336
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
336 points (96.7% liked)
News
23627 readers
2363 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Good job in taking a serious issue and putting an unnecessary partisan spin on it, CNN. The issue of guns needs to be sidelined when talking about issues as serious as suicide.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/suicide-rate-by-country
I don't really see the problem with elderly people who decide they want to check out. If we allowed medically assisted death, they could die with dignity.
Most of it is caused by depression, not terminal illness.
Still need the option to check out on your own terms.
what about improving their material condition so they can enjoy being old like other people in civilized countries???
These are not mutually exclusive.
That would be great. You realize TWO things are possible, right?
I imagine in many cases depression caused by their failing bodies and inability to lead a happy life due to it. That and their partner probably recently dying.
Doesn't change my opinion
If Republicans actually gave a shit about mental health maybe we wouldn't have so many gun suicides.
Or suicides generally.
So suicide is a republican problem hey.
Get a grip. Stop using every topic to gain political points, it’s disingenuous.
They're the ones who keep saying "it's not a gun problem it's a mental health problem" and then doing fuck all to improve mental health, so yeah.
In this instance they are actually correct
If you understand suicide even a little bit you would know men do not fuck about when it comes to suicide. There is little in between, no cry’s for help they are rare. guns are a tool to achieve the outcome and the statistics will never change.
So this click bait title and stupid anti-gun garbage does not help and makes the issue harder to resolve. Men will ALWAYS be the higher suicide rate no matter what. Social support systems and mental health stigma for men needs to change.
Up next water is wet.
But they still won't vote for comprehensive mental health coverage, and most of the men in the Republican party are poster boys for toxic masculinity.
So? You’re obsessing over a political farce unless you want to join the party?
I have a problem with blatant hypocrisy. Every gun nut in this thread saying "it's not guns it's mental health" and "men have a mental health crisis" and then go vote for assholes who do nothing to help either of them, and then say it's the Democrats who are the problem.
Sounds like you’re obsessed with guns yourself and a nut in your own right. The core problem here is the social stigma stopping men from seeking help. When men get to the point of suicide it’s going to happen. Banning guns doesn’t change this even in othe western countries still have this same problem.
This issue will take a generation or more to change. It won’t be resolved by banning guns or policy from parliament. It will take a change in social values and gender stereo types; the men don’t cry attitude. Which is engrained into core values. The best we can do is support those in our circles. Ask are you ok, help those we care for to find mental health services and we can also get better at helping those around us. Online support services like “are you ok” have resources for everyone.
If you want to be engaged politically you will need to have a life experience to have impact. from their write to your local political member with that experience and don’t be anonymous. That way you’re counted as a constituent and you can have this conversation with them. But they may just chose to ignore your story so don’t hang your identity on a political party. I would rather see someone passionate about men’s mental health being a force for healing instead of yelling at the wind.
Or maybe I got this wrong and you would make a great Democrat. Just don’t use hot topics to wedge issues it’s a disingenuous farce that will only get others to rally against your cause.
Your oversimplification was unnecessary the first time, stop copypasting your comments.
Said the asshole adding nothing to the topic to wedge anti-guns
Yeah but then they'd have even more mental gymnastics to do with bootstraps and all that
Suicide isnt reported in many places, because it is a social and religious taboo. For example the greek orthodox church still refuses to bury people who killed themselves(and 99% of greeks used to be christian orthodox, though atheism is becoming more popular nowadays).
Do they still refuse to bury unbaptized kids as well?
Only if they were allowed to bugger them first.
Suicide is a problem around the world, guns or not. Focus on the issue, not click-bait titles.
Yet it's a huge issue because of guns in the US.
No it is not, Japan has a higher rate than we do and they basically don't have firearms at all in their country.
No they don't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
The US is 31, Japan is 49.
55% of suicides use guns:
https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html
Uhh Japan's rate is 16.5 vs the USAs 14... they most definitely have a higher rate of suicide. I don't even know how you think we have a lower rate than they do.
14.5 in the US v 12.2 in Japan. So no.
There are some sourcing issues with statistics that are going on with this thread, me thinks. When I did a quick glance over the numbers, there are a ton of conditions like gender, age, year, population, etc., that need to be validated as well. Cultural differences regarding suicide need to be taken into account as well.
Regardless, y'all can argue about insignificant statistical differences all you want. A suicide is a suicide and the method of suicide is irrelevant.
Which is your gut feeling about how suicide works, not supported in any way by anyone involved in the study of suicide or suicide prevention.
The claim "they'd just do it another way" is bullshit.
I spot checked numbers around the world and the suicide rates are fairly consistent regardless of gun laws.
You are just making wild assumptions about how I read into anything, and, based on your name, you are just trolling. Just blabbing out "Nah! U wrong!" doesn't really prove a point, it is just provoking an argument.
Saying that is takes a suicide specialist to read is a weird claim. It's like saying you need to have a doctorate degree in language studies to write something down.
Oh apparently its permissable to not provide links when you do it.
But don't worry, I know what the numbers are so I wont deliberately waste your time in an act of bad faith in the hope that next time you just let people spread misinformation.
Even disregarding that nowhere has gun laws that allow violent, suicidal people to acquire guns as easily as America, numbers are not the whole story.
Every time widespread means reduction has been implemented, those numbers have gone down.
I'm sorry if that hurts your guns feelings.
I can easily post sources and do when it's important. You usually don't and you make some very bold claims, and seem to never back up your claims. Ever.
Your statement "I know what the numbers are" is verification of that. You are basically saying "if you don't know, I am not going to tell you", just like a child.
