4 ms·

I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people". It's true that you can limit your gun ri

I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people". It's true that you can limit your gun risk by being white/urban/middle-class/mentally healthy, but these are not advantages available to everyone. There's a lot of victim-blaming in some of these comments, which glosses over the fact that plenty of infants and toddlers die from guns. Gun deaths in total numbers are roughly the same as car deaths: each are approx 30-40K per year in the USA.

umvi 7y ago
When someone says they don't want to travel to the USA because they are afraid of being killed by a gun, it is disingenuous to inflate their chances of dying by including suicide as an option. If I say "What are my chances of dying by gun or car if I go on a vacation to the USA?" are you really going to factor in suicide as an option? Generally it is presumed that the person is not considering going to the USA to commit suicide on their vacation. Thus, most people discount suicides to tailor the gun figure such that a more apples-to-apples comparison can be made. It's like people claiming to be terrified of going to Japan because the chance of dying by a rope around your neck is insanely high compared to the USA.
nybble41 7y ago
> I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people". Probably because the interesting statistic is not "gun deaths" but rather "fatal gun-related accidents" and "homicides" (with or without a gun involved). Suicides don't just "happen"; there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. If you don't want die from suicide, the solution is as simple as not attempting suicide.
- DanBC 7y ago
  > there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. This is wrong though. Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to prevent suicide and we see drops in rates of suicide whenever we see changes to a commonly used method. Two of the best documented examples are when the UK changed from coal gas to natural gas, and when the UK introduced catalytic converters. Obviously reducing access to means and methods is not the only thing we should be doing to reduce death by suicide. But it is an important part of the package of measures.
  - nybble41 7y ago
    You're missing the point. You're talking about reducing the number of (successful) suicides. I'm saying that there is no risk of suicide either way because it's something that people choose to do, and choices are not risks.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die and people usually do not make efforts to avoid being found; choice of method is complex but tends to focus on what's easily available and quickly fatal. Have a read of The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, edited by Rory C. O'Connor, Jane Pirkis, because it covers all this in detail. Or you can read the NCISH research. Or you can read Professor Nav Kapur's book Suicide Prevention.
      - nybble41 7y ago
        > You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is no better than killing someone who wishes to live. You are welcome to try to talk them out of it but have no right to interfere with their choice—whatever it may happen to be.
        DanBC 7y ago
        > Forcing someone to live Suicide prevention is not "forcing someone to live". Suicidal thoughts are usually transient and any delay in suicidal action allows the person to seek help. Like I said in my first post, reducing access to means an methods is only part of the package that we need to be providing. You keep trying to make this point: you keep trying to say that suicide is a choice that people make. I'll try again: it often is not a choice that people make. Please just go read the research. Here's a tweet about "Rapid Onset Despair": https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138 https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138 You especially need to pay attention to intoxication and suicide. Or are you saying that an impulsive decision made when very drunk is no different to a considered decision that is stable over months made when sober? > no right Since you mention rights, people have a right to life and suicide prevention respects that right. It respects that right in a way that wide-spread gun-ownership doesn't. UNCRC Article 6: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf?_ga=2.199710510.1458671087.1573851989-1259868802.1573851989 https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/U... UNDHR Article 3: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ UNCRPD article 10: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-10-right-to-life.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-... I live in England and the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act specifically give HCPs the right to take away people's choice in some limited situations. I don't know where you live but you almost certainly have similar laws around substituted decision making.

umvi 7y ago

When someone says they don't want to travel to the USA because they are afraid of being killed by a gun, it is disingenuous to inflate their chances of dying by including suicide as an option. If I say "What are my chances of dying by gun or car if I go on a vacation to the USA?" are you really going to factor in suicide as an option? Generally it is presumed that the person is not considering going to the USA to commit suicide on their vacation. Thus, most people discount suicides to tailor the gun figure such that a more apples-to-apples comparison can be made. It's like people claiming to be terrified of going to Japan because the chance of dying by a rope around your neck is insanely high compared to the USA.

nybble41 7y ago

> I don't understand why people always discount suicides among gun deaths, as if suicides only happen to "other people". Probably because the interesting statistic is not "gun deaths" but rather "fatal gun-related accidents" and "homicides" (with or without a gun involved). Suicides don't just "happen"; there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. If you don't want die from suicide, the solution is as simple as not attempting suicide.

DanBC 7y ago
> there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. This is wrong though. Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to prevent suicide and we see drops in rates of suicide whenever we see changes to a commonly used method. Two of the best documented examples are when the UK changed from coal gas to natural gas, and when the UK introduced catalytic converters. Obviously reducing access to means and methods is not the only thing we should be doing to reduce death by suicide. But it is an important part of the package of measures.
- nybble41 7y ago
  You're missing the point. You're talking about reducing the number of (successful) suicides. I'm saying that there is no risk of suicide either way because it's something that people choose to do, and choices are not risks.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die and people usually do not make efforts to avoid being found; choice of method is complex but tends to focus on what's easily available and quickly fatal. Have a read of The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, edited by Rory C. O'Connor, Jane Pirkis, because it covers all this in detail. Or you can read the NCISH research. Or you can read Professor Nav Kapur's book Suicide Prevention.
    - nybble41 7y ago
      > You're missing the point that if someone chooses to die but uses a less lethal method then there's a good chance they do not die and are saved by medical attention. Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is no better than killing someone who wishes to live. You are welcome to try to talk them out of it but have no right to interfere with their choice—whatever it may happen to be.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        > Forcing someone to live Suicide prevention is not "forcing someone to live". Suicidal thoughts are usually transient and any delay in suicidal action allows the person to seek help. Like I said in my first post, reducing access to means an methods is only part of the package that we need to be providing. You keep trying to make this point: you keep trying to say that suicide is a choice that people make. I'll try again: it often is not a choice that people make. Please just go read the research. Here's a tweet about "Rapid Onset Despair": https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138 https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138 You especially need to pay attention to intoxication and suicide. Or are you saying that an impulsive decision made when very drunk is no different to a considered decision that is stable over months made when sober? > no right Since you mention rights, people have a right to life and suicide prevention respects that right. It respects that right in a way that wide-spread gun-ownership doesn't. UNCRC Article 6: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf?_ga=2.199710510.1458671087.1573851989-1259868802.1573851989 https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/U... UNDHR Article 3: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ UNCRPD article 10: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-10-right-to-life.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-... I live in England and the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act specifically give HCPs the right to take away people's choice in some limited situations. I don't know where you live but you almost certainly have similar laws around substituted decision making.