339
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
339 points (96.7% liked)
News
23627 readers
2905 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Its a gun issue because most people see that as the "easiest" way of achieving it because they haven't done even cursory basic research into effective suicide methods.
Just because it is illegal doesn't mean a gun is the only option.
Guns are used in dumb fits of passion because it is easy and at-hand for a lot of people.
If someone wants to off themself, they're going to do it whether they have a gun or not. Look at Japan, higher suicide rate than the US, virtually no guns in their society. Americans typically use guns because it's quick and available. Even if guns weren't available, suiciders are gonna suicide. So yeah, it absolutely is not a gun issue, it's a societal issue, be it depression or lack of availability of assisted suicide.
Not supported by science nor statistics. There is no better way to reveal that not only are you not an expert, you havent even made a token effort to be informed.
Instead, you've just assumed you know everything there is to know about suicide prevention without looking and what a surprise, it just happens to align with whats most profitable for the gun lobby.
Suicide is not a uniquely American problem, nor is higher male suicides. In fact America does not even make the top 20. Depression is the well understood cause of suicide. Depression has many many factors. From simple inheritance, to money, relationships, drugs, disease, and much more. Those are the causes. The only way to stop it, is mental health services, awareness, compassion, support and specifically for men, breaking the social stigma. Break the generational social contract that makes mental health for males taboo and only then will we achieve even suicide rates across genders.
Oh look you've brought genitals into it here too, even though you can't connect it to anything I've said this time, even with your eagerness to make wild stretches based on seeing the words "women" and "suicide" within 3 inches of one another.
As for the rest of your post, once again, I'm not the one arguing against evidence based suicide prevention, the pro-gun people are.
To put it bluntly, you sounds like someone that's struggling to combine "standing in solidarity with your fellow far-right reactionaries in the pro-gun community" with "doing your duty as a MRA by talking about suicide statistics like they're women's fault".
Ill help you out since you cant read. The title of this post is:
The only "evidence" you have provided is baseless claims. The facts I have provided are clear an unambiguous. Banning guns in Australia made no difference to suicide.
spoiler
and is eclipsed by hangings.To put it bluntly you seem like a bot rambling on without understanding the title of a post let alone content.
Good luck with that.
The gendering in the title has nothing to do with anything I said in any of my posts. I was discussing prevention strategies that apply to people regardless of gender, and your response was "but what about men?".
The article title also mentions "elderly", but you havent been nearly upset by people failing to laser focus on that adjective.
You can easily search for "suicide means reduction study" and find a mountain of evidence without me spoonfeeding each result to you.
The fact that you're insisting that means reduction doesn't work either means you never have, or you think that guns are a magical exception to that.
The facts you've provided are intentionally misleading but sure, since we're talking about Australia, here is what one of their leading suicide prevention groups thinks about means reduction, complete with the studies they've based it on.
And what's that at number 4? A study that doesn't say "banning guns (something Australia didn't actually do) made no difference", it says that it's not possible to determine if the reduction in suicides by firearms was because of the new restrictions on gun ownership, or part of a general trend downward.
Of course, you would have found that instantly had you have actually searched, but we both know your goal wasn't to keep the discussion factually accurate, it was to sea-lion as much as you could to make it a grind to respond to you.
You have an idiots idea of of what means reduction means. We've repeatedly shown that reducing access to popular, accessible "jump points" results in fewer suicides by any method.
It doesn't completely stop that method, nor did anybody suggest banning any structure more then 12ft high.
The increased firearm restrictions didn't have a detectable impact on the suicide rate on Australia because guns were not a common method of suicide in Australia to begin with.
What happened when means reduction wed implemented for more common methods like jumping? Oh look, the suicide rate went down, just like every study always says.
Do you went to argue that suicide by firearm isn't a significant of percentage of suicides in America? You might as well, since it would be just as self-serving and factually inaccurate as everything else you've argued.
Ill give you a hint, its in the title of OP's post.
no denying, suicide rate in the elderly is highest.
spoiler
Taking away access to guns doesn't no. My point is supported by the fact that taking away guns from the population of Australia resulted in NO reduction in suicide. None comparing the 20 years before to the 20 years after. You can't twist that. Its a matter of fact it increased overall and dominant means changed.Nice straw-man.
Yet I am the only one who has shown clear evidence to support it while your baseless opinion and generations continues to entertain.
