By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 on 23 June 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1. The point I was making was that since Guns don't make people want to comitt sucide taking them alway does not solve that issue. Yeah guns are reliable but there are other reliable ways people can commit suicide. I used the example of the UK gun control to show that gun control does not necessarily lead to lower sucide rates.

You are making several assumptions here that cannot be assumed with the given information. You assume that all individuals who attempt suicide with a firearm would attempt suicide without the firearm around and you assume that all individuals who do attempt suicide would use a method which is equally reliable.

Yes, there are methods that are equally reliable, however with these other methods you also have to ask how physically available and how psychologically available they are. Jumping out of a plane may be fairly reliable, but it tends to be physically unavailable. On the other hand, something like slitting your wrists would be something that would be considered highly psychologically unavailable because of the pain and emotional difficultly involved.

While an individual could likely find a way to commit suicide, it is unreasonable to assume that those who commit suicide with guns would still attempt suicide at a 100% rate, and that those who still attempt suicide would use a manner with as high of a success rate at a 100% rate.

To illustrate this point, the Washington Post did some math which applied typical methods to suicide attempts to the United States to determine how suicide rates would change if fewer attempts were performed with firearms. This math does not account for a possible decrease in attempts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Overall, by changing how individuals attempt suicide, the overall suicide rate could decline 20-38%. That is a very substantial figure (and again, it doesn't account for a likely decrease in attempts).

A similar correlative effect is seen when comparing states by household firearm ownership:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext

Overall, with a 10% increase in household firearm ownership, youth suicide increases by about 26%.

This same trend has been reproduced in multiple studies. The following study examined the relation between firearm ownership and suicides at a city level instead of a state level:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/21/e1/e116.short

Again, the same trend was observed, with higher rates of firearm ownership being strongly associated with higher suicide rates.

Further studies introduced questions about firearm storage and strictness of gun control regulations into the above picture and again, found similar trends:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12243

Availability of guns and gun readiness were associated with increases in suicide rates, while stricter gun regulations decreased suicide rates.

And here is an article which looks specifically at Handgun Purchase Delay regulations and again finds that it has an effect on suicide rates:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/128/616/3117/5251684

Overall, purchase delay laws alone were found to reduce firearm suicide rates by 2-5% with no associated increase in non-firearm suicides. Obviously, there are numerous things that can be done beyond this which would stack to further reduce suicide rates, but this is just one example.

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.



Around the Network
sundin13 on 23 June 2019
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

You are making several assumptions here that cannot be assumed with the given information. You assume that all individuals who attempt suicide with a firearm would attempt suicide without the firearm around and you assume that all individuals who do attempt suicide would use a method which is equally reliable.

Yes, there are methods that are equally reliable, however with these other methods you also have to ask how physically available and how psychologically available they are. Jumping out of a plane may be fairly reliable, but it tends to be physically unavailable. On the other hand, something like slitting your wrists would be something that would be considered highly psychologically unavailable because of the pain and emotional difficultly involved.

While an individual could likely find a way to commit suicide, it is unreasonable to assume that those who commit suicide with guns would still attempt suicide at a 100% rate, and that those who still attempt suicide would use a manner with as high of a success rate at a 100% rate.

To illustrate this point, the Washington Post did some math which applied typical methods to suicide attempts to the United States to determine how suicide rates would change if fewer attempts were performed with firearms. This math does not account for a possible decrease in attempts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

Overall, by changing how individuals attempt suicide, the overall suicide rate could decline 20-38%. That is a very substantial figure (and again, it doesn't account for a likely decrease in attempts).

A similar correlative effect is seen when comparing states by household firearm ownership:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(18)32383-3/fulltext

Overall, with a 10% increase in household firearm ownership, youth suicide increases by about 26%.

This same trend has been reproduced in multiple studies. The following study examined the relation between firearm ownership and suicides at a city level instead of a state level:

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/21/e1/e116.short

Again, the same trend was observed, with higher rates of firearm ownership being strongly associated with higher suicide rates.

Further studies introduced questions about firearm storage and strictness of gun control regulations into the above picture and again, found similar trends:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/sltb.12243

Availability of guns and gun readiness were associated with increases in suicide rates, while stricter gun regulations decreased suicide rates.

And here is an article which looks specifically at Handgun Purchase Delay regulations and again finds that it has an effect on suicide rates:

https://academic.oup.com/ej/article-abstract/128/616/3117/5251684

Overall, purchase delay laws alone were found to reduce firearm suicide rates by 2-5% with no associated increase in non-firearm suicides. Obviously, there are numerous things that can be done beyond this which would stack to further reduce suicide rates, but this is just one example.

