It won’t even save 30k a year, the mass majority of our deaths via guns are suicides. Removing that avenue is not going to magically make someone less suicidal.
I believe guns increase the likelihood of suicide. There was a study on this, and lately firearm instructors have been conveying(in Utah at least) that removing guns from your home if suicidal is crucial. And to watch for signs of depression in other gun owners.
But I agree with your overall point. Removing the guns won’t eliminate those suicide deaths, only reduce them.
And more to my point, if RFK is in power when bird flu achieves human to human transmission, gun deaths will be background noise.
The issue with that logic is correlation doesn’t equal causation…you just need to look at japan. The country with pretty much the hardest gun control, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
That’s not how correlation works at all. By that same logic you’re stating that without guns here, then all of our suicides by firearms wouldn’t happen at all, and people wouldn’t try something else.
Listen, the evidence that having a gun in the home increasing the risk of suicide is well established. The burden of proof is on you. Your opinion is shit.
No it doesn’t, you’re basically giving me the point that someone who can’t swim is more likely to drown because they own a pool… that’s the bullshit logic that is used. (If you didn’t get that reference, the person is more likely to drown because they can’t swim…not because they own a pool). There are millions of firearm owners in the USA, the fraction of a percent of those commit suicide. So no it’s not what makes people more likely to commit suicide. I just explained that to you with Japan, which you will clearly ignore.
People don’t magically become suicidal because a firearm is present. That’s the most ignorant bullshit ever, and was cooked up from the anti-gun groups.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Never has never will.
“Suicide attempts are often impulsive acts, driven by transient life crises,” the authors write. “Most attempts are not fatal, and most people who attempt suicide do not go on to die in a future suicide. Whether a suicide attempt is fatal depends heavily on the lethality of the method used — and firearms are extremely lethal. These facts focus attention on firearm access as a risk factor for suicide especially in the United States, which has a higher prevalence of civilian-owned firearms than any other country and one of the highest rates of suicide by firearm.”
That’s literally stating that suicides by firearms are more successful…NOT that they cause people to commit suicide more.
I’ll say it again, correlation doesn’t equate causation.
It’s not my problem you are incapable of understanding studies that have an agenda.
It won’t even save 30k a year, the mass majority of our deaths via guns are suicides. Removing that avenue is not going to magically make someone less suicidal.
I believe guns increase the likelihood of suicide. There was a study on this, and lately firearm instructors have been conveying(in Utah at least) that removing guns from your home if suicidal is crucial. And to watch for signs of depression in other gun owners.
But I agree with your overall point. Removing the guns won’t eliminate those suicide deaths, only reduce them.
And more to my point, if RFK is in power when bird flu achieves human to human transmission, gun deaths will be background noise.
The issue with that logic is correlation doesn’t equal causation…you just need to look at japan. The country with pretty much the hardest gun control, has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
The point you’re missing is if Japan had lax gun laws they would have more suicides. Not sure if you’re slow to catch on or just obstinate.
That’s not how correlation works at all. By that same logic you’re stating that without guns here, then all of our suicides by firearms wouldn’t happen at all, and people wouldn’t try something else.
Listen, the evidence that having a gun in the home increasing the risk of suicide is well established. The burden of proof is on you. Your opinion is shit.
No it doesn’t, you’re basically giving me the point that someone who can’t swim is more likely to drown because they own a pool… that’s the bullshit logic that is used. (If you didn’t get that reference, the person is more likely to drown because they can’t swim…not because they own a pool). There are millions of firearm owners in the USA, the fraction of a percent of those commit suicide. So no it’s not what makes people more likely to commit suicide. I just explained that to you with Japan, which you will clearly ignore.
People don’t magically become suicidal because a firearm is present. That’s the most ignorant bullshit ever, and was cooked up from the anti-gun groups.
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Never has never will.
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/
As I alluded to if Japan had more available guns in the home their suicides would go up. This is backed up by science not your “feels”.
Please provide the proof behind your opinion. Oh wait, don’t even bother. We both know you are full of shit.
That’s literally stating that suicides by firearms are more successful…NOT that they cause people to commit suicide more.
I’ll say it again, correlation doesn’t equate causation.
It’s not my problem you are incapable of understanding studies that have an agenda.
Even small barriers to a quick death can dramatically reduce suicide rates. Blister packs replacing bottles of pills reduced overdose suicides by 22‰.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC526120/