I don't get how they go from saying poor rural folk that struggle to survive commit suicide more often and then conclude from it that gun control is a solution to that problem. That isn't treating the source of the problem at all. Guns didn't make these people poor and desperate. I would expect any marginalized and poor group of people to have higher rates of suicide than normal regardless of their access to dangerous tools or chemicals.
> That isn't treating the source of the problem at all.
In an ideal world, all problems could be fixed at their source, but in practice, we shouldn't limit ourselves to only solutions that target the source of the problem. As a much simpler example, it's common and pragmatic to take painkillers to treat headaches, even though they certainly don't make any attempt at fixing the source of the headache.
Gun control (and other forms of means restriction) is effective at preventing suicides. It's not a satisfying solution (after all, the people it saves are still miserable), but it works, as indicated by many studies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't dig into why people want to kill themselves and try to fix those (like with mental health treatment or more proactively helping people maintain financial or social stability); I think we should probably take both approaches simultaneously.
As someone who thinks suicide is an unalienable human right, I find it insulting that someone may wish to take my guns, in order to stimy any attempt I may make at committing suicide. I am certain this is a minority view.
It's definitely a difficult issue. I think your perspective works out great in a world where all people have free will and their decisions are consistent and intentional, reflecting their "true self". In a world like that, additional freedoms nearly always lead to better outcomes, but I don't think that's the world we live in.
I, personally, have come to the sad conclusion that I cannot trust my mind to act in my best interest at all times. In the past, I have made the decision to kill myself, and if I had access to a gun, I likely would not be alive today. I'm happy to be alive, and I'm grateful to live in a culture where guns are rare. I worry about getting into that mental state again, so as one preventative step, I make sure to never own a gun and never live with people who own guns.
There are plenty of milder analogies that I think are relatable to a lot of people, like limiting the amount of unhealthy food you have at home to avoid mindless snacking. If unlimited Cheetos were available to everyone all the time, it would probably make the world a worse place.
That’s an interesting opinion I’ve never heard before: suicide as an inalienable right. For clarity, you’re not referring to euthanasia by any chance, are you? If not, can you elaborate on why suicide is or should be an inalienable right?
From my understanding, people with mental health issues may be more likely to consider suicide. So my opinion is that suicide should be considered a symptom of an illness that needs medical attention as opposed to an inalienable right like free speech.
It's interesting to consider. I'm inclined to agree with b1r6 and would say that autonomy over one's life is only complete if you also have the right to end it.
That said, I do also agree that in some cases, not all, suicide is a symptom of an illness.
I think the way of reconciling these two positions is to make mental healthcare ubiquitous with low barriers to access - and help people to get in to care earlier before things escalate. Additionally, our national policies should seek to minimize the number of 'dead ends' in people's lives without opportunity to move forward or upward.
I do agree. If you cannot end your life, then you have to accept living under whatever terrible conditions that other peoples grudging charity will give you as you refuse to work or participate in society.
No, I could see how you could interpret it that way on a surface level, but to make the analogy more explicit:
The body faces [problem with complex causes] and wants to respond with [overreaction resulting in severe outcome]. Rather than addressing the causes, you take an approach that replaces [severe outcome] with a more appropriate [less bad outcome].
In the suicide situation, the severe outcome is death and the less bad outcome is significant emotional pain. The overreaction is the tendency of depressed people to believe that death is the best choice, even though they would not make that decision after careful thought in a clear state of mind.
In the headache situation, the severe outcome is a headache and the mildly bad outcome is the lingering pain even after painkillers and the inconvenience of having to take them. The overreaction is the continued pain inflicted on the person, even when all reasonable steps have already been taken.
So no, the equivalent of the painkiller is the restriction of guns. Both reduce the severity of outcome, but neither helps with the underlying problem.
If you have a group that attempts suicide more often you'll want to make suicide attempts more survivable - this is in addition to all the other work you're doing.
Reducing access to means and methods is known to work to reduce the numbers of people who die by suicide.
Desire and access to means are not orthogonal. As desire increases, effective access to means increases. Anything can become a weapon if you're desperate enough.