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.

1) The WaPo article does explain how they got their numbers.

2) Yes, the other methods that they discussed in the article do have lower lethality rates.

3) Yes, one study accounts for youths. Others account for the general population. This is a non-point.

4) If you can't access one article, feel free to look at any of the dozens of others which point out the exact same thing.

Again, feel free to actually post a rebuttal instead of just saying "Yeah, but I don't believe it". It wasn't a good argument the first time and it isn't a good argument now...

As for the trend in the UK which you pointed out, there are far too many additional variables to be able to make a conclusion from just that information alone. When additional variables are accounted for (such as in the studies I posted), that trend doesn't hold up. To say that suicide rates can be high in countries with low gun ownership is irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that the suicide rate would not be higher if gun ownership were higher (which I'm betting you can't).



Dark_Lord_2008 on 23 June 2019

Suicide is the only option for some people that are sick of living or just sick.
Euthanasia should be legalised world wide now!
If you are not happy in life and never going to achieve what you want in life, death is the best option!
Self improvement does not work and is a waste of time, suicide is the better option.
I am on suicide forums, I tell them to man up and just end it.
Do not be scared life is all over for you, life only gets worse over time.
It is not easy taking that final step and going through with it.
So many people are all talk and never follow through with ending it.




jason1637 on 24 June 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

I'm not assuming that everyone that commits suicide with a gun will do so other ways if they did not have a gun. I'm just saying that taking away their gun does not take away their emotions that lead them to comitt sucide so it's reasonable to believe that the end result will still be the same. This wont apply to everyone ofc but still when the UK implemented gun control policies in the late 90s their did not decrease the years that followed.

That washington post article is just a bunch of random numbers. They assume that if there were a lack of guns only 41$ of people would try other methods but don't explain how they got that 41% number. They also claim that the other methods are not as lethal as a gun which is just wrong.

The second study only accounts for kids aged 10-19. This age demographic actually has the lowest suicide rates and this study doesnt account for accidents. But anyway I already have said that there should be stricter lock up laws to prevent these accidents.

I'm not paying $37 or subscribing to read that BMJ Journals report.

This report also doesnt account for accidents.

I can't read this report without paying a sub to Oxford.

1) The WaPo article does explain how they got their numbers.

2) Yes, the other methods that they discussed in the article do have lower lethality rates.

3) Yes, one study accounts for youths. Others account for the general population. This is a non-point.

4) If you can't access one article, feel free to look at any of the dozens of others which point out the exact same thing.

Again, feel free to actually post a rebuttal instead of just saying "Yeah, but I don't believe it". It wasn't a good argument the first time and it isn't a good argument now...

As for the trend in the UK which you pointed out, there are far too many additional variables to be able to make a conclusion from just that information alone. When additional variables are accounted for (such as in the studies I posted), that trend doesn't hold up. To say that suicide rates can be high in countries with low gun ownership is irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that the suicide rate would not be higher if gun ownership were higher (which I'm betting you can't).

1/2. No they don't. "Fifty percent of Americans who commit suicide do so with a gun. In our hypothetical, we assume that figure is just 9 percent — the average level of those four other Western countries. We then assumed the remaining 41 percent would try to commit suicide by other methods, such as suffocation or poisoning. Because none of these methods is as lethal as a gun, fewer people would succeed at committing suicide than if they used firearms. Of course, in reality, it’s possible some people in this 41 percent would not attempt suicide otherwise; we assume they all do to keep our estimate conservative."

The 9% makes sense since they just averaged other western countries but the 41 percent number is totally random.

As for lethality the report fails to adress the different type of guns used and what area of the body si shot. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods This is a list of the most lethal methods. Shotgun shot to the head is #1 but shotguns are by far the least common method used to comitt sucide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1350343/pdf/amjph00246-0074.pdf. The use of Cyanide and a general shot the head would come in second. But getting hit by a train and using explosives come pretty close. The report failed to address these methods too.

3/4. The study that accounts for youth fails to take into account accidents. The generla population study I can't read unless i pay a fee but i'm not gonna do that.

I have looked some up and what i've found is that stricter gun laws reduce suicides by firearms. That's pretty obvious but I have yet to find anything about general suicide rates.

I have provided a rebuttal. If you take away the guns you're just taking away one of the many tools available. The emotions that lead someone to commit sucide is still there. Here is an article that explains why you can't properly relate gun ownership to suide because we we don't know who has guns or not since there's no gun registry or gun purchase documentation.

https://mises.org/wire/more-evidence-guns-dont-cause-suicide

Ther is also another study that shows that stricter gun laws don't show overall decrease in risk of suicide rates in a population.https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/9



Pemalite on 24 June 2019
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Suicide is the only option for some people that are sick of living or just sick.
Euthanasia should be legalised world wide now!

