2009

37           Bosnia/Herz.      20.3       6.3         13.3                  2011

38           United States     19.2       5.0          12.0                 2009

* I found no specific gender data on China relating to how many per 100K people.  I did find percentages of male vs. female suicide. This will be discussed later.

Japan, China, Norway, Belgium, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, Denmark, Cuba, Austria, Finland, France all have higher suicide rates than the United States.  Switzerland practices universal conscription, which requires that all able-bodied male citizens keep fully automatic firearms at home in case of a call-up.  Switzerland also does hold the European record of gun-related suicide.  But Japan has a higher suicide rate than Switzerland and it is an increasingly alarming social issue for that nation. Japan has severe gun control laws. Common methods of suicide in Japan are jumping in front of trains, leaping off high places, hanging, or overdosing on medication.  Rail companies will actually charge the families of those who commit suicide a fee depending on the severity of disrupted traffic. It is estimated that approximately one person every 15 minutes commits suicide in Japan. Recently, a number of suicide websites began to present information on how to make a home-made hydrogen sulfide gas from a deadly concoction of normal household chemical detergent with a liquid cleanser. A single breath of this high-density, colorless gas, which smells like rotten eggs, can apparently cause dizziness, headaches, and in the worst cases, brain damage and suffocation.

Authorities had expressed particular concern because of the gas' danger to neighbors. Recently, at least four people who died from inhaling the gas were not actual suicide victims, and dozens of others have been treated for nausea and headaches.  These suicides affect a large number of people other than the person hell-bent on dying.  Both Japan and Switzerland have higher suicide rates than the United States.  On average seventy-eight percent (78%) of all worldwide suicides are male -- only twenty-two percent (22%) are female. Comparatively speaking in the United States seventy-nine percent (79%) of all suicides are male as compared to twenty-one percent (21%) female -- fairly close to the worldwide average and well within any margin of error so ostensibly it could be completely average.

World suicides, regardless of nation, economy, size and culture are overwhelmingly male.  The forty nations with the highest suicide rates run 64% for males in Hong Kong and 36% females but it is impossible to clarify how to separate Hong Kong from China as China does not release specific data on the mainland.  In the non-Chinese countries the lowest for male suicide is Sweden at 70% and the highest is 91% male is Slovenia; most of them hover in the mid seventy (70) to low eighty (80) percent male.  These are vastly different cultures, with vastly different crime rates, mental healthcare systems, economies -- in fact the thing that might make them the MOST similar is their male to female suicide ratio.  So what can be done?  Can anything short of genetic and social engineering be done?  Is this simply an organic element of what it is to be male and what it is to be female?  Is there really a "solvable" problem or are we just jumping up and down, waving our arms around and pretending we have powers that we really don't? 

In China, the frequent outlier in human-related statistics, suicide is said to be the leading cause of death among women 15-34 and their suicide rate higher than males; it is the ONLY place in the world where this is true. In China a woman's suicide is usually based in economic woes and social/marital status.  So it would seem that the "natural world order" is that males are inherently wired to commit suicide more than females and only China -- with its draconian customs and utter social control-- has achieved enough social control to buck what is possibly the organic norm.  It would seem that to alter the trend or the norm worldwide or even in the U.S. would take herculean law changes and massive overhaul of a total society. 

It doesn't matter if it is the United States, Japan, France, Guyana or Lithuania. I don't want to be like China and they are the ONLY nation who has succeeded in "tipping the scales" between male and female suicide rates.  Few states, much less nations keep tabs on murder-suicides so I have no information to offer there.

On the other end of the spectrum in suicide rates are the countries with the lowest…this list includes: Haiti (THE LOWEST and virtually a zero suicide rate), Honduras, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Grenada, Jordan and Kuwait.  They are about as different from the United States as one can imagine.  The mental healthcare in these countries is virtually non-existent and here is the kicker -- most of these very low suicide rate nations have a very HIGH level of faith and active religion.

