4 ms·

Well, I feel that it is that simple. Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. I suppose there might be cases of someone killing themselves with their gun b

by talmand 13y ago

Well, I feel that it is that simple. Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. I suppose there might be cases of someone killing themselves with their gun because they feel bad about owning a gun. What you are suggesting makes it easier, but does not contribute. Owning a gun may make it simpler for some people to commit the act, but the sad fact of the matter is it not that difficult to do. There are numerous ways for someone to commit suicide easily without a firearm. There are ways that are quicker, painless, and more apt to succeed. If the most common method to commit suicide happen to be jumping off the roof of their house, should the government start restricting the access to your own roof regardless of your feelings towards suicide? If the most common method were to jump off bridges, should the government restrict all foot traffic on bridges? My take on people using this type of statistic, granted I don't feel they all do this, is that it is used as a sad fact to cause emotion in an effort to garner support for their position. I mean, what kind of person are you to want to not help prevent suicides? Don't you want to be reasonable to help people in pain? That's called emotional manipulation and the worst people do it all the time. When it comes to suicide, people who focus on the how, but not the why, most likely have an agenda about the how and probably could care less about the why. These are the kinds of people who should not be included in the discussion of something so highly emotional and tragic as suicide. As I stated elsewhere, the government using its powers to restrict ownership of an inanimate object based on what another individual may or may not do with their own inanimate object is a disgusting abuse of power.

