There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn’t matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.
Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.
Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don’t work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.
Of course, removing access to guns doesn’t fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.
The consensus among public health experts is that there is strong evidence that reducing firearm suicides in contexts where more-lethal means of attempting suicide are unavailable will result in reductions in the total suicide rate (see, for example, Office of the Surgeon General and National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, 2012; World Health Organization, 2014; for review, see Azrael and Miller, 2016).
Research has shown time and again that restricting access to lethal means or “means restriction” can saves lives. By restricting access to firearms and other highly lethal methods the decline in suicide rates by that method and overall suicide rates begin to decline. Restricting access to lethal means does not always lead to fewer deaths, but is one suicide prevention measure that merits further research and more individual-level intervention training to make lethal means less readily available.
Japan would like a word (but they’re too busy killing themselves without guns.)
Guns may be more effective but I’d argue OTC meds are “easier” considering you don’t get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.
Simply banning guns wouldn’t help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.
There is plenty of blame to go around, the problem is systemic. Putting the blame on one institution makes it a scapegoat, we need publicly funded mental health care as much as we need gun control.
While the US definitely needs publicly funded (mental) health care, it will not address the gun issue. It doesn’t matter if a country has public health care or not, what matters for gun related deaths is either a) number of (civil) guns or b) (civil) war.
Do not give into gun nuts in this regard. Do not agree that the US needs both. The US needs exactly and only one thing when it comes to gun deaths: Fewer guns.
Nah fam, we need both. Fewer guns, even destorying every AR15 in America wouldn’t solve the #1 cause of gun deaths in America, which is suicide.
Removing guns (or at least access to them) can actually reduce the rate of suicide. Guns are quick and easy to use to commit suicide, whereas many other methods take time to set up and don’t work as often. When someone is feeling suicidal, often having that little bit of extra time can let the feeling decrease enough to prevent an attempt.
Of course, removing access to guns doesn’t fix why people feel suicidal in the first place. That is a whole nother can of worms. But I expect everyone agrees that reducing the number of suicides is good.
RAND: How Gun Policies Affect Suicide
Save.org: Restricting access to lethal means:
Japan would like a word (but they’re too busy killing themselves without guns.)
Guns may be more effective but I’d argue OTC meds are “easier” considering you don’t get NICs checked for tylenol. And frankly many suicidal people (not all ofc) already have a problem with a particular drug that causes 96,000+ accidental deaths/yr, shooting of another nature, which kills 36,000 more people than guns/yr including suicide, that could also be used quite easily and peacefully as opposed to doing your best impression of Dead from Meyhem.
Simply banning guns wouldn’t help, we still need to address the root causes. And once we address the root causes gun control will be a whole lot less necessary anyway. At the very least, we should start with the things that will be actually helpful and then move to the pointless bans which worked so well for those drugs 96,000 people OD on each year.
Oh yeah, definitely. But never admit that when talking to gun nuts.
You sound like the people who advocated for the war on drugs…
I would piss my pants laughing in an alternate universe where we did ban all guns and there was a whole legalize it movement.
Prohibition is hardly ever a great answer.
…I’m probably one of the leading drug legalization figures in my state.
But I’m also not an idiot who fetishizes weapons. You’re probably one of those weirdos who sleep with their gun.
Oh, and to help your tiny brain a bit: My drugs cannot kill you over a distance of 500 meters at a speed close to or faster than the speed of sound.
Additionally, countless of generations of humans have lived without any firearms at all. Even giant pussies like you are going to be fine.
Do you fetishize being wrong?
You seem to get off on it.