My husband died by suicide. Here’s what happened during my awkward call with the NRA.

Good constructive dialogue.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-made-an-awkward-call-to-the-nra-and-found-that-we-had-common-ground/2016/04/07/4214bed2-fb67-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html

 

It's good to see that the NRA recognizes the need to reduce gun-implemented suicides and is willing to get into the conversation.

 

If someone wants to commit suicide, the lack of a firearm is not going to deter them.

A former co-worker of mine (retired) started having failing health, which caused deep depression. His gun permit was suspended, and his guns taken away by court order after a petition from his psychologist, so he hung himself in his basement.

 

This isn't true. The vast majority of suicides attempted fail. The more lethal the means, however, the more likely the success. A gunshot to the head is lethal in 97% of suicide attempts (using a shotgun raises it to 99%). OD on prescription drugs? Try 12%. Raise it to 44% for illegal drugs. Etc.

Most lethal methods of suicide | Lost All Hope: The web's leading suicide resource

 

And if they really want to die, they'll try again.

 

But they generally don't really want to die. Why is it so hard to admit that access to firearms makes suicide more deadly?

 

So you believe that no one who attempts suicide really wants to die?

Why is it so hard to admit that firearms aren't the root of all evil in the world?

Suicide statistics, in regards to attempts, are ridiculously skewed. If some angsty brat teenager takes a bottle of children's aspirin but leaves a "suicide note", that's listed as an attempted suicide by overdose, even though they were never in danger of dying. Same thing for someone who makes half-ass, superficial cuts on their wrists that aren't even as bad as some shaving mishaps, that's listed as attempted suicide by lethal cutting instrument.

 

So, some people try who don't really want to die? Okay, I'll accept that. All the reason more to limit the availability of more lethal options wherever possible. You know, so they're less likely to die from a mistake when they don't really want to.

According to one source, "The actual ratio of attempts to completed suicides is probably at least 10 to 1." Suicide Prevention - Suicide Statistics

And this: "Only 10% of the people who attempt suicide will go on to complete and die by suicide." After a Suicide Attempt

Again, more reason for reducing the lethality of attepts.

I appreciate one might have feelings on this matter, but the facts point to some very simple conclusions that are contrary to those. Gunshots are far and away the most effective. And the vast majority of people who try don't ever die of suicide.

There are a lot of values, opinions, and feelings regarding gun control. I get that. But suggesting guns don't really matter when it comes to suicide is contra-indicated.

 

No, that's why I said generally. Really, If you can't make coherent arguments just don't bother.

I didn't say that either. And if the angst ridden teen uses Tylenol instead and succeeds? Or if that razor blade goes just deep enough? So by your standard do you have to succeed to be counted?

 

Again, look at how the statistics are collected. I can compose a suicide note, take twice more then my usual dose of blood pressure medication, and if the police/EMS get involved, that's now an "attempted suicide", even though there's absolutely no way that I was going to die.

Guns are lethal, I'll give you that, and no sane person would argue otherwise. However, that is one of the methods of choice of those who really do want to die. A close friend and former partner of mine committed suicide by gunshot 4 years ago, and I'm absolutely convinced that he wanted to die. Likewise, I'm also just as convinced that if he didn't have access to a gun, he would have jumped in front of a train, overdosed on a combination of booze and pills in the middle of the woods, or some other method almost guaranteed to work. Absence of a firearm would not have deterred him.

 

Yes, when the data go against your argument at every turn, attack the validity of the data. I think we're done here.

 

Bruce is correct. If someone really wants to leave this cruel world they will keep trying until successful. The gun, being an inanimate object, has never killed anyone.

 

The facts say otherwise.

This just isn't so. Look at the numbers.

No, but it can turn a bad decision into a death where other, less lethal means would leave room for reconsideration and/or rescue. And that's exactly what happens when people try means that are less lethal. They often survive and do not commit suicide in the future. It's all in the data.

 

Data can be, and often is, skewed.

 

You mean like Mitt Romney's "skewed" polls in the 2012 presidential election?

 

That point has been repeated by the instructors in all of my statistics classes.

 

Okay. But show that. You don't get to pick and choose to accept and reject data because "can be" skewed. Show that it is.

This is a board dedicated to education, even if it has an off-topic section. It's remarkable how often the science behind phenomena is rejected because it doesn't fit someone's dear, unfounded conclusion.

 

So, "data" is infallible, with absolutely, positively, no room for error?

I've pointed out multiple scenarios where an "attempted suicide" is nothing more than a ploy for attention, but it's still included in "the data", leaving a very big hole in the logic.

The Earth being flat was once "accepted science", and those who refuted "the data" were prosecuted. Much like we're seeing now with the "climate change" nonsense.

 

No. Most certainly not. That's not what I said, and you know it.

If you want to deny the data-which is everywhere--fine. But show how it is invalid. Don't hide behind some hypothetical possibility that it is.