gpcz 13y ago
> As I stated elsewhere, the government using its powers to restrict ownership of an inanimate object based on what another individual may or may not do with their own inanimate object is a disgusting abuse of power. Do you believe the government should restrict personal ownership of nuclear weapons, or is that a disgusting abuse of power?
- talmand 13y ago
  Ah yes, the old personal ownership of nuclear weapons argument, as if that were the same thing and relevant to this discussion. Note, in my comment above when I state "an inanimate object", I am referring to a gun. For you to take that statement and expand it to an extreme such as nuclear weapons is rather childish on your part. Since we've started into childish manner of discussion, are you suggesting then that someone has used a nuclear weapon to commit suicide and therefore we should help prevent suicides by banning all nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting that the banning of personal ownership of nuclear weapons is justified because too many people can easily commit suicide with them? I'm just trying to understand your stance as it pertains to this discussion. Now, as for your question. No, I do not see the government restricting access to nuclear weapons as a disgusting abuse of power. To make your argument on a far more sane and realistic point, I do not disagree with the government restricting access to fully automatic weaponry either. How do I justify what you probably see as a clear hypocrisy? Easy, because it's not. The government is fully within its rights to restrict access to things it deems too dangerous to the nation's people as a whole. If someone can convince me that personal ownership of handguns is a danger to the nation's people as a whole, I would likely change my stance. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. So, do you actually have a comment about my position that it is a disgusting use of power for the government to restrict a person's access to an inanimate object, in this case a gun since you are having troubles following along, because of how another individual may or may not use the same inanimate object on themselves without harm to another person? Or shall we continue with comparing childish extremes? Because if that's your stance, we really need to take a hard look at the inanimate objects we interact with on a daily basis. By the way, we today have access to all kinds of things that a hundred years ago people would be shocked we have such easy access to. There is a good chance that personal ownership of nuclear weapons, depending on your definition I suppose, will be a strong possibility sometime in the future. Most likely well beyond our lifespans, which is probably a good thing. I apologize for my harsh tone here, but this is yet another pet peeve of mine that often comes up needlessly in discussions such as this.
  - gpcz 13y ago
    This is Hacker News -- you are expected not to be sloppy with your argumentation here. If you say "inanimate object" rather than gun, then we're going to assume you are making a more general statement and react accordingly. I cannot read your mind, so please do not assume I (or anyone else) knows your precise opinion on gun control without being precise with your words.
    - talmand 13y ago
      Well, I guess I'm at fault for assuming that people would follow that I was referring to the object that was the center of the discussion at hand. I should have guessed that someone would take such a simple concept and expand it to every single object in the known universe. My apologies.
      - gpcz 13y ago
        "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." You used a rhetorical flourish that made your argument sound more extreme than you intended, and it backfired when someone called you out on it. Rather than write a reply dripping with sarcasm and contempt, perhaps you should meditate on this incident as your personal failure to be a clear and effective writer.
        talmand 13y ago
        Well, since we're discussing opinions here, it is of my opinion that it is your reading comprehension that's lacking. But you shouldn't take it as a personal failure, it happens to everyone from time to time. When there is an ongoing discussion about an object then one is fully capable of referring to that object without literally naming that object each and every time it is mentioned. My way: I am holding a stapler. The object in my hand is red. I use it to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of an object because of my inefficient usage of the same object. Your way: I am holding a stapler. The stapler in my hand is red. I use the stapler to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of a stapler because of my inefficient usage of a stapler. That's a stupid way to construct a discussion. But if it makes you happy. If you take my statement and remove it from the context of the discussion then sure, you are quite correct. But it is not correct to quote that statement as to somehow proving your point by removing it from the context of the discussion. I did not fail in using a rhetorical flourish to make an argument. I used a simple statement to prove my point that you apparently either failed to follow or attempted to use as a "gotcha!" moment. I'm leaning towards you thinking you had an excellent gotcha moment but alas, I think you protest too much. By the way, your expanding my statement to include nuclear weapons to totally blow the discussion out of proportion and out of reality was the joke of my office yesterday. Many people thank you for the chuckles you provided.
Theodores 13y ago
