7 ms·

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. Pil

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?
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Considering my argument has been about attempting to reduce gun deaths you might want to reconsider that assumption. However, lucky for you, I'm pretty sure that assumption would make it easier for you to dismiss my argument. I say lucky for you, but what I really mean to say is it'd be bad if you did that. Its a little turn of phrase that isn't literal and which is probably lost via text. Lets reduce gun deaths. They are tragic and often unnecessary. Also, fear of The Other, seems to be what drives some of the people in this thread to defend gun ownership. One responder here justified gun ownership by saying other people were "animals" that given the chance would exact violence upon them.
        mlyle 7y ago
        I spend a lot of time at and around a cabin up in the Sierras; sometimes with no means to contact law enforcement; and other times with law enforcement about 45 minutes out. 99.9% of people you might meet are decent folks. But there's meth around, etc. I'm not a huge dude. I probably would have already been stabbed if not for carrying a firearm during some of the questionable encounters I've had up there. What do you propose for my use case?
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Metaphors are unhelpful. First of all, here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalPackage.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalP... Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide" Here's the World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/en/ https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/... > At the population level, restricting access to means of self-harm (such as pesticides, firearms, high places) is recommended. > Strength of recommendation: STRONG > Quality of the evidence: MODERATE > Collaboration between health and other relevant sectors should be established and the community should be involved actively to find locally feasible ways to implement interventions at the population level to reduce access to means of suicide to decrease deaths from suicide, suicide attempts and acts of self-harm. > Strength of recommendation: STRONG > Quality of the evidence: MODERATE If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population. The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches". In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples. By not reducing access to means and methods you're saying you're content for people to die a painful death in gas explosions because you think the gas leaks should be fixed quicker, even though everyone who knows anything about gas leaks is telling that's not how it works.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide" Yes of course. People on psychiatric hold shouldn't have access to firearms any more than they should have access to cutlery or shoelaces. > The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches". Leaving the house is equivalent to a psychiatric hold. > If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population. We already do this for anyone known to be at immediate risk, the problem is in accurately identifying who that is. There is also a real risk that if you do things like condition voluntary outpatient psychiatric treatment on losing access to firearms, that would deter people who own firearms from seeking treatment. Then the choice isn't between treatment and firearms or treatment and no firearms, it's between firearms and treatment or firearms and no treatment. > In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples. Which is, nonetheless, still the only real solution. What are you suggesting that we do? Declare a state of emergency and confiscate all firearms, but then give them back in a few years once we better address the root causes of suicide? Considering that firearms are used in about half of US suicide deaths and some non-zero number those would only switch to another method, that seems rather extreme for a temporary solution that would solve less than half of the problem, even if it wasn't politically infeasible. And spending time fighting over that instead of starting to address the root causes right now means that the same number of people die in the short term (as we do nothing but argue) and more die in the long term because it's that much longer before a real solution that addresses the problem independent of method is actually implemented. We know that there is a large contingent of people who oppose restricting firearms, but who is it in opposition to getting underway with this "concerted effort across national and local government agencies" right away?

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?
        tomlockwood 7y ago
        Considering my argument has been about attempting to reduce gun deaths you might want to reconsider that assumption. However, lucky for you, I'm pretty sure that assumption would make it easier for you to dismiss my argument. I say lucky for you, but what I really mean to say is it'd be bad if you did that. Its a little turn of phrase that isn't literal and which is probably lost via text. Lets reduce gun deaths. They are tragic and often unnecessary. Also, fear of The Other, seems to be what drives some of the people in this thread to defend gun ownership. One responder here justified gun ownership by saying other people were "animals" that given the chance would exact violence upon them.
        mlyle 7y ago
        I spend a lot of time at and around a cabin up in the Sierras; sometimes with no means to contact law enforcement; and other times with law enforcement about 45 minutes out. 99.9% of people you might meet are decent folks. But there's meth around, etc. I'm not a huge dude. I probably would have already been stabbed if not for carrying a firearm during some of the questionable encounters I've had up there. What do you propose for my use case?
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Metaphors are unhelpful. First of all, here's the US CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalPackage.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicideTechnicalP... Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide" Here's the World Health Organisation: https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/en/ https://www.who.int/mental_health/mhgap/evidence/suicide/q7/... > At the population level, restricting access to means of self-harm (such as pesticides, firearms, high places) is recommended. > Strength of recommendation: STRONG > Quality of the evidence: MODERATE > Collaboration between health and other relevant sectors should be established and the community should be involved actively to find locally feasible ways to implement interventions at the population level to reduce access to means of suicide to decrease deaths from suicide, suicide attempts and acts of self-harm. > Strength of recommendation: STRONG > Quality of the evidence: MODERATE If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population. The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches". In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples. By not reducing access to means and methods you're saying you're content for people to die a painful death in gas explosions because you think the gas leaks should be fixed quicker, even though everyone who knows anything about gas leaks is telling that's not how it works.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > Page 12 says "Reduce access to lethal means among persons at risk of suicide" Yes of course. People on psychiatric hold shouldn't have access to firearms any more than they should have access to cutlery or shoelaces. > The reducing access to means and methods is equivalent in your metaphor to "as you're leaving this gas filled house do not strike any matches". Leaving the house is equivalent to a psychiatric hold. > If you have tens of thousands of people dying each year from one method of suicide you need to reduce access to that method while you're putting in place other stuff to reduce suicidality in the population. We already do this for anyone known to be at immediate risk, the problem is in accurately identifying who that is. There is also a real risk that if you do things like condition voluntary outpatient psychiatric treatment on losing access to firearms, that would deter people who own firearms from seeking treatment. Then the choice isn't between treatment and firearms or treatment and no firearms, it's between firearms and treatment or firearms and no treatment. > In your analogy "doing something about the gas leak" (fixing suicidality across a population) is something that takes years of concerted effort across national and local government agencies, see the linked CDC report above for examples. Which is, nonetheless, still the only real solution. What are you suggesting that we do? Declare a state of emergency and confiscate all firearms, but then give them back in a few years once we better address the root causes of suicide? Considering that firearms are used in about half of US suicide deaths and some non-zero number those would only switch to another method, that seems rather extreme for a temporary solution that would solve less than half of the problem, even if it wasn't politically infeasible. And spending time fighting over that instead of starting to address the root causes right now means that the same number of people die in the short term (as we do nothing but argue) and more die in the long term because it's that much longer before a real solution that addresses the problem independent of method is actually implemented. We know that there is a large contingent of people who oppose restricting firearms, but who is it in opposition to getting underway with this "concerted effort across national and local government agencies" right away?