Firearms Access and Suicide Prevention

[SecondsCount]

I'm not advocating the restriction of your freedoms, we're just having a conversation, dude.

I don't want a "smart" anything in my guns. They work fine as is, and I will keep them out of the hands of those that should not have them.

[TGS]

Cool, dude.

Back to what I was actually writing about, if you have anything pertaining to that instead of trying to deflect.....

[SecondsCount]

Cool, dude.

Back to what I was actually writing about, if you have anything pertaining to that instead of trying to deflect.....

You are trying to make the point that gun safety devices will reduce suicides. Maybe they will, no argument here, just saying that I don't want them on my guns, and that people will always find a way to kill themselves.

[TGS]

You are trying to make the point that gun safety devices will reduce suicides.

No, I didn't, and you're unable to quote me saying such.

I said greater access to firearms. To clarify, that can greatly be controlled using responsible gun ownership as others have pointed out (ex: gun safes), or in the Japanese context a complete ban on access to guns in any way. I'm not advocating for smart guns nor do I think they would be useful.

What I was writing about was your misapplication of the Japanese situation to ours, and explaining that not only did you fail to establish relevance but when diving into the nuances, the relevance actually hurts your position.....not supports it. You've responded by deflecting the conversation to stuff I didn't talk about, and attributed to me things I didn't write.

[Default.mp3]

I don’t care.

The second amendment has one purpose.

The smart gun tech is a slippery slope towards the state (or non state actors) being able to remotely “brick” your gun, just like smart phones, Smart tech in vehicles etc. this is unacceptable.

Going back to your friction theory, INE it applies to a segment of suicidal subjects but it’s not a universal impediment.

You are trying to make the point that gun safety devices will reduce suicides. Maybe they will, no argument here, just saying that I don't want them on my guns, and that people will always find a way to kill themselves.

Guys, I have yet to see anyone in this thread argue that we should actually implement smart guns for the purposes of suicide prevention, so you can stop yammering about that; I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that smart guns are almost certainly detrimental to gun rights. I started this thread merely to explain why I believe smart guns will likely have a statistically significant impact on American suicide rates, to counter the claim that regardless of whether or not suicidal folks have access to firearms, they will always find an alternate way and carry out their suicide successfully. If you've opposing thoughts and views on that, I'd like to hear about that, not about whether or not smart guns are an infringement on your rights.

Smart guns are increasingly something we have to consider in our arguments for gun rights, and probably something we need to mitigate on the political front. As @jh9 noted, smart guns will likely extend beyond suicide prevention, and is an issue that may very well become a perceived as some kind of compromise route by those outside the gun community, and we will need to be able adequately address our concerns about smart guns in more eloquent ways than simply "shall not be infringed".

[SecondsCount]

No, I didn't, and you're unable to quote me saying such.

I said greater access to firearms. To clarify, that can greatly be controlled using responsible gun ownership as others have pointed out (ex: gun safes), or in the Japanese context a complete ban on access to guns in any way. I'm not advocating for smart guns nor do I think they would be useful.

What I was writing about was your misapplication of the Japanese situation to ours, and explaining that not only did you fail to establish relevance but when diving into the nuances, the relevance actually hurts your position.....not supports it. You've responded by deflecting the conversation to stuff I didn't talk about, and attributed to me things I didn't write.

Okay, you win.

[HCM]

Guys, I have yet to see anyone in this thread argue that we should actually implement smart guns for the purposes of suicide prevention, so you can stop yammering about that; I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that smart guns are almost certainly detrimental to gun rights. I started this thread merely to explain why I believe smart guns will likely have a statistically significant impact on American suicide rates, to counter the claim that regardless of whether or not suicidal folks have access to firearms, they will always find an alternate way and carry out their suicide successfully. If you've opposing thoughts and views on that, I'd like to hear about that, not about whether or not smart guns are an infringement on your rights.

Smart guns are increasingly something we have to consider in our arguments for gun rights, and probably something we need to mitigate on the political front. As @jh9 noted, smart guns will likely extend beyond suicide prevention, and is an issue that may very well become a perceived as some kind of compromise route by those outside the gun community, and we will need to be able adequately address our concerns about smart guns in more eloquent ways than simply "shall not be infringed".

Limiting SSRI use would have a greater impact on suicide prevention than limiting access to firearms IME.

[RevolverRob]

I remain skeptical, simply because pretty good options for teen-proofing guns already exist now (i.e. safes). If parents don't invest in safe storage and don't recognize their child's risk profile now, would they be investing in a smart gun tech, assuming such tech is voluntary?

Wouldn't we be able to discern those numbers by looking at teen suicides, committed with firearms, in states that have a higher number of safes in circulation than others?

For instance, since 2002 California has required gun buyers to show they have a DOJ approved storage locker for firearms. Now, it's not the same as mandating, but a higher percentage of availability means less 'friction' to using them right?

Well, no luck, because getting those specific numbers are tough. So instead, let's look at raw suicide rate in California.

From 1999 to 2009 the suicide rate was ~9.4 per 100,000 (Cal Mental Health Services Program)

From 2014-2019 the suicide rate in California varied from 10.3-10.7 per 100,000 (CDC)

So, there was no net change in suicide rate after the passage of storage laws. And then we pick up a full decade after they're in effect and the suicide rate has increased.

California has hovered around the national average suicide rate for the past two decades. Only recently has it ticked above the national average. Gun ownership increased in California during that time. Coincidence? Abso-fucking-lutely. Because the poverty rate in California also increased, significantly, recently and the correlation between poverty and suicide is about as close to "correlation = causation" as it gets. It's basically the only consistent explanatory variable across states and countries with the highest suicide rates.

You want to solve suicides? Stop having poor people.

[Dr_Thanatos]

That assumes that suicides by a gun are mostly committed with somebody else's gun. I don't know this to be true, or false for that matter.

From my experience... which I can probably back up with data, if cases ever slow down to give me that opportunity, it is extremely rare for a suicide to occur with someone else's gun.

Equally, teen suicide is a remarkably small percentage of total suicides. And is frequently accomplished by hanging. It's sad, and tragic. But it's not the primary age group to target to drop the overall suicide rate.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[TGS]

From my experience... which I can probably back up with data, if cases ever slow down to give me that opportunity, it is extremely rare for a suicide to occur with someone else's gun.

Equally, teen suicide is a remarkably small percentage of total suicides. And is frequently accomplished by hanging. It's sad, and tragic. But it's not the primary age group to target to drop the overall suicide rate.



Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

When I was a chief at my EMS agency, I don't remember us responding to a single teen suicide using a gun. It's was usually hanging, cutting wrists, or OD. I imagine you see overwhelmingly hangings because it's more successful, whereas we usually had a good chance at reversing the outcome for the other two (so they'd never make it to you).