Indeed, because the barrier becomes lower. It's common in interaction design to purposefully guard a certain action with more clicks/steps in order to reduce the likelihood of the action being overused or abused. It appears to work for websites, for example HN makes you click the timestamp if you want to flag a comment, which likely deters knee-jerk flags.
What do we say to the people who we takes the means from? "We don't trust you with these tools?". I personally find such control very insulting. At the same time, I respect their desire if it's well thought-out.
Comments like this make me sigh at the gulf of brilliance and borderline mental disability of HN.
Literally every single person contemplating suicide has access to means. Every single one. No matter how much regulation is imposed which is why it is stupid to attempt to regulate to begin with and usually used as a means to push a secondary agenda. Even someone strapped to a bed and force fed will eventually die from the process.
The only cure for suicide it access to mental health assistance and reasonable living conditions. Even that won't "cure" someone who truly wants to die.
Remember this one too: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> ...every single person contemplating suicide has access to means... No matter how much regulation is imposed...
Your comment might get hidden because it was flagged, but your points need to be addressed. Suicide contemplation is a function of desire, so restricting access to means may help deter some of the people who have a weaker desire to commit suicide.
> The only cure for suicide it access to mental health assistance and reasonable living conditions. Even that won't "cure" someone who truly wants to die.
This may be the best long term "solution" to suicide. The fundamental problem isn't that people are killing themselves, it's that people want to be dead. It seems unscalable to try and "solve" the problem by banning every conceivable thing that could be used as a weapon. That doesn't solve the problem any more than spraying green paint on diseased grass fixes your yard; it is a superficial fix.
Society should be measured not only by its economic output, but also by the percentage of people who would rather be dead than live in it. You can't conclude if a monkey has patience if you don't give it access to a banana. Only when the monkey has access to the banana and refuses it, can you conclude that the monkey has learned patience.
Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to reduce the numbers of people who kill themselves.
There have been a number of natural experiments that have shown this: when the UK switched from coal gas to natural gas, or when catalytic converters were introduced.
You can probably find research to support this on the NCISH website.
> at a global level, suicide is down by 29% since 2000
> in America is up by 18% since 2000 ... The rise is largely among white, middle-aged, poorly educated men in areas that were left behind by booms and crushed by busts
> Because farming involves killing things, rural folk are likelier to have the means to kill themselves—guns, pesticides—to hand
> Unemployed people kill themselves at around two-and-a-half times the rate of those in work
> the most effective measure of all is limiting access to guns. Half of all Americans who commit suicide shoot themselves, and the overall rate in America is about twice that in Britain, which has strict gun controls. The difference in gun ownership largely accounts for the state-by-state variation in suicide rates
Unlike the worldwide decline, the rise in America is linked to such a specific cultural subgroup that I'd love to know how the suicide rates compares between different populations within America
Britain sounds like a dystopia where I can't find a tool to kill myself. Remember Bender and the suicide booths? If you're going to take the guns, please provide some of those.
Although that article is about gun deaths in general, at the end you can explore the data choosing suicide as the gun death category and comparing the different demographics.
This means guns. And that is why right now this post is full of mean spirited comments. It is a shame that cannot be a sincere discussion about guns even when it relates to suicide and the lives it could save.
I was looking at numbers published by my state recently, and while suicide is the major cause of gun death (by a factor of about 5, IIRC) it was heavily skewed toward older (>50) rural males. What if those people are killing themselves for reasons like bankruptcy, divorce, inability to pay for medical care, etc, rather than temporary teen angst like everyone seems to assume?
Even if you're pro gun control, it doesn't mean gun control reduces suicides. You'd have to look at the numbers -- are suicide rates lower in places with less access to guns? Or do people just commit suicide differently? I strongly suspect the latter.
Removing means doesn't fix the underlying problems, and it smacks of agenda pushing to suggest otherwise (even if it's a good agenda).
People do look at these sorts of numbers all the time, and most of the evidence points to lower overall suicide rates in places that have stricter gun control. Of course, it is hard to fully control for all the correlations, but the available evidence does point towards fewer guns == fewer suicides.
The general explanation is that many suicides are somewhat spur of the moment, and access to an easy way to kill yourself when you have those moments of weakness increases the chance that a person will follow through. People have this sense that suicides are well thought out decisions that people make when they conclude that their life isn't worth living anymore, but that isn't the case most of the time.
