[CalRobert]

Well, those statistics aren't wrong, they just tell a different story.

Gun suicides matter, but we might address those very differently from homicides.

Gang-related violence... I'm not sure why I'd exclude that? They're human beings. The term also is very unevenly applied and laws meant to target "gang-related violence" have a tendency to burden minorities more heavily. (See also: "terrorism")

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/31/magazine/how-do-you-defin...

[DanBC]

> Gun suicides matter, but we might address those very differently from homicides.

The main prevention measure for both murder and suicide is to reduce access to methods.

It's fine for a nation to say they make the choice not to restrict access to guns, but they need to be honest about the increased numbers of people dying this will cause.

[gknoy]

> reduce access to methods

A sibling questioned the validity of this for suicide, and I agree. Anyone sufficiently motivated to kill themselves will find a way. Knife, rope, drug overdose, threaten a police officer, vehicular "accident", skydiving, move-to-Oregon (for legally assisted suicide, that is -- OR's a nice place :)), sit in the garage while the car is running... every single one of these things is something that a suicidal person could come up with quite easily, and do, even if they don't have a firearm.

The only thing reducing access to firearms will do is change the method of suicide. Humans have been finding ways to do it for thousands of years.

[srean]

This line of argument "For a sufficiently [blah] ...." rarely adds value, be it "a sufficiently smart compiler ..." or "sufficiently motivated individual".

These add little to no value because in most of the cases where such a line of argument is put forward, there is a sizable set that do not satisfy the "for a sufficiently [blah]" condition. Not only are these sets sizeable, sometimes they are the particularly relevant set.

Many suicidal people have been talked out of it. So its not hard to believe that lack of access to quick measures would have influence.

Digression: I blame movies for popularizing shooting at one's temple. That's how many end up with a botched attempt. If one must, one should take out the brain stem as quickly as possible.

[DanBC]

> Anyone sufficiently motivated to kill themselves will find a way.

This is untrue, and it's dangerously untrue.

> The only thing reducing access to firearms will do is change the method of suicide.

Method substitution tends not to happen, or it takes some years to happen.

We know this from some natural experiments. For example, car exhaust fumes used to be a common method, and then we got cleaner engines and catalytic converters and again we saw a long lasting drop in deaths by suicide.

And even if every person did substitute a different method it's likely they'd be using a more survivable method.

[jonhendry18]

Knife, rope, car accident, drug overdose are significantly less likely to be successful than a gunshot. They also take longer, and the longer it takes, the longer the person has to reconsider.

Also, you don't often see a knife, rope, car, drug overdose, skydiving, or assisted suicide used in a murder-suicide scenario. (Murder-suicide by car certainly happens, but not as often as with a gun.)

[gknoy]

Hm; I stand corrected then. Thanks, guys, especially for pointing out the car exhaust and other things. All of those things are true (about additional time to be talked out, etc). I was coming from the perspective of someone who followed Sir Terry Pratchett's campaign for legal suicide in response to things like Alzheimer's, where it isn't the kind of thing one is likely to be talked out of. In that case, of course, people are campaigning for legal euthanasia, so it's a bit different.

[LifeLiverTransp]

Reduce access to the methods to end ones life? Is this irony?

[DanBC]

We know from interviews with survivors that many people don't have a "diagnosed mental illness", but have something more like "rapid onset dispair". And that more people survive if they don't have easy access to their prefered method.

For example, in the UK this has meant phasing out some ineffective and dangerous medication; reducing the pack sizes of others; and encouraging doctors to safer prescribing of opioids.

[CalRobert]

Is that why I can get a bottle of 500 acetaminophen tablets in the US or six bucks, but have to pay Boots 4 Euro for 40 of them?? (I don't recall the exact dose but it was the same per table)

I always feel like a drug runner coming back to the US with bottles of generic tylenol and advil.