5 ms·

Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun? Also I think people, particularly men, seem to think they're pretty immune to mental illness or fits

Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun? Also I think people, particularly men, seem to think they're pretty immune to mental illness or fits of emotion. That's another belief that lacks a basis. Whether you die because you had a bad month or because a toddler found your gun, or your partner was angry at you, you'll still be dead.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun? Of course. And maybe we should encourage people to pursue those alternatives if they're sure in their decision, and maybe take some time to contemplate whether it's what they really want before doing something they can't undo. But we need to do that anyway, because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. We need to address the underlying issue, not nerf the world because we couldn't be bothered to solve it right.
- tomlockwood 7y ago
  Neither rope nor pills are as easy to use, fast, or as lethal as death by gun. Pills particularly are a really bad example. People mess it up all the time. Pills and rope have the added bonus of not being as lethal in other situations either. Pills and rope: 1, guns: 0
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Unless pills and rope are never fatal, that doesn't really matter, because we still need to solve it for the times that they are. And if we do then it doesn't matter how fatal the method is because there is no longer an attempt.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      That's not a particularly compelling argument. It suggests we should never attempt to solve any problem, because other smaller problems will continue to exist and we need to solve them to.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        That's not the argument at all. Rather it's that if you address the root cause, which you need to do anyway, then you don't need to worry about mitigations. If your house has a gas leak and someone says "don't turn on the light, it's dangerous" then even if they're right, the real solution is to do something about the gas leak, not to sit in darkness and do nothing while your house is full of gas. And once the gas is out of your house there is no reason not to turn on the light.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
        mlyle 7y ago
        > Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?" > you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those. There may be better ways to reduce these than trying to remove the guns, though-- ways that mitigate and reduce harm and that don't impact personal liberties or the beneficial aspects of firearms.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Gun ownership decreases liberty via death.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        > Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?" That is what one would say if they were grateful for the deaths, isn't it? Isn't it just a bonus that it happens to The Other?
- DanBC 7y ago
  > We need to address the underlying issue Reducing access to means and methods is one of the most important suicide prevention measures we can take. It's a key part of any national suicide prevention strategy. > because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. People tend to have a preferred method, and method substitution takes years. But assume they do instantly switch from using a gun to using some other method: that's still beneficial, because they've switched from something that's very lethal to something that's probably less lethal.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> Ok! Is there perhaps a less messy way to do it than a gun? Of course. And maybe we should encourage people to pursue those alternatives if they're sure in their decision, and maybe take some time to contemplate whether it's what they really want before doing something they can't undo. But we need to do that anyway, because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. We need to address the underlying issue, not nerf the world because we couldn't be bothered to solve it right.

tomlockwood 7y ago
Neither rope nor pills are as easy to use, fast, or as lethal as death by gun. Pills particularly are a really bad example. People mess it up all the time. Pills and rope have the added bonus of not being as lethal in other situations either. Pills and rope: 1, guns: 0
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Unless pills and rope are never fatal, that doesn't really matter, because we still need to solve it for the times that they are. And if we do then it doesn't matter how fatal the method is because there is no longer an attempt.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    That's not a particularly compelling argument. It suggests we should never attempt to solve any problem, because other smaller problems will continue to exist and we need to solve them to.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      That's not the argument at all. Rather it's that if you address the root cause, which you need to do anyway, then you don't need to worry about mitigations. If your house has a gas leak and someone says "don't turn on the light, it's dangerous" then even if they're right, the real solution is to do something about the gas leak, not to sit in darkness and do nothing while your house is full of gas. And once the gas is out of your house there is no reason not to turn on the light.
      - tomlockwood 7y ago
        Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. So while yeah, there may be other issues with mental health, gun training, domestic violence etc, you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those.
        mlyle 7y ago
        > Luckily for gun control advocates the rate of firearm injuries also sharply increases for households that own guns, too. Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?" > you can significantly reduce deaths and injuries by removing guns - which people often have because they think having a gun will reduce those. There may be better ways to reduce these than trying to remove the guns, though-- ways that mitigate and reduce harm and that don't impact personal liberties or the beneficial aspects of firearms.
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Gun ownership decreases liberty via death.
        CompanionCuuube 7y ago
        > Uh, ... wow. "Luckily?" That is what one would say if they were grateful for the deaths, isn't it? Isn't it just a bonus that it happens to The Other?
DanBC 7y ago
> We need to address the underlying issue Reducing access to means and methods is one of the most important suicide prevention measures we can take. It's a key part of any national suicide prevention strategy. > because even without a gun, someone may have a rope on hand, or a bottle of pills. People tend to have a preferred method, and method substitution takes years. But assume they do instantly switch from using a gun to using some other method: that's still beneficial, because they've switched from something that's very lethal to something that's probably less lethal.