Table 1.3

COUNTRIES W/ HIGH RELIGIOUS 

PARTICIPATION & LOW to NO SUICIDE

NATION               DOMINANT RELIGION                PRACTICING %

Haiti                      Roman Catholic                               80%

Honduras             Roman Catholic/Evang.                 47%/36%            

Egypt                    Islam                                                  80-90%

Syria                     Islam                                                  87-90%

Pakistan               Islam                                                  95-98%

Grenada               Rom Cath./Prot.t/Ang.           53%/33%/13%

Jordan                  Islam                                                  90%

Kuwait                  Islam                                                  85%

According to the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, death by suicide is considered a grave or serious sin. The chief Roman Catholic Christian argument is that one's life is the property of God and a gift to the world, and to destroy that life is to wrongly assert dominion over what is God's. Your life is not yours to take from Him. Islam, like other Abrahamic religions, views suicide as one of the greatest sins and utterly detrimental to one's spiritual journey.  Killing yourself might really make your afterlife suck.

In the U.S. 73% of us identify as "Christian" and 20% say they have no affiliation, however only 9% of us say that our faith is our number one priority -- in the true sense of devotion for a Believer, one's faith must be number one because all else hinges on it and the grace received from it.  I don't believe that these statistics say that religious people are BETTER people, that is often NOT the case -- what it does say is that they think committing "grave sins" against their God will result in bad things for them.  Call it eternal self preservation -- NOT especially "good behavior".  So it would seem that laws against suicide (in many nations it is illegal), mental health support or economic stability are not the major factors in reducing suicide -- devout religion and aversion to cardinal sin is.

Now one last worldwide exploration.  We again examine the nations with the highest gun-related murder rates.  Guess what we find.  Some of the world's LOWEST suicide rates!  If you take all the countries ranked above the United States in gun-related deaths and note that nearly 100% of those deaths are homicides and THEN look at the suicide rates of those same violent nations you will find the average rate of suicide is WAY below global averages.  In Honduras and Jamaica there is virtually NO suicide. The average suicide rate over these murder riddled nations is a very low 7.8 per 100K people (80/20 - male/female) compared to 24.2 people per 100K in the US.  So it would seem that guns are not the corollary here.

Why such depth in suicide and suicide rates?  Why not talk about crime statistics and murder rates? “In a research specifically related to murder–suicide, Milton Rosenbaum (1990) discovered the murder–suicide perpetrators to be vastly different from perpetrators of homicide alone. Whereas murderer–suicides were found to be highly depressed and overwhelmingly men, other murderers were not generally depressed and more likely to include women in their ranks.”  So murder is an equal opportunity endeavor but suicide is not.

So psychologically speaking a mass-murderer (almost all end in suicide either by their own hand or "suicide by cop") like the ones too often in the news lately should be profiled more as being suicidal than as criminal murderers – this in NO WAY minimizes the heinous nature of the crimes they did commit and the lives they stole.  But the essence of the mental profile is vital if we are to attempt to understand.

So a murderer, more often than not, sees HIMSELF or HERSELF as a criminal – they are wantonly breaking the law and murder is against the law and they know it. So a state's or nation's laws do not affect their decision to murder or not murder -- even though it is against the law, they do it anyway.  Not all murderers are mentally ill - they kill for myriad reasons including power, robbery, prejudice, anger or even, it disgusts me to write this, for fun. A person whose base is that of “suicide”, even if they take others with them, does not connect it to a criminal act in their mind in the same way even though it can be a calculated "mission".  It is often from a place of that their victims somehow "deserved it". It is an act of desperation of sorts – all perpetuators of murder-suicide arguably are mentally ill even if only situational.  Again, it doesn’t at all make their crime lesser – it just helps us understand what might REALLY be going on.

Mass murderers may fall into any of a number of categories, including killers of family, of coworkers, of students, and of random strangers. Their motives for murder vary. A notable motivation for mass murder is revenge, but many other motivations are possible, including the need for attention or fame. According to the FBI, mass murder is defined as four or more murders occurring during a particular event with no cooling-off period between the murders (a cooling off period more would denote a serial killer and this typically involves a deliberate methodology). A mass murder typically occurs in a single location in which a number of victims are killed by an individual or more. Most acts of mass murder end with the death of the perpetrator(s), whether by direct suicide or being killed by law enforcement, so one could argue that most mass murderers are suicidal as well.   These acts are also referred to as "rampage killings".

Mass murders are NOT unique to the United States.  Nor are horrific attack on schools and innocent children and educators.  These incidents are challenging to break down and compare.  We can look at them multiple ways.  We can consider locale.  We can examine suspected motive or we can look at mortality rates and finally we can consider method.  All are somewhat pertinent but it is hard to decipher their level of priority to create as close to "an apples to apples" situation.