A friend of mine eventually succeeded to kill himself. He did so jumping in front of a big lorry on a (British) motorway. There had been many attempts leading to that one. Bodies of water, tall buildings, other road traffic incidents, alcohol and pills were all tried, with quite some determination. None of us could persuade him that his life was well worth living, we all tried. He was the brightest at our school so it wasn't as if intellect was a problem. To him getting himself killed was simply a difficult task he had to get done. But it was far from easy for him. We don't have guns in the UK, however I am sure that my friend, had he had access to a gun, would have driven out to somewhere sensible and done the deed that way. As it was he drove out to a motorway service station, walked onto the motorway and ran in front of a lorry. Much harder to do. I know the above is anecdote but statistics don't tell the story. Guns are a mighty fine way to commit suicide given the available alternatives. As a society of mostly non-suicidal people we do not want people to kill themselves, not having guns around helps us with that. Regarding bridges and the jumping off of, tall buildings and the jumping off of, have you looked over the side of the Golden Gate or the Empire State building? There are nets to catch those that try to suicide themselves.
- talmand 13y ago
  First, I'm feel for you that you lost a loved one in that manner. I share a similar pain because I have lost two family members to suicide, one with a gun and one without. Both succeeded on the first attempt. I suppose I should advocate the banning of personal ownership of shower curtains and shower rods. From my perspective, the how was not a factor for me. I was more concerned over the why. To this day I have my thoughts on the why but I'll never know for sure, because they didn't talk to me beforehand. They were sudden and unexpected. But I'm not about to advocate for the restrictions of people's rights because of what my two family members did to themselves. I appreciate the thinking behind that attitude, I simply just disagree with it. Sometimes, people make their decisions and there's nothing to be done to change it. Despite access to a gun and your efforts, your friend still killed himself. The only thing that's different is that his pain, perceived and/or real, continued longer than he wished it to. I can't speak of how that fits into the scheme of things because I don't want to claim to know what he was thinking and/or feeling. As you state, you are in the UK. One thing that is most often missing in these discussions are differences in attitudes from culture to culture. You may not live in a gun culture, I do. But our gun culture has deep roots in mistrust in government, sometimes well-founded and sometimes not. It's not going away anytime soon and ignoring the why's of suicide in an effort to restrict people's rights based on the how's of suicide is just wrong to me. Yes, I know about the nets in those locations. I also know of similar locations that do not. Those nets are there just as much for the people not planning to jump as it is for people who do.
swalkergibson 13y ago
> Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. The statistics suggest that you are incorrect. Harvard, the National Institutes of Health, and the Israeli Defense Forces all have studies that point to gun ownership actually increasing suicide risk. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-... EDIT: Furthermore, the argument that guns don't kill people is intellectually lazy. Guns are designed to kill things. That is their only purpose. Period.
- talmand 13y ago
  No, it does not. The statistics show that firearms are the most popular choice. If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun. I fail to follow that sort of logic. The only connection I can agree with is that firearms allow for snap decisions and fatal first-attempts. Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk, but it doesn't help if you have suicidal tendencies. That's not enough of a reason to restrict people's rights. The argument that all guns have only one purpose, which is to kill things, is naive and ignorant. Anyone who states that is being lazy with their arguments, or simply doesn't know anything about guns, because it is easily disproved. There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing.
  - swalkergibson 13y ago
    > If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun. That is a pretty strict interpretation of the cause of suicide. Of course, nobody kills themselves by sheer virtue of the fact that they own a weapon. > Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk That is precisely what those studies suggest. Having a firearm nearby does in fact increase your risk of suicide. Whether or not that is enough to restrict people's rights is a totally separate issue. You argued that guns do not increase suicide risk, which is incorrect. > There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing. Fantastic! We should allow those firearms for people to have their fun, and regulate the other types (the ones for killing people) as much as possible.
taejo 13y ago
Gun ownership contributes to suicide, not because gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide, but because they are more likely to succeed. Men are more likely to commit suicide than women in the US, largely because most men who attempt use guns, while women are more likely to try to overdose.
quanticle 13y ago
The problem with saying that "owning a gun doesn't contribute to suicide" is that there is a clear and strong statistical correlation between gun availability and suicide. If gun ownership doesn't contribute to suicide, by lowering the planning threshold (or some other mechanism), then you have to find some other hidden factor that would both cause an increase in gun ownership and an increase in suicide. Now, that doesn't mean that I necessarily favor gun confiscation. But there's a huge difference between saying, "Yes, there is a correlation between gun ownership and suicide, but that's outweighed by the fact that gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution," and saying, "No, there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide." The first is an arguable and defensible point. The second is objectively false.