Do the plot twists never end? You finally get the evidence you demanded and it's immediately disregarded without comment because it doesn't say what you want.
Still waiting for that magical evidence on gun control results in suicide reduction.
Up next generalisations the new scientific method.
So you're saying that if I wanted to suicide I won't if I don't have a gun. What an odd take.
This sounds like the terrible logic of banning abortion. If we ban abortion then women won't have abortions. /S
No that this is sarcasm because legalizing abortion has saved many women's lives
its not that odd. pressing a trigger is much easier than hanging yourself or cutting yourself or jumping. this is a fact. plus many people attempt suicide and fail and some of them dont attempt anymore. with a gun the chances of not being successful are very low.
no its not a fact, its the opposite, world wide suicide is well documented and not a unique American problem it is a fact America does not even make the top 20.
So you want to claim "suicide is a complex problem with many factors" when people mention suicide by firearms but the moment you want to pull out some statistics, all those complex factors are brushed aside without a second thought so you can claim "look, most guns doesn't mean most suicides".
Without a statistics from a parallel universe where America has gun laws that make even a token effort to work, those numbers are meaningless.
What we can do is look at every other form of means reduction that has ever been enacted, and watch how the number of people committing suicide doesn't just drop for that method, it drops for all methods, with results comparable to psychotherapy and medication.
You're going to have to choose which matters to you more: suicide prevention or being a simp for right-wing, pro-gun Americans and the lobby group that programs them.
"with a gun the chances of not being successful are very low."
This is a wild statement anything the back of this one up. I might learn something but I'm not going to take your word for it. I need a source.
https://www.gvpedia.org/gun-myths/more-lethal/
Till you provide a source I'm going with this source
Good luck with that
Not just me, but everybody involved in suicide prevention. It doesn't matter how unintuitive you find it, means reduction works.
Suicide is an impulse and when people have access to guns, they can act on that impulse in minutes, if not seconds. It's painless and requires zero preparation time.
What other method even comes close?
You might have the tools to slit your wrists, but it hurts, it's easy to get wrong, takes much longer than you'd think and sucks the entire time.
It's also extemely difficult to seriously injure yourself on purpose. Most people have heard of "hesitation marks" but nobody has heard of "hesitation gunshots", because they're not a thing.
Okay, so what about hanging? For most people, step 1 is going to be Googling "how to tie a noose", which will immediately present them with local suicide prevention resources.
So fuck it, lets head outside.
Maybe jump off something high? How long would it take you to get to a bridge or building that would definitely be fatal? Would you need to drive? Would you need directions? Could you leave without anybody asking where you were going? Once you got there, could you climb on the edge without being seen by passers by, all of whom will immediately try and help you or call someone who can.
And of course once you were looking out over the edge, could you do it? It's terrifying and a very primal survival instinct will tell you to stop. Even once you jump, you're still not arriving at oblivion faster than someone with a gun would.
Maybe you could overdose on something? The 90s made it look so cool. But of course, few people have fatal amounts of drugs just laying around and for most people, it's far quicker and easier to go to a gun store.
So whats left? Shit that practically nobody does, despite the pro-gun community insist every suicide method is the same. People don't gouge their eyes to get to their brain or feed themselves into a tablesaw.
No, it doesn't sound like that at all, you just want to signal to others that you're not right wing but still love guns.
But sure, we can stick with that analogy. Do women who aren't pregnant still have abortions? Do they just find another medical proceedure to have instead?
If you're pro gun, there's no use pretending "saving womens lives" is a thing you care about. 70 women are shot and killed by their partners each month, over 4 million report being threatened with a gun.
Abusers with access to guns are 5x more likely to kill their partners and guess what the gun lobby does? Openly opposes domestic abusers losing their guns.
Suicide is everything from highly planned to impulsive. You've built your argument on a fallacy.
So this isn't about male suicide but guns...
Great minimization to wedge your rhetoric.
When the causes of death is compared across genders is blatantly obvious the difference is the means to ACT on it. Men are less likely to seek help, more likely to ACT. This is not a uniquely American issue, its world wide in fact America does not rank in the top 20 countries.
To make my point, here is the Australian suicide statistics. Notice how its the same problem and we do not have guns accessible? https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/deaths-by-suicide-in-australia/suicide-deaths-over-time
Sure, I probably should have said "many suicides are an impulse", but you're going to have to do better then semantics.
