Do you own a TV or a couch/comfy chair? Because that is what is most likely to kill any of us via low fitness. Gun owners often think of firearms as tools for hobbies etc…or want to use them for protection (which is a wash BTW). This line is never going to convince them to care about the 0.0126% per year risk (for all causes) of suicide.
The other problem is that there really isn’t a correlation between gun ownership and the suicide rate, consider Japan which is highly restrictive yet has a significantly higher suicide rate than the US.
Maybe if there was some way to show that owning firearms were the cause of suicide attempts some could be convinced, but it is a hard sell for those who aren’t currently pro-gun control.
In the interest of avoiding the spread misinformation I am going to retract that statement, even if the numbers would tend in my favor.
While the numbers in the US for suicide are under-reported, it appears that the issues with Japans numbers rise to the level of absurdity. Apparently they get their insanely high murder conviction rate (98-99%) and low crime rate because police won’t even investigate a murder unless there is a known assailant and a guarantee of conviction. It appears that only around 1 in 10 suspicious deaths ever reach a medical examiner. While every country has challenges with these needs it appears that for Japan they show that it is probably fairly easy to get away with murder. I am not claiming that is the case, just that Japans numbers seem to be completely useless for any form of comparison.
Edited to add that unnatural death could be accident, drugs, homicide, suicide etc… I can’t find reliable information that tries to categorize it further in Japan.
I suspect Whack-a-Mole is on more solid ground with suicides than with homicides. Even if we assume that having a firearm in the house does not make you more likely to attempt suicide, it is certainly the case that guns are a really, really good way of succeeding in suicide attempts.
For instance, in this study, 6% of suicide attempts used firearms, but 54% of successful suicide attempts did so. Of the methods the study record, suicide attempts by firearm were the most frequently successful. Since suicide by gun is so successful, reducing gun ownership would presumably decrease the frequency of successful suicide attempts. If every suicide attempt with a firearm in this study were replaced by one via hanging (another frequently successful method, apparently), then successful suicides would decrease by about 15%.
That’s a laudable goal. But I’m not convinced that it’s terribly relevant in a debate notionally centered on “are we in general agreement that people who commit crimes with guns or unlawfully carry guns shoud be dealt with harshly?”
Are you sure you linked to the study you intended to?
Note that I am paying attention to the bolded part in those excerpts.
First of all, can you explain the gender gap relating to the “perception of fatalness” despite similar access?
Second if the case is being made to expend political capitol due to a moral decision to help prevent suicides. If we aren’t going to make significant efforts to address the causes of suicide is it really moral to ban firearms. If a person has a greater intent to die couldn’t it be possible that they chose firearms due to the speed and potentially less traumatic experience? Is it really moral to force them to use a slower and more traumatic method for what could only prevent completion of 1 out of 5 of these serious attempts?
I am pretty sure that the Republican party won’t increase funding for mental health services or work on social programs to destigmatizing it. And just as the pre-Southern strategy Republicans paid the price for the civil rights act so will the Democrats.
To move forward just for the hope that it will “force attempters to switch to means that typically are less lethal” seems to only have empathy for the numbers, and not for the poor soles who are at a point where suicide becomes thinkable. We all have different world views but for me, if this is the suggested way that this argument is being frame framed, it is about the most immoral direction that we could take.
If I am missing something here please let me know, because from my side the argument seems to be “Make them try to drown themselves in their tub, hang themselves from the door frame, or duct tape a garbage bag to their head” just so firearm death numbers go down? The efforts aren’t directed at addressing the overwhelming feelings of sadness and hopelessness that must be hell to experience. I expect that it is probably just a datapoint that people use to try and justify what they find important, and the actual suicide attempters are dehumanized as a side effect.
There is extremely strong evidence that people won’t just switch to another method to commit suicide. The means of committing suicide matter enormously to the number. In places where guns are less prevalent, there are fewer suicides. This is also true of other specific suicide methods such as certain popular bridges. Blocking people from one popular method does not just make them go with another method. It actually reduces the number of suicides. Lots of people committed suicide with coal gas in the UK until they stopped having coal gas available and the rate of suicide went down sharply.