by talmand 13y ago

gpcz 13y ago

> As I stated elsewhere, the government using its powers to restrict ownership of an inanimate object based on what another individual may or may not do with their own inanimate object is a disgusting abuse of power. Do you believe the government should restrict personal ownership of nuclear weapons, or is that a disgusting abuse of power?

talmand 13y ago
Ah yes, the old personal ownership of nuclear weapons argument, as if that were the same thing and relevant to this discussion. Note, in my comment above when I state "an inanimate object", I am referring to a gun. For you to take that statement and expand it to an extreme such as nuclear weapons is rather childish on your part. Since we've started into childish manner of discussion, are you suggesting then that someone has used a nuclear weapon to commit suicide and therefore we should help prevent suicides by banning all nuclear weapons? Or are you suggesting that the banning of personal ownership of nuclear weapons is justified because too many people can easily commit suicide with them? I'm just trying to understand your stance as it pertains to this discussion. Now, as for your question. No, I do not see the government restricting access to nuclear weapons as a disgusting abuse of power. To make your argument on a far more sane and realistic point, I do not disagree with the government restricting access to fully automatic weaponry either. How do I justify what you probably see as a clear hypocrisy? Easy, because it's not. The government is fully within its rights to restrict access to things it deems too dangerous to the nation's people as a whole. If someone can convince me that personal ownership of handguns is a danger to the nation's people as a whole, I would likely change my stance. I just don't see that happening anytime soon. So, do you actually have a comment about my position that it is a disgusting use of power for the government to restrict a person's access to an inanimate object, in this case a gun since you are having troubles following along, because of how another individual may or may not use the same inanimate object on themselves without harm to another person? Or shall we continue with comparing childish extremes? Because if that's your stance, we really need to take a hard look at the inanimate objects we interact with on a daily basis. By the way, we today have access to all kinds of things that a hundred years ago people would be shocked we have such easy access to. There is a good chance that personal ownership of nuclear weapons, depending on your definition I suppose, will be a strong possibility sometime in the future. Most likely well beyond our lifespans, which is probably a good thing. I apologize for my harsh tone here, but this is yet another pet peeve of mine that often comes up needlessly in discussions such as this.
- gpcz 13y ago
  This is Hacker News -- you are expected not to be sloppy with your argumentation here. If you say "inanimate object" rather than gun, then we're going to assume you are making a more general statement and react accordingly. I cannot read your mind, so please do not assume I (or anyone else) knows your precise opinion on gun control without being precise with your words.
  - talmand 13y ago
    Well, I guess I'm at fault for assuming that people would follow that I was referring to the object that was the center of the discussion at hand. I should have guessed that someone would take such a simple concept and expand it to every single object in the known universe. My apologies.
    - gpcz 13y ago
      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." You used a rhetorical flourish that made your argument sound more extreme than you intended, and it backfired when someone called you out on it. Rather than write a reply dripping with sarcasm and contempt, perhaps you should meditate on this incident as your personal failure to be a clear and effective writer.
      - talmand 13y ago
        Well, since we're discussing opinions here, it is of my opinion that it is your reading comprehension that's lacking. But you shouldn't take it as a personal failure, it happens to everyone from time to time. When there is an ongoing discussion about an object then one is fully capable of referring to that object without literally naming that object each and every time it is mentioned. My way: I am holding a stapler. The object in my hand is red. I use it to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of an object because of my inefficient usage of the same object. Your way: I am holding a stapler. The stapler in my hand is red. I use the stapler to excess, wasting staples. The boss wants to restrict everyone's usage of staplers because of my waste. I don't think the boss should restrict your usage of a stapler because of my inefficient usage of a stapler. That's a stupid way to construct a discussion. But if it makes you happy. If you take my statement and remove it from the context of the discussion then sure, you are quite correct. But it is not correct to quote that statement as to somehow proving your point by removing it from the context of the discussion. I did not fail in using a rhetorical flourish to make an argument. I used a simple statement to prove my point that you apparently either failed to follow or attempted to use as a "gotcha!" moment. I'm leaning towards you thinking you had an excellent gotcha moment but alas, I think you protest too much. By the way, your expanding my statement to include nuclear weapons to totally blow the discussion out of proportion and out of reality was the joke of my office yesterday. Many people thank you for the chuckles you provided.

Theodores 13y ago

A friend of mine eventually succeeded to kill himself. He did so jumping in front of a big lorry on a (British) motorway. There had been many attempts leading to that one. Bodies of water, tall buildings, other road traffic incidents, alcohol and pills were all tried, with quite some determination. None of us could persuade him that his life was well worth living, we all tried. He was the brightest at our school so it wasn't as if intellect was a problem. To him getting himself killed was simply a difficult task he had to get done. But it was far from easy for him. We don't have guns in the UK, however I am sure that my friend, had he had access to a gun, would have driven out to somewhere sensible and done the deed that way. As it was he drove out to a motorway service station, walked onto the motorway and ran in front of a lorry. Much harder to do. I know the above is anecdote but statistics don't tell the story. Guns are a mighty fine way to commit suicide given the available alternatives. As a society of mostly non-suicidal people we do not want people to kill themselves, not having guns around helps us with that. Regarding bridges and the jumping off of, tall buildings and the jumping off of, have you looked over the side of the Golden Gate or the Empire State building? There are nets to catch those that try to suicide themselves.

