[ianferrel]

>When I intentionally shoot myself and I die, I would likely have found another effective suicide method and died anyway without the gun.

This isn't true. You certainly could find another method, but you wouldn't likely do it. Most suicides are not well-planned, they are spur-of-the-moment decisions, and removing easy methods actually reduces the number of suicides substantially.

This is not intuitive, but it is supported by facts.

[danielweber]

> but it is supported by facts.

It might be based on what some sociologist said, but if you compare suicide rates by country, these is nothing suggesting access to guns is a strong driver of suicide rate.

If you assume the US turns into Canada, then of every 50 people who kill themselves via gun, about 42 would find another method.

(Unless you want to argue that, because of the superiority of the US's health system over Canada, that the US should have a way lower rate than Canada. I'm not making that argument, but let's just say it wouldn't be popular among those who want to ban guns.)

[DanBC]

> It might be based on what some sociologist said,

Internationally respected psychiatrists at a respected high quality academic institution.

You dismiss the research but demonstrate your ignorance of who conducts the research. You haven't yet provided any specific refutation to any bit of research.

http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/

Note that the director is a consultant psychiatrist working within the NHS as well as an academic. ("Consultant" is the rough equivalent to a US attending physician.)

[danielweber]

You dismiss the research

Nope. I'm assuming it's fine.

I get that you want to make the fight over those studies. That's fine, but I won't.

Instead, I'm assuming that all those studies are fine, but I'm still trying to figure out things that actually exist in the world around me:

1. why does the UK, with all its "permanent drops" in suicide, still have a rate within 10% of the US, which has so many guns?

2. why is the suicide rate for young people in the UK higher than it was 50 years ago? http://cebmh.warne.ox.ac.uk/csr/msui6811.html NB: this especially points to the fact that cultures adapt in the long term to availability of suicide methods; young people who've never seen a coal gas stove don't even try.[1]

3. if half of homes have access to a guns, and assuming gun owners are as sane as non-gun owners[2], and if access to a gun is a major major factor, how come only slightly more than half of suicides are done via gun? (NB There is some factor, and I haven't denied that.)

4. instead of being in the same cluster as most modern countries, is the US really "supposed" to have a rate of suicide that places it about a factor of two lower than that bump? Why is the US so exceptionally awesome this way?

There's something in the macro-picture that isn't adding up to what all the micro-studies are asserting. All those micro-studies can be completely right and still not add up to the right picture.

[1] this suggests that you could reduce suicide rates by promulgating a widespread story that a great way to kill yourself is to do something that is plausible enough to cause self-harm but actually doesn't; then when people try it and it doesn't work, maybe they give up

[2] you could argue that gun people are crazy, because guns, but it would work against your position

[DanBC]

(i'm having problems with tone. I apologise for previous tone and am grateful to you for not getting sucked in.)

About increasing rates: coroners are much more likely to report a death as suicide now than they used to. It doesn't have the same levels of social stigma. Suicide needs a different level of proof ("beyond reasonable doubt", not "balance of probabilities") - these two factors led to under-recording of suicide in national statistics. National statistics started using reports of "death by misadventure" and open verdicts.

Here's a link about English coroner verdicts: http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-3-verdicts

Socio-economic factors are also important. We know that when unemployment rises the number of attempted and completed suicides rise. Rates of unemployment for young men are very much high now than they were 45 years ago.

And while some medication has got more restrictive others have got more permissive. It's easier to get opiate style pain relief now.

Point 3:

People have a preferred method of suicide. A person who considers death by overdose may not want to die by gun. People's thinking about suicide is distorted. People might think they want a "serene" death, or they might want a certain death, or a very quick death. So removing access to guns will see some people transferring to other methods. At the moment we seem to disagree about the numbers.

[FeeTinesAMady]

The US has a superior health system to Canada's now?

[danielweber]

I'm carefully not arguing that.

I'm saying that the people who say that the US's suicide rate should be half what it is now are those least likely to believe that the US's mental health care system is superior.

[DanBC]

Mental health care can be lousy and people can be attempting suicide in similar numbers but with a less lethal method of suicide you will see a reduction in numbers of completed suicide.

England changed gas supplies from coal gas to natural gas. Nothing else changed. Rates of completed suicide dropped.

England changed the way that coproxamol was prescribed. Again suicide rates dropped.

England changed the way that paracetamol is sold and again there has been a permanent drop in completed suicide.

You keep saying that people who use guns would just use a different method. You are wrong, most of them would not. Research shows the people have preferred methods and that reducing access to those methods reduces the rates of attempted and completed suicide.