But if that's the game we're playing, by your own admission, it's not a fallacy, it just doesn't cover every suicide.
Which is fine, because I'll never claim that gun control will prevent all suicides, but the types of impulse suicides I specifically detailed.
Means reduction is means reduction. It remains one of the most effective methods of suicide prevention and that wont change just because this particular means reduction upsets pro-gun reactionaries.
People also got upset when their access to barbiturates, toxic gas and easy to jump off bridges was reduced. But people went ahead and saved a measurable number of lives anyway, because bridge aficionados aren't part of a death cult backed by a powerful lobby group.
So you're saying that men have greater access to some kind of "means", that are more lethal than other means, which increases the number of them that die by suicide?
Damn, who'd've though?
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I'm the one advocating that we take steps to reduce the suicide rate, using repeatedly proven strategies.
It's the pro-gun commenters that you seemingly agree with who are advocating that we do less.
I even did it without bringing gender into it, because I don't feel that someones genitals makes their suicide any more of less tragic.
Unfortunately, that didn't stop you from seeing the words "women" and "suicide" used in the same post and twisting it into something you could get upset about.
Yep, I see the statistics that have nothing to do with the point I was making.
To preface for others, I have placed some of the more triggering parts of this discussion behind the spoiler tags so others reading can avoid the more sensitive part of these discussions.
You should not have over stated the minority. I understand, anything to further your political rhetoric.
And yet the suicide statistics CLEARLY show it made NO difference for Australia, none.
spoiler
Better ban rope now, hangings now dwarf suicide by guns as the leading cause.That was a typo on my part which you can clearly see if you read the two sentences together. Not means; intent. Absolutely men have far more intent then women. Pick any study, the conclusion is the same: intent.
That baseless claim at it again. Its statistics show the exact opposite.
No. I'm disagreeing with political bots like yourself "PoliticalAgiotator" wedging an agenda to benefit your politics. Its disingenuous garbage. I'm keeping my politics out of it, I find it weird how uncontrolled guns are in the US however I am not deluded by how little of an impact it has had here. It detracts from real discussion to address the real cause.
The delusion is pretty bad for you. You have not read the post title, let alone the article or even the statistics I provided. Welcome to the conversation, or is that the point: to derail and not contribute.
For some strange reason, I highly doubt you read anything at all.
As you argue against proven suicide prevention strategies. How very compassionate of you.
It makes sense that you'd focus on numbers without any greater context, because it makes it far easier to manipulate them. I've already addressed your bullshit arguments in your other comment.
Alternatively, people can just click the link above and get the opinions of an institute dedicated to suicide prevention and the studies they've based it on, then decide if they're likely to know more or less about suicide prevention than this random guy on social media.
So you're saying that women are just doing it for attention and thats why their suicide rate is lower and why they don't use guns?
That's the opinion of a complete cunt, but I cant figure out any other reason for you to even mention it.
Okay then, lets do it this way: find me three suicide prevention organizations that don't support means reduction or explain to us how you're more qualified than the literally hundreds that do.
This shouldn't be a problem right? After all, you're definitely correct and trawling through hundreds of studies, statistics and statements to individually link them on social media is a trivial thing that it's not dishonest to demand.
So that's your compassion? Ignore others around you hey. Makes sense.
Oh this is hilarious, do tell, how I manipulate an entire countries statistics on suicide over time!
They're absolutely right, as a generalization. Does it stop the result when access was taken away specifically for Guns. The statistics clearly show means changed over time and did the rate reduce? No. That rope lobby is looking mighty dangerous now. You better get on the case.
Is that what I said? Don't worry, I don't just make baseless claims or tell you to just google something that doesn't exist. Suicide rate is 3 times higher for males, after all this is the topic with Guns.
higher rate of suicide among Australian males are that males tend to choose more lethal methods of suicide such as hanging (60% of male suicides), poisoning, including by car exhaust (11%), and firearms (8%). (Australian Psychological Society)men have a greater tendency to not recognize or respond to their own negative emotions or distress, which may result in more chronic and severe emotional responses to adverse life events (Goldney et al., 2002)Men are less inclined to communicate feelings of despair or hopelessness, and are more likely to present a stoic attitude towards misfortune (Howerton et al., 2007; Witte et al., 2012)have fewer social connections (Denney et al 2009)Differences in help seeking between men and women are additional contributing factors. Men tend not to seek help for emotional difficulties, often feeling that help-seeking is a weakness or failure and preferring to solve problems on their own, without being a burden on others (Emslie et al 2006)Don't worry you do enough gas lighting and straw-manning for everyone. At this point its assured you're lobbying for big oil.