The most notable distinction between these horrible events seems to be "type" -- not place, not gender, not numbers.  So here is a snapshot breakdown organized in some semblance of order:

WORKPLACE AND SCHOOL ATTACKS: The US has the highest rate of workplace and school attacks in the world.  We put these together because they have so much in common.  They are often revenge attacks -- disgruntled workers or socially outcast young people -- the profile is quite similar. The thing that sets them apart from one another is the age of the perpetrator.  The motivations and subsequent suicide rates are nearly identical. Germany ranks #2 in school attacks.  One of the worst American school attacks happened in 1927.  This was before the stock market crash so it is safe to assume it was not caused by the Great Depression and the economic despondency that stemmed from that event. He used firearms, explosive devices and melee weapons (knives, etc). 

The largest recorded school attack happened back in 1944 by Andrew Phillip Kehoe.  He killed 44 people and injured 58 with guns, melee weapons and explosives. One of the earliest recorded workplace attacks in the United States occurred back in 1928 -- the attacker used knives and firearms to kill 12 people and injure 13.  In both workplace and school attacks the attacker nearly ALWAYS commits suicide.

-- So this sort of event is not new.

-- It is always perpetuated by males.

-- Workplace killers are generally between 30 and 50 years old regardless of country.

-- School killings in the U.S. are almost always perpetuated by males under the age of 25.

-- The vast majority, in fact almost all, of these events, regardless of country, end in suicide. 

RELIGIOUS/POLITICAL/RACIAL ATTACKS: Israel holds the top spot for Religious/Political/Racial killings; France has the second highest rate.  These events involve firearms, explosives and arson. Very few of these events end in suicide.  The last in the United States occurred in 1973 and it has never been a common occurrence in our nation.  These attacks often have both a high death rate and a higher rate of injury. The largest event in history occurred in Norway in 2011 with 242 people killed by firearms and explosive devices.

-- This sort of event is not new

-- It is rare in the US and it always has been

-- It rarely ends in suicide

-- It is nearly always perpetuated by males.

-- The ages of the attackers ranges from late teens to mid 40s with the mean being in the mid 20s to late 30s/low 40s.

DOMESTIC/HOME ATTACKS: The countries that dominate the list for domestic violence/home invasion (meaning it happened in a domestic setting) incidents that become mass killings are China being #1 and the United States at #2. These events use both guns and melee weapons -- in fact more knives, swords, etc. than in any other category.   But this category deserves further breakdown -- some are familicides and some are committed by home invaders.  This is a muddy category.

-- Neither family member killers nor non-family member rampage killers in this category almost ever committed suicide in the U.S.

-- China has the highest death rate in this category whether they are home intruders or family members.

-- These are targeted attacks with fairly consistent death rates between 10 and 15 regardless of country and very, very low injury rates. Death is almost always the outcome.

-- In the United States the attackers were all men in their 40's.

-- These are attacks with firearms or melee weapons -- no explosives whatsoever yet arson is much more common.

VEHICULAR ATTACKS: Another method used of course is cars -- vehicular manslaughter and murder.   This is also where the first American woman appears in any of these statistics with a 51 year old woman killing 7 people in Reno, Nevada back in 1980. 

-- These attacks have an average low death rate, a high injury rate and a low suicide rate by the attacker - in fact virtually NONE of them, regardless of country committed direct, self inflicted suicide. 

-- Some died in the crash (few) but NONE committed suicide as a deliberate, life-ending act.  There was no way to be certain they would die in the crash. 

-- This type of attack also appears the most varied in location from Uganda to Haiti -- Germany to the US -- Israel to Australia. 

PERSONAL EXPLOSIVE ATTACKS: Another category is personal explosive devices (this does not include bombings which become categorically different and would fall under acts of terrorism usually). These attacks utilize things like grenades, pipe bombs, etc and sometimes add arson.  Thailand is the distinct leader in this category with four of the top five deadliest attacks occurring there with the Philippines running with the second highest number of these attacks.  NONE of these attacks occur in the United States.  These have a low average death rate and a high injury rate.  It is a non-targeted attack. All attackers are male with most in their late teens to low 30s.

-- Attackers are young males.

-- None are American.

-- Very, very low suicide rate.

-- Almost none killed by their own device.

-- Surprisingly low death rate with the very high injury rate.

