Suicide is more common in places with more guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because suicide is more easily committed, and more successful, if one has access to guns. Simple common sense.
 
JamesV.Cameron said:
Maybe we should start looking at why our suicide rate is so high instead of focusing on the method. The book Tribe by Sebastian Junger offers some good insights for anyone interested. It’s a marvelous critique of modern western society and it’s lack of social bonds.
Click to expand...
It would be good to look seriously at why our suicide rate is so high, but until we figure out why and what changes we can make to fix it, it makes sense to save whom we can by focusing on the methods.
 
OddBird said:
This. South Korea has the highest teen suicide rate in the world because of the huge pressure an extremely competitive and extremely expensive education system puts on their shoulders. I shudder to think what would happen with liberalized gun ownership.
Click to expand...
One could argue that. Alternatively, one might contend that S. Korea’s high suicide rate is linked to the extent that the culture has adopted materialistic values.
Correlation does not necessarily indicate causality
 
spiritualsamurai said:
A man down the street commits suicide. Let’s say it’s with a fork. Or a car. Or a rope. Or a very rare, limited edition collectors plate. Let’s say I also have that plate. Should that plate be taken from everyone who has it? After all, 33% of people who have that plate commit suicide. (Hypothetically, if there are only three) Should his actions dictate my rights? Of course not! Limitations on me should not be determined by other people’s actions.

Now why is this? Well, this is because the ends cannot justify the means. But that is what you are arguing for. You see taking away my right to bear arms as the best way to keep people safe. We disagree on even that, but even if it were effective, it would be unethical to take away my right. So whether or not it is effective (it isn’t) is a moot point.
Click to expand...
  1. I am not arguing to take away your gun. I am suggesting that it might be proper to restrict the way you use it.
  2. Your citation of “The ends do not justify the means” is inapplicable. That principle only applies if the means are immoral. I have suggested no immoral means. The means I have suggested are not only moral but legal as well (as the courts have found).
  3. You analogies with plates or forks or cars are not apt because I referred to practicality. None of the examples you cited passes the practicality test.
 
@spiritualsamurai

A lot of that stuff has already been addressed by me or other posters so I won’t address it again.

As far as gun ownership rates - thank goodness - they are indeed declining. Less and less Americans are owning guns and less and less Americans are supporting lax gun legislation:


What is happening is that a large number of guns are becoming concentrated within a radicalized group of people; they might have a shed or basement somewhere where they store a small arsenal of weapons and ammunition. Many among the small percentage of hoarders are associated with white nationalism, neo-Nazism, far-right militia, etc.

Among the rest of the population, there’s still a pretty enormous percentage of Americans that have a firearm in their home compared to other nations but not as much as there used to be. Those that do are at higher risk of suicide, homicide, and accidental death.
 
Last edited:
TK421, you are really making me want to drill that third hole.

Also, why the heck aren’t you at your post?
 
TK421 said:
Although we are fortunate that gun ownership (and violent crime) has been steadily decreasing in America, continued legislation can make that process quicker
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. We have plenty of gun laws (too many, in my opinion), but if they aren’t enforced than more laws won’t help. Consider the country(s) that require every household to own and keep a firearm - like Switzerland. They have a lower percentage of gun deaths overall.
 
jofa said:
40.png
TK421:
Although we are fortunate that gun ownership (and violent crime) has been steadily decreasing in America, continued legislation can make that process quicker
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. We have plenty of gun laws (too many, in my opinion), but if they aren’t enforced than more laws won’t help. Consider the country(s) that require every household to own and keep a firearm - like Switzerland. They have a lower percentage of gun deaths overall.
Click to expand...
If I had to summarize: in Switzerland guns are a duty and in the USA guns are an entitlement.

Switzerland widely owns rifles because constitutionally that’s part of defending their country from invasion (if a major foreign military power ever invaded them, which is unlikely, their rifles would get a lot of their citizens needlessly butchered, but that’s another topic). The actual laws on guns in Switzerland and in USA are night and day:


Also: suicide by gun is the most common form of suicide for Swiss men.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
Also: suicide by gun is the most common form of suicide for Swiss men.
Click to expand...
And without guns it would be by knives, so that’s not really an argument. Also, you sort of proved my point on Switzerland. One correction in your statement, though: in the USA, gun ownership is part of our Constitution as well. Not and entitlement, but a Right.
 
jofa said:
40.png
TK421:
Although we are fortunate that gun ownership (and violent crime) has been steadily decreasing in America, continued legislation can make that process quicker
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. We have plenty of gun laws (too many, in my opinion), but if they aren’t enforced than more laws won’t help. Consider the country(s) that require every household to own and keep a firearm - like Switzerland. They have a lower percentage of gun deaths overall.
Click to expand...
…for reasons totally unrelated to the requirement to have a gun.
 
TK421 said:
Among the rest of the population, there’s still a pretty enormous percentage of Americans that have a firearm in their home compared to other nations but not as much as there used to be. Those that do are at higher risk of suicide, homicide, and accidental death.
Click to expand...
Do you really think people will admit owning guns in the current leftist environment?

however,
The FBI reported a 41% surge in background checks by individuals attempting to purchase firearms in the United States last month, according to newly released data from the agency, a significant increase over the same period last year.
Click to expand...
“My biggest concern involves the potential number of first time gun buyers who, before March, did not think they needed a gun,” said David Chipman, a retired ATF special agent
Click to expand...
 
So this study is just in the US.

What is the suicide rate in the US vs other countries worldwide, and what is their rate of gun ownership compared to the US.

Looks like a pretty selective study, and may not give result in any meaningful conclusions.
 
spiritualsamurai said:
R1. Beyond me not infringing upon anyone’s rights to life, liberty, and property (something that’s already illegal), what should I not be able to do with a gun?
Click to expand...
Carry it into your child’s school, for instance, if the rules say no guns allowed on the premises.
R2. If you prevent me from owning or doing something I have a right to do (own and bear firearms), it is unethical,…
Click to expand...
Circular reasoning. You are assuming there is an absolute moral right to bear a firearm in order to prove there is an absolute right to bear a firearm. Logic 101.
R3. And additional firearms legislation is, for the most part, impractical.
Click to expand...
Claiming it and proving it are two different things. However you are entitled to your opinion that it is impractical.
 
spiritualsamurai said:
No it doesn’t. It only shows that when guns are available, suicides are more successful.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. Suicide by knife is likely to become attempted suicide while suicide by gun is likely to result in death. If I have a loved one who is at risk for suicide, I would much rather that loved one fail at his attempt of suicide than succeed at it.
 
Proportionality is an important word. Banning ropes, knives and cars would make life very hard for most people. Banning guns, not so much.
 
spiritualsamurai said:
So why don’t we ban knives? And cars? And ropes? You are justifying banning guns with the outcome of less successful suicide. You cannot justify an action by the outcome. Additionally, there is no limiting principle. If stopping suicides justifies an action, you could ban ropes or knives, even if it is unpractical. Of course, you don’t believe in a right to bear arms, so this is, to an extent, not yet relevant. But it will be later 🙂 .
Click to expand...
See @tuffsmurf 's excellent answer above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top