Thanks for the links. The RAND paper is really good; the Reuters article less so. While your summary seems true, I think a better summary might be "despite many studies, none have found evidence for a full substitution effect". That is, in studies that show a drop in firearm suicides, there is almost always a drop in overall suicide rates as well. The degree to which changing from an existing lax gun control regime to a stricter one results in a lower firearm suicide rate is harder to establish, but in at least some cases for some populations it's probably a positive effect.
My understanding is that it's generally accepted among people researching these things that means restriction (like gun control) does reduce overall suicide rates, it doesn't just make people pick a different method of suicide.
> Although some individuals might seek other methods, many do not; when they do, the means chosen are less lethal and are associated with fewer deaths than when more dangerous ones are available.
I don't think pro-gun vs anti-gun groups are even having the same discussion.
Anti-gun is safety/medical arguments: Guns are a clear hazard to personal safety, and removing them from circulation will reduce the number of gunshot wounds and associated deaths, etc. This position is based on the ongoing massive human carnage committed with guns which has been going on for hundreds of years and is creating fresh corpses daily.
Pro-gun is political/self defense arguments: hundreds of years of European history where the rulers could carry weapons and the ruled could not, disarmament as a prelude to oppression/massacre in 20thC, distant or incompetent law enforcement meaning safety can only be provided by the individual.
I'm not sure if there is a way to bridge the gap between different value systems. For me personally I'm not going to buy firearms illegally, but I will never be happy about being a 2nd class citizen in my own country.
For many people, keeping their guns is straight-up worthwhile in exchange for higher suicide-by-gun numbers. This viewpoint should not be discarded through shaming.
About half of suicides are caused by guns[0]. Most of the other half is due to poisoning (e.g. overdosing) and suffocation. When firearms are not available, people apparently resort to other means.
The statistic about bridge jump survivors seems improperly researched. It ignores the literal survivor bias as well as the fact that survivors probably had access to many things that they didn't before the jump.
* A memory of how painful and fearful they were while in the act.
* Actual medical treatment and resources.
* Awareness in those they know and work with.
* Maybe, a more stable place in their community.
It would be FAR more illustrative to contrast the 94% of survivors that persisted against the 6% who took another path. That would provide an extremely strong retrospective view about effective means of preventing "remission" and, quite plausibly, initial incidence.
> The suicide rate in America is up by 18% since 2000. This is not merely a tragedy; it matters politically, too. The rise is largely among white, middle-aged, poorly educated men in areas that were left behind by booms and crushed by busts. Their deaths are a symptom of troubles to which some see President Donald Trump as the answer. Those troubles should not be ignored.
And yet they are ignored, time and time again. Even mentioning that men could have a problem that society could help solve will be met with great resistance. As we know, there's a never ending effort to get women into stem, to empower girls, to elevate women in society. Which can be good but it seems the pendulum has swung so far in that direction that men are now viewed as "the problem". It seems to me that technology is one of the last areas where men actually succeed but there's a great deal of effort put into place to remove that success.
Women now outnumber men greatly in university. Is there a point where we collectively step back and acknowledge the great gains women have had in society; so great that they now have a very real advantage over men?
> Is there a point where we collectively step back and acknowledge the great gains women have had in society; so great that they now have a very real advantage over men?
What evidence do you have to support this? Women are still underpaid compared to their male counterparts for doing the exact same work, which SCOTUS recently ruled was perfectly legal.
Women are still underrepresented in managerial and executive roles across the Fortune 500 and beyond, and have only begun making real gains in high-level US gov positions.
How exactly is the increasing rate of women in university contributing to the problem of poorly-educated white men committing suicide at a higher rate?
I would have agreed with you, but after having seen the documentary The Red Pill (2016), I'm more sympathetic to the GP. I think it's difficult for the people on the progressive/women's/feminist side of the debate (in which I included myself) to even listen to the "men's" side - it's a complex of interconnected issues. But I think that documentary at least might be a good starting point for discussion. I found it fascinating, and a very important film.
> How exactly is the increasing rate of women in university contributing to the problem of poorly-educated white men committing suicide at a higher rate?