How progressively left-wing of you.

But yes. It should be legalized world-wide, there are conservatives/powerful religious organizations which tend to be the major road block to achieving this though, but just like Same-Sex marriage, it is only a matter of time before it's legalization occurs.

And as someone who worked in the health sector... This would be life-changing not just for the sufferers, but for family and friends who are often obligated to go along for the journey...

Sometimes the suffering can last decades, when if it was any other living creature... Euthanasia would certainly be an option.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
If you are not happy in life and never going to achieve what you want in life, death is the best option!
Self improvement does not work and is a waste of time, suicide is the better option.

Bullshit.
Self-Improvement does work, it doesn't work for you because you don't think it can.

In short, it's your own damn fault.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
I am on suicide forums, I tell them to man up and just end it.

Wow... Words can't describe of how low I think this is... And is so very wrong.
I think you should vacate such outlets for their well-being, they need support and you are bringing them down.

Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Do not be scared life is all over for you, life only gets worse over time.
It is not easy taking that final step and going through with it.
So many people are all talk and never follow through with ending it.

Euthanasia isn't about just killing yourself just-because, it's because you cannot deal with the extent of pain... That is physical pain, not emotional pain.
There are steps to be taken for emotional pain.

In future Dark_Lord, it would be nice if you would bother to engage other users on this forum rather than post something controversial and then not address counter-posts only to post something just as controversial later that is often almost a completely different topic, this is a forum, people engage each other on forums.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Alby_da_Wolf on 24 June 2019

Suicides and killing sprees could be limited enforcing serious psychiatric tests to concede not only weapon carry licences, but also for the sole weapon possession. Without denying either of them to sane people (or even most neurotic, but not psychotic ones). But while this is considered totally reasonable by even the majority of the most weapon enthusiasts outside of USA, it makes US ones go nuts and scream about fundamental rights at the mere thought.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


sundin13 on 24 June 2019
jason1637 said:
sundin13 said:

1) The WaPo article does explain how they got their numbers.

2) Yes, the other methods that they discussed in the article do have lower lethality rates.

3) Yes, one study accounts for youths. Others account for the general population. This is a non-point.

4) If you can't access one article, feel free to look at any of the dozens of others which point out the exact same thing.

Again, feel free to actually post a rebuttal instead of just saying "Yeah, but I don't believe it". It wasn't a good argument the first time and it isn't a good argument now...

As for the trend in the UK which you pointed out, there are far too many additional variables to be able to make a conclusion from just that information alone. When additional variables are accounted for (such as in the studies I posted), that trend doesn't hold up. To say that suicide rates can be high in countries with low gun ownership is irrelevant unless you can somehow prove that the suicide rate would not be higher if gun ownership were higher (which I'm betting you can't).

1/2. No they don't. "Fifty percent of Americans who commit suicide do so with a gun. In our hypothetical, we assume that figure is just 9 percent — the average level of those four other Western countries. We then assumed the remaining 41 percent would try to commit suicide by other methods, such as suffocation or poisoning. Because none of these methods is as lethal as a gun, fewer people would succeed at committing suicide than if they used firearms. Of course, in reality, it’s possible some people in this 41 percent would not attempt suicide otherwise; we assume they all do to keep our estimate conservative."

The 9% makes sense since they just averaged other western countries but the 41 percent number is totally random.

As for lethality the report fails to adress the different type of guns used and what area of the body si shot. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods This is a list of the most lethal methods. Shotgun shot to the head is #1 but shotguns are by far the least common method used to comitt sucide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1350343/pdf/amjph00246-0074.pdf. The use of Cyanide and a general shot the head would come in second. But getting hit by a train and using explosives come pretty close. The report failed to address these methods too.

3/4. The study that accounts for youth fails to take into account accidents. The generla population study I can't read unless i pay a fee but i'm not gonna do that.

I have looked some up and what i've found is that stricter gun laws reduce suicides by firearms. That's pretty obvious but I have yet to find anything about general suicide rates.

