And ruin even more lives.

Whats the point you are arguing? I'm not saying that non firearm suicides don't happen, but it's plainly obvious that successful suicides by firearm are disproportionately high, provide easier access, and provide higher success than other methods, and this is due largely to the convenience.

30ish for jumpers? are all those idiots jumping from the 3rd floor or smth?

Not just that, spontaneous suicide becomes super easy, that moment of sudden dread you can work yourself through becomes life and death when there is a gun in your top drawer.
If you thought hey I might just go find an overpass you have to put a lot of thought into it and would more often than not talk yourself out of it.

The argument as im understanding is some people will get firearms for the specific reason to commit suicide, therefore by restricting this we can reduce suicides. In my state if i want to get a pistol legally it would take me upwards a year+ and at least 500 dollars.

Even to buy a rifle i would need to come up with 400-600 dollars.

I mean it's interesting to hear these fantastical scenarios of how finding a high rise is so much harder but pretty unrealistic. Going out to get a gun in Canada, even most of US is much harder, more expensive than simply finding a tall building and gaining access to a top floor.



Thor thinks cries for attention are the same as actual suicides.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 9 2020 02:09pm

Already covered this in my post above.

If they are equal in results. Why do the factual number support massive firearm use? If it’s just as easy to do bridge jumping why are they not close in number?

Over 50% of suicides in the US are caused by firearms and 2% by jumping from buildings. That stark difference is partly due to the accessibility of getting a gun from the drawer when you're in distress and at your most vulnerable.

When people take the time to walk or drive to a high rise building and look over the edge they often calm down and the impulsive desire to die dissipates.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to this, if you don't accept it because it doesn't fit with your narrative that gun deaths would all just happen anyway with falls and knives then we have nothing more to discuss. We'd be going from a logical, evidence based debate to an ideological one.

If you said you want guns and you accept the higher murders and suicides they cause as a trade off that would be a logical argument. But spare me the bullshit.

Worldwide, pesticides looks like the number one modus operandi

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide

Pretty sure if guns or pesticides were banned then the people serious enough about doing would still find a way and then we could reactively ban other functional tools and on and on.



Gun right's is not something i care about tbh, don't own a gun, probably never will. I am arguing this however because there are pretty big logical leaps in the 'if we ban guns then all those suicides that happened by guns will poof into mid air'. If you somehow think that banning one effective tool will somehow eliminate most of those suicides then lol. Whether it's pesticides or buildings or fill in the blank, those people will find a way.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 9 2020 02:25pm