Do you think they are totally unconnected? Is it not worth examining? Do you think male suicide and incarceration rates are even a problem worth looking into?
>This article is about how male suicide is on the rise in the US. That is evidence.
This article is about how suicide among various groups is falling, and it mentions as a counterpoint the rise in suicides by "white, middle-aged, poorly educated men in areas that were left behind by booms and crushed by busts". Nowhere in the article is it implied that male suicide is on the rise in the US as a result of the power women have over men in society.
For that matter, you haven't proven that the increase in proportional incarcerations of males versus females is due to the power women have over men in society (vis a vis, I assume, the legal system) either, rather than men committing more crimes than women.
If you're going to challenge others to back up their assertions at least back up your own.
I'm saying that men don't have a very good place in US society as evidenced by suicide, lack of university enrollment and incarceration. At no point did I suggest that women have power over men. I see the problem as women's issues are being dealt with (often at the expense of men) while men's issues are a taboo that you can't even speak about. I'll use the voting performance of comments in this thread as further evidence that you can't even suggest that men might be in trouble without meeting great resistance.
>I'm saying that men don't have a very good place in US society as evidenced by suicide, lack of university enrollment and incarceration.
>. At no point did I suggest that women have power over men.
"Is there a point where we collectively step back and acknowledge the great gains women have had in society; so great that they now have a very real advantage over men?"
>Even mentioning that men could have a problem that society could help solve will be met with great resistance.
It's not mentioning the problem that's the issue, it's your framing: you discuss the progress of men and women as though it is a zero-sum game: as though the increasing standards of respect, pay, and social options for women must imply a decrease of these things for men. This is (to put it mildly) mistaken. Obviously men in our society have many problems that are unique to men. But these problems are not being exacerbated by the progression of women's rights.
>As we know, there's a never ending effort to get women into stem, to empower girls, to elevate women in society.
Yes, and this benefits more than just women. Moving society away from rigid gender roles helps ensure that both men and women will not find themselves desperate and trapped because of their inability to satisfy the demands of their gender role.
There's a reason feminists complain about "patriarchy" instead of "men". Patriarchy is a social system, not specific people. The people aren't the problem, the system is. And as evidenced by the increasing suicide rate, patriarchy hurts men too. So maybe you prefer to emphasize concern about a different aspect of patriarchy than someone else, but it's absurd to think that they are therefore working against you.
I believe in zero discrimination and equal opportunity. If numbers in any thing aren't as might be desired by roughly equal outcomes than it's probably time to start looking at other issues.
As a very broad brush, assuming a positive and not-toxic workplace, adequate compensation WITH a proper balance of work/life is probably the next wrong to look at. Multiple branching career paths that don't derail when taking time off for kids is probably another.
However, in general, US (and western) society is bi-modal school/work/being "productive" on one path and kids on the other. It does an astoundingly poor job of building stable communities, particularly as for at least two generations "The American Dream" has been dying/dead.
This article is just an opinion piece and junk at that. If they have any data they fail to properly cite it beyond their own economist article which also fails to properly cite sources. I find this so frustrating when reading articles these days. All to often they just write "in a recent study ..." with no mention of what the study is, who did it, or a link for you to read it.
Suicide is a huge problem and very complex topic and this article answers to "Why" are quite flippant.
Submit articles you think are appropriate. Flag those you think are inappropriate for the site. Act within the guidelines by not complaining about those that you think aren't right for discussion on HN.
> "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."
Similarly, "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
I suspect the downvotes for your parent are in response to them thinking the comment isn't in line with the guidelines. Commenting as they did often attracts attention to the comment and leads to worse discussion.
Thinking about the Bertrand Russell quote: "Drunkenness is temporary suicide", and wondering about the correlation between ~70k drug related deaths per year and this topics ~40k suicides per year. Would suicides increase if the easy access to palliatives would be stopped? Or would they decrease because it may be the drugs themselves that drags people down? I assume that the latter happens, but it seems to me that there's a root cause there before the heavy drugs exacerbates it.
The article also mentions that suicide rates have gone up in the United States in recent years. It's not saying that every country has had a decreasing rate of suicides, it's saying that the global rate is going down.