I have provided a rebuttal. If you take away the guns you're just taking away one of the many tools available. The emotions that lead someone to commit sucide is still there. Here is an article that explains why you can't properly relate gun ownership to suide because we we don't know who has guns or not since there's no gun registry or gun purchase documentation.

https://mises.org/wire/more-evidence-guns-dont-cause-suicide

Ther is also another study that shows that stricter gun laws don't show overall decrease in risk of suicide rates in a population.https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/9

1) They have their methodology linked within the article which explains in detail what they did with that other 41%. tldr version: They used two calculations. The first was applying suicide attempt percentages to that 41%. The second accounted for seriousness of attempt by applying percentages of only successful suicide attempts. It is not "totally random".

2) Lethality is addressed through the above. They addressed the lethality of the means that people actually use to commit suicide and also included an "Other" section which accounts for the lethality of all niche methods. The reason you don't see a specific category for "Cyanide poisoning" is twofold. One is that this is included in the overall poisoning statistics and two is that it doesn't seem to be very common. The report did not "fail to address" this stuff. It addressed it, but it just wasn't very important.

3) I struggle to understand what point you are trying to make by continually bringing up "accidents". These are different statistics so I'm not sure why you think them "taking it into account" would change anything.

4) Again, you not reading it is not an argument.

5) I largely agree with the points made in in that NAP review. To borrow the summary provided:

  1. States, regions, and countries with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide. There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide, but this association is more modest than the association between gun ownership and gun suicide; it is less consistently observed across time, place, and persons; and the causal relation remains unclear.

  2. The risk of suicide is highest immediately after the purchase of a handgun, suggesting that some firearms are specifically purchased for the purpose of committing suicide.

  3. Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.

Point one and two were largely part of my argument from the beginning. Point three largely addresses the need for additional research on gun control measures which are focused on suicide prevention. As your other source notes, "gun control" could mean a lot of things, so a more specific focus is needed in order to address the question. Again, to take a summary from the NAP review:

"Suicide prevention has rarely been the basis for public support of the passage of specific gun laws, but effects on suicide rates could be an unintended by-product of such laws, and the effects of different firearms policy interventions on suicide remain poorly understood. Thus, the committee recommends further studies of the link between firearms policy and suicide."

But that review is almost fifteen years old now and additional research has been done. I already posted several articles discussing this from after this review was completed, but I will post one more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566524/

This article discusses the impact of four different laws (waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations) on suicide rates and finds that all four laws were associated with a lower overall suicide rate (though the relationship was weaker for waiting periods).

Note: Three additional laws were analyzes under this article with similar conclusions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880944



jason1637 on 24 June 2019
sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

1/2. No they don't. "Fifty percent of Americans who commit suicide do so with a gun. In our hypothetical, we assume that figure is just 9 percent — the average level of those four other Western countries. We then assumed the remaining 41 percent would try to commit suicide by other methods, such as suffocation or poisoning. Because none of these methods is as lethal as a gun, fewer people would succeed at committing suicide than if they used firearms. Of course, in reality, it’s possible some people in this 41 percent would not attempt suicide otherwise; we assume they all do to keep our estimate conservative."

The 9% makes sense since they just averaged other western countries but the 41 percent number is totally random.

As for lethality the report fails to adress the different type of guns used and what area of the body si shot. http://lostallhope.com/suicide-methods/statistics-most-lethal-methods This is a list of the most lethal methods. Shotgun shot to the head is #1 but shotguns are by far the least common method used to comitt sucide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1350343/pdf/amjph00246-0074.pdf. The use of Cyanide and a general shot the head would come in second. But getting hit by a train and using explosives come pretty close. The report failed to address these methods too.

3/4. The study that accounts for youth fails to take into account accidents. The generla population study I can't read unless i pay a fee but i'm not gonna do that.

I have looked some up and what i've found is that stricter gun laws reduce suicides by firearms. That's pretty obvious but I have yet to find anything about general suicide rates.

I have provided a rebuttal. If you take away the guns you're just taking away one of the many tools available. The emotions that lead someone to commit sucide is still there. Here is an article that explains why you can't properly relate gun ownership to suide because we we don't know who has guns or not since there's no gun registry or gun purchase documentation.

https://mises.org/wire/more-evidence-guns-dont-cause-suicide

Ther is also another study that shows that stricter gun laws don't show overall decrease in risk of suicide rates in a population.https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/9

1) They have their methodology linked within the article which explains in detail what they did with that other 41%. tldr version: They used two calculations. The first was applying suicide attempt percentages to that 41%. The second accounted for seriousness of attempt by applying percentages of only successful suicide attempts. It is not "totally random".

2) Lethality is addressed through the above. They addressed the lethality of the means that people actually use to commit suicide and also included an "Other" section which accounts for the lethality of all niche methods. The reason you don't see a specific category for "Cyanide poisoning" is twofold. One is that this is included in the overall poisoning statistics and two is that it doesn't seem to be very common. The report did not "fail to address" this stuff. It addressed it, but it just wasn't very important.