This makes sense. Many suicides, like many homicides, are impulsive acts and the ease and attractiveness of taking the action is important.
Make them try to drown themselves in their tubs because they most likely won’t.
Well, that is a can of worms. Good thing nobody noticed, lest this become some kind of gun violence debate we’re not having. Better close that can back up right quick.
Can you provide any cites besides the coal gas case, because I am not finding that information, particularly ones that correct for a high intensity of intent.
Almost all of the cites I can which do state that means reduction is useful as part of a suicide-prevention strategy, but access to services is far more effective.
To be clear, if there was no political fall out I would have zero problems with a complete gun ban, but this is not an isolated topic. Gun control is a wedge issue, and the party that sees it as a wedge issue also takes active steps to reduce access to services.
Much of the correlation between firearm ownership and suicide rates also maps to rural and poverty demographics. The rural poor tend to have less access to medical interventions.
The moral problem I referenced is completely related to the choice to target firearms legislation (with little chance of reduce of access) at the expense of other critical aspects of an effective suicide-prevention strategy.
I genuinely don’t know. Does anyone have good info on Australia’s suicide rates, before and after their big gun buyback? I’m looking for something like yearly rates going back several decades.
I’d also like to point out that if people use guns to commit suicide rather than alternative methods they’re doing it for a reason, and by removing that possibility we raise the cost of suicide (in terms of potential for pain and suffering, say). When you raise the cost of something you discourage it – that’s econ 101. There’s also research showing that taxes on alcohol reduces consumption. Oh, but they can just smuggle it from elsewhere, or make their own, etc, and sure, that’s true … but you’re changing the incentive structure and that has a real impact.
Actually, to avoid being part of a thread on a debate I find pointless (I should never have posted because my interest is essentially nonexistent), I’ll just drop in two links then leave. Since I won’t be here to follow up, feel free to ignore. I did not make a lot of effort in the link finding, so take them with a grain of salt.
Coal gas was a fairly unique method, as it was highly lethal, less violent, and irreversible.
Basically with firearms, hanging or jumping you can stop the attempt at any time up to the very last moment. If one started an attempt via CO poisoning symptoms from a source like Coal Gas take time to manifest at save levels. So if a person didn’t have a high “intent” level they would still die.
As an example, at 1,600 ppm (0.16%) it takes about 20min for the symptoms to show up, but stopping at that point still means you will be dead in a few hours.
It is lower bar on action to be fatal. And those impulsive suicides are very different from the way under-reported elder suicides as an example, which often are very much planned out.
A cooling off purchase law for new gun owners may help with the impulsive action, but it will not help with the high intent cases.
Well, I don’t necessarily need to here; in that post I was responding to a pretty stark claim about suicide rates in Australia. Unless I’ve located incorrect data, then that claim is false.
More broadly … if firearm supply is saturated enough then additional firearms might not have much if any impact. If I can already easily find a gun to kill myself with, having my choice of two or three won’t really move the needle.
I understand what my cite said just fine. Bone made a low effort post so I responded with low effort.
You picked up the mantle seemingly with the goal of winning some imaginary message board internet points by repeatedly telling me “I’m wrong…admit it” instead of engaging in discussion of the topic at hand.
The issue is whether or not guns make you safer. You said my cite did not prove anything of the sort. Maybe it is ice cream ownership at work. You were seeking to discredit the person and the study without actually engaging the substance of what is being said as regards the debate at hand. Nice debate tactic.
It is clear that there is a strong correlation there. I offered to bet you and you (wisely) evaded it because my original cite it not the only study on this.
If you want to make a case for outlawing those things go for it.
Each has nothing to do with the other.
E.G. Arguing pet tiger ownership should be outlawed because tigers are dangerous has nothing to do with whether we should also outlaw pet dog ownership because they can be dangerous too.
Then what would new legislation, that will only restrict new sales (only practical option right now) do outside of ensure that the Left loses power for a while?
This directly fits with my world view, where the situation is crappy, but there isn’t much that we can do within the political realities of the current political situation without sacrificing all of our other goals for this one, which is unlikely to have a large impact.