i've not seen a single post stating HOW the government is supposed to know who should have their access to all guns everywhere revoked to prevent suicide.  How does one even enforce that?

Sounds like the HPD method -- go to counseling, get your guns taken.

What about the other methods?  No taking away of cars, knives, anything that can be used as a rope/noose, medications, household cleaners and pesticides, plastic bags, anything sharp like scissors or box cutters, etc, etc?

How many people have killed themselves in prisons without the benefit of a firearm?  In hospitals? 

i've not seen a single post stating HOW the government is supposed to know who should have their access to all guns everywhere revoked to prevent suicide. 

Because that wasn't the topic.

What about the other methods?  No taking away of cars, knives, anything that can be used as a rope/noose, medications, household cleaners and pesticides, plastic bags, anything sharp like scissors or box cutters, etc, etc?
How many people have killed themselves in prisons without the benefit of a firearm?  In hospitals?

Again, not the topic that was being discussed. The difficulty of addressing the problem doesn't make the statistics about suicide and access to firearms change.

We can have that discussion as well if you want.
Many of the items you mentioned would be very impractical to impossible to take away from people and they don't have near the success rate that firearms have.

Because that wasn't the topic.



Again, not the topic that was being discussed. The difficulty of addressing the problem doesn't make the statistics about suicide and access to firearms change.

We can have that discussion as well if you want.
Many of the items you mentioned would be very impractical to impossible to take away from people and they don't have near the success rate that firearms have.

LOL!!     That's Hillary-ous!  You're Mr. Stick to the Topic only when it suits you?

I started this thread, and I decide what the topic is.  Don't tell me how to discuss my own topic.

Success rate?  In your world, we need to focus on the big bad gun suicides because they are more successful, even though JUST AS MANY suicides happen without guns.  I still don't understand how you can't see the flaw in that "logic."

I've known several people who've taken their own lives.  The few who used firearms are no more dead as the ones who chose hanging, carbon monoxide,  overdose of meds, and wrist cutting.  Drowning seemed to be popular for awhile, although it's sometimes uncertain if those are suicides or accidents.  I'm sure there are many suicides ruled accidents, which is why they may have chosen that method #1 to save the family from the stigma/trauma, and #2 possibly to get life insurance to pay beneficiaries if there was a suicide clause in the policy.  Those suicides disguised as accidents never make the stats which might push the non-firearm suicides well above the firearm suicides.

I still don't get how 50% of suicides that succeed without a firearm is insignificant when discussing the other 50% of suicides using firearms.  if 10% of the total survive the attempt, I don't see how focusing on the method is advantageous to anyone other than gun control zealots pushing apolitical agenda.

If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty

https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/

If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty

https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/

You'll never get some people to agree with that.  They only want to 'discuss' the academic stats and correlations.

LOL!!     That's Hillary-ous!  You're Mr. Stick to the Topic only when it suits you?

I started this thread, and I decide what the topic is.  Don't tell me how to discuss my own topic.

Because you asked why that wasn't covered. Like I said, if you want to cover that aspect we can, I am not opposed to it, it just isn't relevant to the question of the success rates that I was talking about.

Success rate?  In your world, we need to focus on the big bad gun suicides because they are more successful, even though JUST AS MANY suicides happen without guns.  I still don't understand how you can't see the flaw in that "logic."

In my world? You mean the statistics? I already explained it is not about numbers of suicides with one tool compared to other tools, it is the number of times someone tries to commit suicide and succeeds compared to the number of times they try but do not succeed. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well the first time, so let me try it a little differently.

If you look at:
1000 people who shoot themselves
1000 people who overdose
1000 people who hang themselves
1000 people who cut their wrists
1000 people who use carbon monoxide poisoning
1000 people who use the exit bag method
etc

You are going to have different rates or survival for each category. Due to various factors, some of these methods have lower success rates than others. Shooting oneself is the most successful because 95 of those 100 (IIRC) will end up dying whereas much fewer of the people who try the other means will end up dying.