Most of all, Karen, if you want to talk about bad faith, let's talk about your constant and consistent need to get quippy and obtuse. You obviously have strong feelings about this subject, but your delivery is just bad. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything by being smug.
Guns are machines. Guns don't have feelings. Guns don't jump up and magically shoot things because they got pissed off. Guns don't call people stupid or get emotional. Guns don't get drunk and rape kids or beat their spouse.
Can you post a source for this claim?
You mean in my reply to you not posting the numbers that you said you looked at?
So not only do I have to spoon feed you the numbers, I have to spoonfeed you the numbers even after you claim to have checked them, without actually posting what they were or where you read them.
Sounds like you either lied about your fact checking or are holding me to a standard you don't hold yourself to so that you can get upset.
Probably not a good insult to throw around when you're being functionally identical to an anti-vaxxer.
I'm so sorry. How dare I call you out for pushing dangerous misinformation without also cradling your head in my lap, stroking your hair and telling you that you're my special special boy.
That's surely the problem and not that the pro-gun community is self-absorbed, backed by a powerful lobby group and will literally threaten to kill people if they propose changes to gun laws.
For killing people
Nope, but the legsl gun owners sure do do and they don't seem to be able to control them.
Nope, you're thinking of legal gun owners again
Which is a shame, because thats a massive improvement over things like "mutilating a room full of children beyond recognition after they were legally sold to a teenager, despite known red flags, by a company that targets their advertising at teenagers"
Yep, legal gun owners again. But don't worry, gun lobby groups have publicly stated those people should keep their guns, no matter their history of domestic violence.
All linked, as per your demands because the important part of this conversation -- far more important than the lives of innocent and vulnerable people -- is that it happens in a tone and manner that you have personally approved.
Why did you pick out gun laws specifically, and not access?
Stricter gun control laws should imply less access. One of the nordic countries may be an exception off the top of my head, as one of them has strict gun control laws but many people still own a gun. Finland, maybe? That absolutely needs more research by me so take that with a grain of salt.
(I am going to clearly re-emphasize "spot check" here, as well.)
If countries like Japan and South Korea had lower numbers of suicides, that may indicate that gun laws play a part in that. (Japan was the exact reason I added a disclaimer about cultural views affecting suicide. Their history with ritual suicide is interesting but probably doesn't carry over much to today. )
Comparing any other countries total suicide rates to to that of the U.S. was a fairly quick search. My searches gave results for the years between 2020 and 2022 usually. There were a ton of different results, but I could say that a "decent" world average is about 15 in 100,000. If I remember correctly, I saw everything between 10-25 deaths per 100k, maybe more or less.
The U.S. averaged around 18'ish per 100k, which seems a hair higher, but not outrageously high.
If there was a direct correlation between firearm access and suicide, it should create a hell of an outlier for U.S. suicides in total. Also, I did read a few studies on preferred methods of suicide based on gender and also suicide methods in general but that was irrelevant to the topic. (I was looking to see if access to guns increases suicide rates not if access to guns influenced the preferred method of suicide.)
For a quick glance, that should be sufficient.
The Wikipedia page has 2 tables the one that says 'latest' from the WHO has the US higher and the one that includes multiple sources and older data has Japan higher
It has been repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated that means reduction (which the pro-gun community won't allow) and survivability (which guns don't have) play an extremely important role in suicide prevention.
Guns are absolutely part of the issue. Unfortunately, the pro-gun community prioritises sweeping gun deaths under the rug to maintain their profits and possessions over actually protecting anyone.
You like to talk a lot about studies and data without actually providing studies or data.
Just reading through your profile is just a mess of "it has been proven", "debunked", "repeatedly shown", etc., etc., or just the simple "no, your wrong".
Quite honestly, it's weird. While we all tend to use simple phrases during a discussion, I also like to at least provide a link or two or have a study within reach to back up my assumptions.
Your motivation is simply to piss people off, it seems.
It's not my responsibility to spoon feed you information and you shouldn't be trusting posts on social media just because they do.
There's no better way to feed people dogshit than studies and graphs stripped of context.
It's not about spoon feeding me information. It's about validating your own claims.
Also, links on social media are completely visible and transparent. You should know exactly what they link to and were information is hosted. A good study will generally have good sample sizes and plenty of peer reviews.
I have validated my own claims, to my own standard, under my own volition. That's why I hold this opinion in the first place.
You either haven't, or have chosen to dismiss the evidence because it's inconvenient to the opinions you want to hold.
It's not stupid to click the link, its stupid to let someone on the internet assure you they've provided all the context you need.
The British medical journal Lancet published a study back in 1998. It's had hundreds of peer reviews. Does that mean that if somebody links it on social media, you'll just accept it?
Because that paper was the origin of "vaccines cause autism". It has been linked millions of times by a group of people who are spreading misinformation that kills people.
Want me to send you a link next time I see one? You can strut into their midst with links to the hundreds of studies that disprove it.
I'm sure it won't be a waste of your time and I'm sure every counter argument will be made in only the best of faith.
This thread has just gotten boring now.
Then you're enjoying yet another luxury that you strip from victims of gun violence.
Many do not, the fuck is wrong with you. The majority of gun deaths are suicides and it's a single person taking their life.
America has "many" mass shootings because the baseline for other countries is "once a decade", not because the number has many digits.
You're either fully aware of this and being manipulative or you reacted emotionally without thinking -- not a good trait for a gun owner, but one shared by all the ones who committed suicide or killed their partners.