Yep, what a surprise, you can't find any organisations that agree with you, even though your clearly the expert.
Even more fascinating is when you finally start pulling out extracts, you struggle to not contradict yourself.
So you're adamant that guns have nothing to do with the suicide rate, then immediately paste a quote about how lethality of method increases the suicide rate?
Do you think guns are more or less lethal than hanging you fucking dunce?
Don't bother answering, just repeat "b-b-bhut Australia" over and over again, pointing at a policy that didn't target suicide prevention.
Maybe you can follow it up with throwing a tantrum because people aren't discussing exactly what's in the title, even as you gloss over the "U.S" part so that you can use an island with 14 guns per capita to a country with 120 guns per capita.
So you have no evidence no study and no statistics to support your baseless claims and generalisations. I thought so.
A pathetic political wedge attempt.
Repeatedly linked. Have the gun lobby built a GPT bot and taught it to sealion?
You should get a job at a suicide hotline and when people call up, ask them if they've considered buying a cool gun and shooting things because after all, it makes no difference at all if you give suicidal people firearms.
You know, because Australia banned semi-automatic weapons.
So more generalisations no studies no statistics, nothing of value to the conversation. More baseless claims and empty straw manning. Keep up the good work big oil.
Two counter points:
First is gunpowder is a weapon that does level playing field between two people who have different amounts of strength. What I mean is a 6foot 250 lb muscle builder is just as deadly as a 90 year old grand ma.
You have to acknowledge that point even if I agreed to your points.
Unlike all other weapons strength doesn't matter for a gun. Basic biology that women are physically weaker than men. Yes some suggested that a woman shooting a guy in self-defense should be legal and mostly is.
The second is is you are wildly wrong about having access to drugs. I'm surprised you are suggesting that the average American household doesn't have a lethal dose in their medicine cabinet.
Sure, in some bizarre labratory conditions that don't reflect reality, the body builder and the grandma have equal capacity to murder anyone they want.
But that's almost never how it plays out. Do you know who actually wins in that matchup? Whoever is the shittest person.
Is the grandma deeply racist and the body builder black? Then all my money is on the grandma. Is the body builder far-right and opening fire on a family having a day out with grandma? Then all my money is on the Nazi.
But of course, we don't have to talk about convoluted hypothetical scenarios. The pro-gun community had dictated the gun laws for 25 years, promising shit like "a level playing field" the entire time, despite it been a deeply fucked way of describing people fighting for their lives.
So why are none of these promises coming true? Why are women and minorities less safe in America compared to other wealthy countries? Why are the crime rates in America basically the same despite tolerating children being executed en masse every few months?
If these gun laws keep us safe from tyranny, why are there fascists preparing for an election, enthusiastically cheered on by the the pro-gun community?
When they inevitably lose and arrange their next attack on the Capitol, puffing their chests out with pro-gun pride and executing anyone who stands in their way, are you going tell us just how level the playing field was?
Most of then also have a lethal amount of bleach too but believe it or not, most suicidal people would rather not torture themselves to death.
Just because something is theoretically fatal doesn't mean it's a suicide risk.
Spoken like someone who hasn't had depressed friends off themselves after years of trying to talk them off the ledge. I don't give two fucks what your statistics or science say about it, I've lived it. So eat a bag of dicks and shut the fuck up about shit you've only read about on the internet.
Edit: down vote all you want you little bitch. I sincerely hope you take that attitude to someone in real life and they kick the absolute shit out of you, maybe then you'll realize your sheltered view of the world doesn't align with reality. Go touch grass.
Glorious. Downvotes are actually publicly visible on Lemmy and it wasnt me, but sure, go off.
Don't get embarassed though, you're still very big and scary and the "go touch grass" still hurts my feelings no matter how many times right wing reactionaries use it, because I'm that insecure.
I sincerely want to be sympathetic because I do know what thats like.
But its easy enough to swallow that compassion when I remember that you're only pulling out that trauma and heartbreak to defend gun laws that rob thousands of people of the chance to escape that same fate.
Because you don't get to "talk people off the ledge" when they have a gun. There is no ledge. Those critical opportunities for help and self-reflectance, that have saved thousands of people from bridges, rooftops and bathtubs full of blood, are all lost.
