That’s neither what I said, nor what I intendet to say. I just said, that people tend to choose the most efficient and painless method of suicide, and that a gun ban wouldn’t prevent them from commiting suicide, because most of them will just choose the next efficient method. No one prepares a hanging for attention, but more people preffer a bullet over a rope.
Which shows you’re not really listening.
Yes, people do have a preferred method. That’s what “means reduction” is, and it’s been repeatedly shown to reduce the suicide rate, because it turns out that people often don’t just choose another method.
When they do choose another method, methods with lower lethality than guns result in more survivors, only 10% of which will go on to die by suicide.
While all of this might feel unintuitive, it all remains demonstrably correct.
I’m interrested where the 10% are from, but I assume they are data points from the current state where people preffer suicide by guns. I do think that if people had to choose different methods than guns the statistic would look different. Also I think that gun ownership is rather one of the less important influences on the suicide rate, if most people can’t afford therapie not having accses to a gun probably won’t stop them from doing it.
It’s a complex problem with many factors but widespread access to guns is a provably one of those factors. The 90% survival rate after a failed attempt comes from the world over.
Take for example Japan
You don’t get to handwave away statistics when they’re inconvenient and then pull them out when you think they can score you a point. Suicide causes and prevention are areas that are extensively studied.
You don’t get to handwave away statistics when they’re inconvenient and then pull them out when you think they can score you a point. Suicide causes and prevention are areas that are extensively studied.
I don’t know where I did, if you are reffering to the suicide attempt statistic, you missunderstood me, I just didn’t know it exists. Also you kinda do it here by not answering to my point.
It’s a complex problem with many factors but widespread access to guns is a provably one of those factors. The 90% survival rate after a failed attempt comes from the world over.
I agree that it’s a complex problem, that’s why I do think that we need laws, that regulate how people use their guns (like a regulation, that you have to keep your gun locked away), not who uses guns (with exceptions like terrorists and people who threat to commit a crime or suicide, minors, etc.).
Maybe the widespread acces of guns has a higher impact on suicide rates, than I think, but it’s far from the most important factor in my experience. Maybe the suicide rates are down a bit if we ban guns, but the mental health of people wouldn’t get better by making them life. I think that physicly preventing people from killing themself isn’t the right approach in the long run.
Which shows you’re not really listening.
Yes, people do have a preferred method. That’s what “means reduction” is, and it’s been repeatedly shown to reduce the suicide rate, because it turns out that people often don’t just choose another method.
When they do choose another method, methods with lower lethality than guns result in more survivors, only 10% of which will go on to die by suicide.
While all of this might feel unintuitive, it all remains demonstrably correct.
I’m interrested where the 10% are from, but I assume they are data points from the current state where people preffer suicide by guns. I do think that if people had to choose different methods than guns the statistic would look different. Also I think that gun ownership is rather one of the less important influences on the suicide rate, if most people can’t afford therapie not having accses to a gun probably won’t stop them from doing it.
Take for example Japan, it has one of the lowest estimated gun ownership rate in the world but also unfortunatly one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Suicide is considered a major social issue in Japan and it is exacly that, a social issue, not a gun issue.
It’s a complex problem with many factors but widespread access to guns is a provably one of those factors. The 90% survival rate after a failed attempt comes from the world over.
You don’t get to handwave away statistics when they’re inconvenient and then pull them out when you think they can score you a point. Suicide causes and prevention are areas that are extensively studied.
I don’t know where I did, if you are reffering to the suicide attempt statistic, you missunderstood me, I just didn’t know it exists. Also you kinda do it here by not answering to my point.
I agree that it’s a complex problem, that’s why I do think that we need laws, that regulate how people use their guns (like a regulation, that you have to keep your gun locked away), not who uses guns (with exceptions like terrorists and people who threat to commit a crime or suicide, minors, etc.). Maybe the widespread acces of guns has a higher impact on suicide rates, than I think, but it’s far from the most important factor in my experience. Maybe the suicide rates are down a bit if we ban guns, but the mental health of people wouldn’t get better by making them life. I think that physicly preventing people from killing themself isn’t the right approach in the long run.