OTHER:  This list includes things like pilots and passengers crashing planes but acting on their own -- not as a part of a terrorist group.  It also includes setting fires.  These attacks have a very large fatality rate. The highest death number was caused by the pilot of Egypt Air flight 990 -- killing all 216 people aboard.  Then there was the subway fire set in Korea in 2003 killing 147 people.  The Hartford, CT circus fire that killed 168 people and injuring from 412 to 682 (reports vary) in 1944.  Then a plane crash caused by a Chinese man killing 111 people by setting a fire in the the cabin -- he died in the crash he caused in 2002.  These events do occur in the United States -- there have been 10 in the United States. Six of the ten in the U.S. occurred between 1944 and 1970.  If the attacker survived his crash, his fire or his explosion -- NONE committed suicide.  These events have massive casualties and often high injury rates.  And of course these attacks do not focus on the use of a firearm to inflict injury and death.

So what do we do with all this information?  From this we learn that profiling a rampage killer might be very important and that not all rampage killings should be lumped together as the media so often does.  We can conclude that in cases like Aurora, Idaho and Newtown that even if the perpetrator did not commit suicide at that time, his profile is more suicidal than it is criminal.  The motivations are vastly different.  We conclude too that one of the largest deterrents to suicide might devout religion -- it is a sin that will follow them into the afterlife.  This does NOT imply that devout religion would be better or worse for society but only that it affects this statistic.  It may create other negative issues that this paper does not explore. As we see all over the world in some cases religious wars kill many, many people -- it is just not the case in the United States. Maybe it is trade off we are willing to have.

We learn too that this sort of event is not new to any society nor it is unique to most developed nations.  It has been present for at least the last century.  We also learned that while the United States may be in the top ten for gun-related deaths that less than one third of those deaths are homicides -- unlike the nearly 100% homicide rate of the nations that lead in this statistic.  In addition mass killings happen in societies with very strict gun control with often higher casualty rates than attacks with guns.  So will taking guns away change anything?

This exploration does not solve anything.  It simply digs.  It creates profiles and shows that all mass killings are not equal.  Nor are all nations.  The reason for this research for me was to attempt to understand if we can DO anything about it in the ways the masses are talking about.  Will taking guns away from people help? I think not.  Japan and China prove that.  There is always something else out there that is equally or more deadly.  Will massive mental healthcare overhaul help?  Probably not.  In nations without much mental healthcare these events are less common.  Will turning to God help?  Well it might on the individual level but our nation can't mandate devotion -- after all freedom from that mandate is why we are here. 

I think the thing this paper does prove is that we have not dug deep enough in our visceral reactions -- there is so much more to this.  We might get better at profiling this sort of perpetrator -- but I doubt it.  The Untied States has long let go of the desire or expectation to assimilate and embrace a unified vision of right and wrong, good versus evil.  We will enjoy some freedoms because of that and we will suffer some consequences.  It is a trade off. When most of us travel the world we don't have the same expectation of personal safety as we do when we are at home.  We might consider embracing that perspective always. 

What can we do? What I can do as an individual is to be aware, take note of things around me that don't feel right.  Pay attention when my gut tells me someone might be dangerous and make sure I have the ability to either get away or defend myself and those around me.  This does not mean I will live in fear.  It does mean that I accept that the world filled with human beings is not Disneyland.  There is no "they" who can keep me and my loved ones safe at all times.  I accept responsibility in part for that all by myself.

The primary conclusion though is this. It is not that simple.  Taking guns out of the hands of Americans is not THE answer nor is massive mental healthcare overhaul. For the government to think that scrambling together a task force lead by the Vice President to make recommendations on gun control in a matter of weeks with the hope they are going to change what is clearly a human condition and not a uniquely American condition is silly. This behavior and type of event is one that has been with society a very long time; their show of force is more about posturing and looking like they are "doing something about it".  As we have seen the only nation who has effectively altered suicide numbers is China and they have not likely reduced their numbers, just changed their composition.  I for one do not want to emulate China in any way.  Short of social engineering can we change society?

References

Suicide rates by country, 1950-2011 published by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Top Ten Most Suicidal Countries published by International Business Times HK

Unless otherwise stated all statistics are from WHO: "Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex (Table)". World Health 

Organization. 2011. 

"Using Psychology on Suicide Bridge". Korea Joongang Daily. 

"WHO/Europe". Who.int. 

"China's suicide rate 'among highest in world". 2011-09-08. 

"Death Due To Suicide". Eurostat. European Commission. 2009. 

"Suicide trends in rich and poor countries". Daily Times. 2010-09-28.