And the people talked off ledges don't just find another ledge. Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die by suicide, but the survival rate of self inflicted gunshot wounds is functionally zero.
Its why, if someone you care about is struggling with depression or trauma, the very last thing you should do is give them a gun.
Fortunately for the gun-lobby, the only people gun owners seem to care about is themselves, no matter now many of their children blow their brains out with daddy's poorly secured firearm that he bought to "keep his family safe".
it was obvious to all of us :)
Wow....yes it's the guns fault, not that our society is so fucked that people are offing themselves like crazy....naa it's the gun doing it. The fuck outta here.
I didn't say it was the guns fault. Even if we fixed a boatload of societal problems, guns still don't help these situations, and you'd still have people using them because they're available.
The idea that they don't contribute to the problem is laughable.
They do, but they are not the root cause, and focusing on them is a distraction.
It's not a distraction though.
The vast majority of attempted suicide survivors regret ever trying. They get help and live better lives.
When someone is in a bad state of mind or having a depressed episode that is the time when they are most vulnerable.
Having easy access to an immediate life ending device with the squeeze of a trigger is a major problem.
This is the reason jump nets and barriers work on bridges. Making it slightly harder or more inconvenient to kill themselves saves lives.
As someone who lives in the UK where only farmers can get a gun to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife( which hate on me all you want is a valid reason to own a firearm and not just as a fancy toy to show off like Americans). Statistics show that men tend to use more brutal methods of suicide so not having guns makes no difference because they will simply use a different fatal method. So as someone who lives in a country that has a lot of suicides and no guns for the average joe. Removing guns has solved nothing in terms of suicide.
So please draw info from other countries before making assumptions about how a law would change your country, because otherwise it's very narrow minded, and you will waste time and lives trying to make a solution that already has no effect abroad.
As someone who lives in the UK where only farmers can get a gun to protect livestock from dangerous wildlife( which hate on me all you want is a valid reason to own a firearm and not just as a fancy toy to show off like Americans). Statistics show that men tend to use more brutal methods of suicide so not having guns makes no difference because they will simply use a different fatal method. So as someone who lives in a country that has a lot of suicides and no guns for the average joe. Removing guns has solved nothing in terms of suicide.
So please draw info from other countries before making assumptions about how a law would change your country, because otherwise it's very narrow minded, and you will waste time and lives trying to make a solution that already has no effect abroad.
Its not a distraction -- it's an immediate, measurable solution to a growing problem, that absolutely nobody is suggesting is the entire solution.
Meanwhile, what have the pro-gun groups that insist they (and they alone) have the solution suggested?
Video games. Marilyn Manson. Rock and rap music. Not enough prayer. Too many doors. Abortion. Legalised weed. Women. Drag Queens and gay marriage. COVID vaccines. Critical race theory. Not enough people having guns.
And what a surprise, every single one of those excuses is just blatantly something they want to attack anyway, using the "look what you made me do" excuse loved by manipulative abusers everywhere.
The boomers blame popular culture. The fundamentalists blame secularism and abortion. The fascists blame minorities. The neoliberals blame their donors not making enough money.
After 25 years of offering nothing by distractions, some marketing genius thought of "mental health", which is at least part of the problem.
But of course their take away isnt "clearly we are not mentally healthy enough as a society for such permissive gun laws", nor even "we should do something about the mental health problems are facing".
Instead, it's "Other people should build a mental health system that is mandatory for every man, woman and child in America, even if they don't want help. It has to cure mental health problems, even those beyond our ability to treat, instantly and so completely that they will never relapse, even for a second. Also, we are going to obstruct your efforts every step of the way politically, legally and by telling children they're less important that inanimate objects used to kill and oppress people".
Because the idea was never to fix the problem, the idea was to create something that would distract people for 200 years, so the money would keep rolling in.
But don't worry if the skepticism has already started to creep into your brain with intrusive thoughts like "does this mean we train soldiers to be mentally ill?" or "are they trying to say that being a right wing reactionary like most mass shooters (and gun owners) is actually a mental illness?"...
MTG has already come out and blamed mass shootings on the medication we use to treat mental health problems, ensuring gun owners still have the backup distraction of "too much mental healthcare", ready to be used the day people meet their impossible prerequisites for gun control.
typical “buh muh guns” response