So if hanging has a 50% success rate (made up number) and firearms have a 95% success rate that would mean a person committing suicide who has access to a rope but not a firearm is less likely to und up dead.

My working theory is that because most other methods give people a chance to change their mind.

If guns become a health issue then the WHO can regulate them under the new pandemic treaty

https://rairfoundation.com/pandemic-treaty-the-beginning-of-global-health-governance/

It will be a health issue to the WHO if they try to come and take our guns.

Because you asked why that wasn't covered. Like I said, if you want to cover that aspect we can, I am not opposed to it, it just isn't relevant to the question of the success rates that I was talking about.


In my world? You mean the statistics? I already explained it is not about numbers of suicides with one tool compared to other tools, it is the number of times someone tries to commit suicide and succeeds compared to the number of times they try but do not succeed. Perhaps I didn't explain it very well the first time, so let me try it a little differently.

If you look at:
1000 people who shoot themselves
1000 people who overdose
1000 people who hang themselves
1000 people who cut their wrists
1000 people who use carbon monoxide poisoning
1000 people who use the exit bag method
etc

You are going to have different rates or survival for each category. Due to various factors, some of these methods have lower success rates than others. Shooting oneself is the most successful because 95 of those 100 (IIRC) will end up dying whereas much fewer of the people who try the other means will end up dying.

So if hanging has a 50% success rate (made up number) and firearms have a 95% success rate that would mean a person committing suicide who has access to a rope but not a firearm is less likely to und up dead.

My working theory is that because most other methods give people a chance to change their mind.

Your theory has a gapping hole.  Most people who choose methods other than firearms do not have, nor have access to, firearms.  That's the main point to your argument.  Access to firearms equals fewer people who survive.

However, if I concede that more people survive from non-firearm attempts, AND you concede that the statistics from the CDC state that only half the suicides were from firearms, the logical deduction has to be that more people are attempting suicide without firearms than they are with guns.  Not just the ones who survive, but the ones who die, too

If 1000 people use firearms and 1% survive, that's 990 people who succeeded.
if 1000 people used other then firearms and 10% survive, that's 900 people who succeeded.

So, you agree that 990 and 900 are not 50/50, right?  Therefore, to get a 50/50 ratio, 1000 people used firearms, but 1100 attempted suicide with non-firearms.  That would provide the 990 successes to equal the other group.

So, for your facts to make sense, 1000 people have to use a gun, and 1100 have to not use a gun.

The survival rate in the gun group is lower, but the number of people choosing to not use guns -- for whatever reason -- is necessarily larger than the gun group, and it has the same number of successful suicide attempts as the gun group -- 50/50.

The bigger question is how many of the non-gun group didn't really want to die -- those with potential access to guns but without 100% commitment?   We can also assume that some of the successes in that group were not 100% committed but wound up not getting saved as they'd planned/hoped/assumed. 

No matter how you slice and dice the statistics, limiting the variables to a binary option regarding firearms is useless.

Your theory has a gapping hole.  Most people who choose methods other than firearms do not have, nor have access to, firearms.  That's the main point to your argument.  Access to firearms equals fewer people who survive.

However, if I concede that more people survive from non-firearm attempts, AND you concede that the statistics from the CDC state that only half the suicides were from firearms, the logical deduction has to be that more people are attempting suicide without firearms than they are with guns.  Not just the ones who survive, but the ones who die, too

If 1000 people use firearms and 1% survive, that's 990 people who succeeded.
if 1000 people used other then firearms and 10% survive, that's 900 people who succeeded.

So, you agree that 990 and 900 are not 50/50, right?  Therefore, to get a 50/50 ratio, 1000 people used firearms, but 1100 attempted suicide with non-firearms.  That would provide the 990 successes to equal the other group.

So, for your facts to make sense, 1000 people have to use a gun, and 1100 have to not use a gun.