3) I struggle to understand what point you are trying to make by continually bringing up "accidents". These are different statistics so I'm not sure why you think them "taking it into account" would change anything.

4) Again, you not reading it is not an argument.

5) I largely agree with the points made in in that NAP review. To borrow the summary provided:

  1. States, regions, and countries with higher rates of household gun ownership have higher rates of gun suicide. There is also cross-sectional, ecological association between gun ownership and overall risk of suicide, but this association is more modest than the association between gun ownership and gun suicide; it is less consistently observed across time, place, and persons; and the causal relation remains unclear.

  2. The risk of suicide is highest immediately after the purchase of a handgun, suggesting that some firearms are specifically purchased for the purpose of committing suicide.

  3. Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.

Point one and two were largely part of my argument from the beginning. Point three largely addresses the need for additional research on gun control measures which are focused on suicide prevention. As your other source notes, "gun control" could mean a lot of things, so a more specific focus is needed in order to address the question. Again, to take a summary from the NAP review:

"Suicide prevention has rarely been the basis for public support of the passage of specific gun laws, but effects on suicide rates could be an unintended by-product of such laws, and the effects of different firearms policy interventions on suicide remain poorly understood. Thus, the committee recommends further studies of the link between firearms policy and suicide."

But that review is almost fifteen years old now and additional research has been done. I already posted several articles discussing this from after this review was completed, but I will post one more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4566524/

This article discusses the impact of four different laws (waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations) on suicide rates and finds that all four laws were associated with a lower overall suicide rate (though the relationship was weaker for waiting periods).

Note: Three additional laws were analyzes under this article with similar conclusions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880944

1. The number is random. In their mythology the only state how many people would live by failing while using other methods. They fail to mention the 41% statistic in their methodology. Also since people don't register gun purchases or ownerships the report they used for gun ownership by state is not fully accurate.

2. Well they mention that 20% would be other methods. That's a pretty big and important percentage for them not to break down.

3/4. You posted a statistic of kids aged 10-19 committing suicide with household guns. There's a good possibility that a good chunk of these could have been accidents. The report you posted pertaining to this could have been misleading for not seperating accidents and actual sucide attempts.

5.Gun control could mean different things but the report analyzes over 11 studies of gun control laws and mention 3 others legislation and they still concluded that gun laws reduce gun sucide but there is no evidence to show that they reduce the total amount of sucide in a population.

6. This does not really prove much besides that some states have lower rates and some have higher. Yeah some states with stricter gun laws show lower rates but it's important to look at these rates before and after these laws were passed.

California

Firearm registration law that went into effect 2011. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=6.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=6.&article=2.

Assault weapon law that mostly expanded the definition of these weapons and but restrictions for those that are in or served in the military. The law wne into effect 2011.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=6.&title=4.&part=6.&chapter=6.&article=2.

Another Assault weapon law that expanded previous laws to ban more guns.Some parts went into effect later in 2016 and other parts early 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1135
Now here is California's sucide rate over the last few years https://www.livestories.com/statistics/california/suicide-deaths-mortality.

Illinois

A law requiring background checks to sell guns from 2012. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC%2BSAFETY&ActName=Firearm%2BOwners%2BIdentification%2BCard%2BAct%2E

These laws banned some guns and attachments.They went into effect in 2015. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072000050K24-1.htm http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K24-2

Here is their sucide rates https://www.livestories.com/statistics/illinois/suicide-deaths-mortality

Btw i picked these states because California had a yes for all the gun laws in the link you provided and Illinois had a yes for 3/4 guns laws. If I have tim I can do it for other states. But yeah the point i'm making is that these states have a lower suicide rates even before some gun legislation were initiated.



Immersiveunreality on 24 June 2019
SpokenTruth said:
Is Dark Lord an admin/mod parody account or something? At this point I'm having a hard time qualifying him as human.

I do not agree with it but understand his behaviour,he is an isolated human with mental troubles.



jason1637 on 24 June 2019

I don't support euthanasia or any form of assisted suicide but I can see where Dark Lord is coming from. Life is short and unless you're famous none will know who you are in the future so in a way life can be seen as useless. Were just here for a small amount of time and in the far future everything we did as a society will seize to exist anyway so you can argue that there's no point to life.

Also your mindset plays a role in how successful you can become. If you're depressed and don't care it's not likely that things will get better for you.

Personally I disagree with this way of thinking but it's pretty hard ot argue against it.