talmand 13y ago
First, I'm feel for you that you lost a loved one in that manner. I share a similar pain because I have lost two family members to suicide, one with a gun and one without. Both succeeded on the first attempt. I suppose I should advocate the banning of personal ownership of shower curtains and shower rods. From my perspective, the how was not a factor for me. I was more concerned over the why. To this day I have my thoughts on the why but I'll never know for sure, because they didn't talk to me beforehand. They were sudden and unexpected. But I'm not about to advocate for the restrictions of people's rights because of what my two family members did to themselves. I appreciate the thinking behind that attitude, I simply just disagree with it. Sometimes, people make their decisions and there's nothing to be done to change it. Despite access to a gun and your efforts, your friend still killed himself. The only thing that's different is that his pain, perceived and/or real, continued longer than he wished it to. I can't speak of how that fits into the scheme of things because I don't want to claim to know what he was thinking and/or feeling. As you state, you are in the UK. One thing that is most often missing in these discussions are differences in attitudes from culture to culture. You may not live in a gun culture, I do. But our gun culture has deep roots in mistrust in government, sometimes well-founded and sometimes not. It's not going away anytime soon and ignoring the why's of suicide in an effort to restrict people's rights based on the how's of suicide is just wrong to me. Yes, I know about the nets in those locations. I also know of similar locations that do not. Those nets are there just as much for the people not planning to jump as it is for people who do.

swalkergibson 13y ago

> Owning a gun does not contribute to suicide. The statistics suggest that you are incorrect. Harvard, the National Institutes of Health, and the Israeli Defense Forces all have studies that point to gun ownership actually increasing suicide risk. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-background-checks http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/03/suicides-vs-handgun-... EDIT: Furthermore, the argument that guns don't kill people is intellectually lazy. Guns are designed to kill things. That is their only purpose. Period.

talmand 13y ago
No, it does not. The statistics show that firearms are the most popular choice. If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun. I fail to follow that sort of logic. The only connection I can agree with is that firearms allow for snap decisions and fatal first-attempts. Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk, but it doesn't help if you have suicidal tendencies. That's not enough of a reason to restrict people's rights. The argument that all guns have only one purpose, which is to kill things, is naive and ignorant. Anyone who states that is being lazy with their arguments, or simply doesn't know anything about guns, because it is easily disproved. There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing.
- swalkergibson 13y ago
  > If it is a contributor then people shoot themselves BECAUSE they own the gun. That is a pretty strict interpretation of the cause of suicide. Of course, nobody kills themselves by sheer virtue of the fact that they own a weapon. > Owning a gun does not lead you to a suicide risk That is precisely what those studies suggest. Having a firearm nearby does in fact increase your risk of suicide. Whether or not that is enough to restrict people's rights is a totally separate issue. You argued that guns do not increase suicide risk, which is incorrect. > There are many guns that are designed for a very specific target and would be incredibly bad to use to kill any living thing. Fantastic! We should allow those firearms for people to have their fun, and regulate the other types (the ones for killing people) as much as possible.

taejo 13y ago

Gun ownership contributes to suicide, not because gun owners are more likely to attempt suicide, but because they are more likely to succeed. Men are more likely to commit suicide than women in the US, largely because most men who attempt use guns, while women are more likely to try to overdose.

quanticle 13y ago

The problem with saying that "owning a gun doesn't contribute to suicide" is that there is a clear and strong statistical correlation between gun availability and suicide. If gun ownership doesn't contribute to suicide, by lowering the planning threshold (or some other mechanism), then you have to find some other hidden factor that would both cause an increase in gun ownership and an increase in suicide. Now, that doesn't mean that I necessarily favor gun confiscation. But there's a huge difference between saying, "Yes, there is a correlation between gun ownership and suicide, but that's outweighed by the fact that gun ownership is guaranteed by the Constitution," and saying, "No, there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide." The first is an arguable and defensible point. The second is objectively false.