The survival rate in the gun group is lower, but the number of people choosing to not use guns -- for whatever reason -- is necessarily larger than the gun group, and it has the same number of successful suicide attempts as the gun group -- 50/50.

The bigger question is how many of the non-gun group didn't really want to die -- those with potential access to guns but without 100% commitment?   We can also assume that some of the successes in that group were not 100% committed but wound up not getting saved as they'd planned/hoped/assumed. 

No matter how you slice and dice the statistics, limiting the variables to a binary option regarding firearms is useless.

I am not sure why you are focused on the 50/50 issue, we don't have to make them equal. The success rate is not contingent on the method of suicide. If 100 out of 1000 use a firearm or 600 out of 100 use a firearm that doesn't mean the success rate of the firearm compared to other means is going to change.

On a side note, I think failure rate might be more technically accurate since the person is trying to commit suicide. So maybe it should be that a person fails to commit suicide with a firearm 5% of the time while they fail to commit suicide at higher rates with other means. More morbid I guess.

I think you may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in the second to the last paragraph. How many people didn't really want to die, how many people weren't that committed?  If I waffle about shooting myself but try anyway I have a much lower chance of survival than if I waffle about other means but try anyway. There are always going to be the super determined that will commit suicide. Whether in a jail cell, whether guns are taken away, whether they receive help, whether they have to try multiple times, they will find a way. If it were merely that the very determined happen to choose firearms then you wouldn't expect to see any difference in suicide rates when no firearms are available but that isn't what a lot of the data shows. Like the study about Switzerland with the shrinking of the military, their access to firearms decreased and the overall numbers of suicides decreased, they didn't commit suicide at the same rate but merely changed methods.

One other thing I didn't mention is that firearms don't require much thought. It is there, it is ready, it is extremely easy to act on impulse. With most other means I would have to think for a while. I would have to figure how many sleeping pills I would need, I would need to find some rope and a suitable place that would support my weight, I would have to go find a place high enough to ensure the impact kills me. From what I have learned, a delay makes a huge difference, just having some time to slow down and think can reduce suicide rates significantly.

Found something else interesting while looking for numbers, not exactly an explanation but interesting.
Men who were married were more likely to use firearms, whereas men who were unmarried were more likely to die by hanging.
https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508

I am not sure why you are focused on the 50/50 issue, we don't have to make them equal. The success rate is not contingent on the method of suicide. If 100 out of 1000 use a firearm or 600 out of 100 use a firearm that doesn't mean the success rate of the firearm compared to other means is going to change.

On a side note, I think failure rate might be more technically accurate since the person is trying to commit suicide. So maybe it should be that a person fails to commit suicide with a firearm 5% of the time while they fail to commit suicide at higher rates with other means. More morbid I guess.

I think you may have unintentionally hit the nail on the head in the second to the last paragraph. How many people didn't really want to die, how many people weren't that committed?  If I waffle about shooting myself but try anyway I have a much lower chance of survival than if I waffle about other means but try anyway. There are always going to be the super determined that will commit suicide. Whether in a jail cell, whether guns are taken away, whether they receive help, whether they have to try multiple times, they will find a way. If it were merely that the very determined happen to choose firearms then you wouldn't expect to see any difference in suicide rates when no firearms are available but that isn't what a lot of the data shows. Like the study about Switzerland with the shrinking of the military, their access to firearms decreased and the overall numbers of suicides decreased, they didn't commit suicide at the same rate but merely changed methods.

One other thing I didn't mention is that firearms don't require much thought. It is there, it is ready, it is extremely easy to act on impulse. With most other means I would have to think for a while. I would have to figure how many sleeping pills I would need, I would need to find some rope and a suitable place that would support my weight, I would have to go find a place high enough to ensure the impact kills me. From what I have learned, a delay makes a huge difference, just having some time to slow down and think can reduce suicide rates significantly.

Found something else interesting while looking for numbers, not exactly an explanation but interesting.
Men who were married were more likely to use firearms, whereas men who were unmarried were more likely to die by hanging.
https://www.verywellmind.com/gender-differences-in-suicide-methods-1067508

That's been my point this whole time.  The CDC says the numbers are 50/50 -- NOT ME!  The same number of people who succeed in killing themselves chose both non-firearm and firearm methods.

I can give you the data and the links, but I can't assimilate it for you.

i also hit on the "committed versus not really sure" issue at least once in this thread before, probably a few times.

Apparently i need to repeat myself a certain number of times before you read my entire post.   

That's been my point this whole time.  The CDC says the numbers are 50/50 -- NOT ME!  The same number of people who succeed in killing themselves chose both non-firearm and firearm methods.

I can give you the data and the links, but I can't assimilate it for you.

i also hit on the "committed versus not really sure" issue at least once in this thread before, probably a few times.

Apparently i need to repeat myself a certain number of times before you read my entire post.   

I don't dispute that suicide methods are 50 % firearms and 50% all other means but that has nothing to do with the statistics I am talking about. The data I was talking about is not about the percentage of people who kill themselves with firearms compared to other means. It is about the success (failure) rate of other means

I addressed the issue of how committed someone is already. Note I just said that a determined person will get it done sooner or later.

Whats the stats on someone choking themselves to death? If one can accomplish this, then they're a badass.  As all the time 1 tries and just passes out and lets go.  Then wakes up later.

Whats the stats on someone choking themselves to death? If one can accomplish this, then they're a badass.  As all the time 1 tries and just passes out and lets go.  Then wakes up later.

If you mean manual strangulation, I think the results are the same as when you held your breath until your parents bought you something you really wanted.   

Choking is often done with a plastic bag over the head, duct tape or strap around the neck to make it a little more air tight, and handcuffs or zip ties -- something to restrain the hands behind them or around a pole, pipe, etc. so they can't give in to their survival  instinct and take the bag off/tear it open.

Being unable to breathe is scary.  I imagine most people don't want to make themselves suffer for as long as it takes to suffocate, yet there are cases.

If you mean manual strangulation, I think the results are the same as when you held your breath until your parents bought you something you really wanted.   

Choking is often done with a plastic bag over the head, duct tape or strap around the neck to make it a little more air tight, and handcuffs or zip ties -- something to restrain the hands behind them or around a pole, pipe, etc. so they can't give in to their survival  instinct and take the bag off/tear it open.

Being unable to breathe is scary.  I imagine most people don't want to make themselves suffer for as long as it takes to suffocate, yet there are cases.

The exit bag seems about the most peaceful way one can go without assistance from special drugs. Just heard about a state trying to do the death penalty in a similar manner by replacing air with an inert gas and you just pass out into forever sleep,

This is a class I'm hosting for firearms owners and instructors.  Open to anyone.



Suicide Prevention Training - September 5th 6:30pm

September is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month and I'm hosting a free online suicide prevention course for firearms instructors and owners. This class will be taught by the Hawaii Chapter of American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) who is partnered with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Teaching suicide prevention will be required in Hawaii firearms courses for permit to acquire starting on January 1st, 2024 per ACT 52. This class will give you the knowledge on how to teach this in your classes and provide resources in Hawaii.

Free - Online via Zoom
Tuesday, September 5th at 6:30pm
Please register at the link below to receive the zoom link.  Registration is required due to a 50 person limit on the class.
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/suicide-prevention-for-gun-owners-tickets-712547086517

We had a good turnout tonight so might repeat the session later this year.  Some quick takeaways:

1.  Most people thinking of suicide will focus on one method and not think of an alternative method.

2.  One indicator of an upcoming suicide attempt at the range is a person is distracted and not paying attention, focusing on the suicide.

3.  If you need to ask, say are you thinking of ending your life?

4.  The suicide prevention hotline is 988 through phone or messaging, which connects to a suicide prevention org.  It can be contacted anonymously.