More people die from suicide than war and natural disasters combined.

[Angrboda]

If guns made a difference - why is the US suicide death rate comparable to the Australian death rate - where guns are far less available?

And why are some of the highest suicide rates in countries where firearms are not publicly available?

It seems that may lead to some credence to the idea that many who choose suicide by firearm would simply choose another method if guns were unavailable.

Anybody who thins gun access correlates with suicide is a shallow thinker

If we assume that the deaths by intentional self-harm should be the same, excluding individual factors of each country, then it makes sense to conclude that access to guns does not appear to result in fewer suicides based on his comparison. But there are a number of problems with this argument, the first of which is that the rates of suicide would be the same, and there is no reason to think they necessarily would be. The rates of death by intentional self-harm vary radically by country and so assuming two specific countries should correlate is simply arbitrary. As a matter of fact, the rate of death by intentional self-harm is 25% higher in the U.S. than Australia. In the U.S. guns account for over 50% of all deaths by intentional self-harm, whereas in Australia, they only account for 5%. It would appear from this that, at the very least, removing guns would change the method by which people choose to suicide (hanging appears to be the primary choice in Australia). It's impossible to say that suicide rates would remain as high if guns weren't available. Suicide by hanging is not as reliable as suicide by firearm. In a U.S. study, fatalities by hanging/suffocation were successful 61.4% of the time, and suicide by firearm were 82.5% successful (Lethality of suicide methods). If my math is correct, if that difference were applied to suicides in the U.S., that would result in about 15% fewer deaths by intentional self-harm, a figure which appears to be in the ball park of the difference between the U.S. and Australia, so suggesting that access to guns isn't an issue doesn't appear to be correct. Either way, it's impossible to tell just by comparing the U.S. to Australia. What are you basing your statement on?

(Note: The 15% figure was derived by assuming that all suicides by firearm switched to hanging. As noted, in Australia, 5% continue to suicide by firearm, so the actual calculation given that some percent still suicide by firearm is a good bit more complicated than the assumptions which I used.)

[Minimalist]

In the US more people die from suicide than from all types of homicide. It constantly amazes me how little attention it gets in the media.

White males are the group with the highest suicide rate. The media hates white males.

Just ones like you.

[Brian37]

In the US more people die from suicide than from all types of homicide. It constantly amazes me how little attention it gets in the media.

White males are the group with the highest suicide rate. The media hates white males.

Fuck you asshole, I am a white male, so there goes your fucked up logic.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I forget the exact statistics but in the UK suicide is the biggest killer of men under 45. More so than cancer, heart disease etc.

And that’s shocking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.indepen...html%3famp

3/4 suicide in the UK are by males. Approx 60 male suicides a week here.

[onlinebiker]

Anybody who thins gun access correlates with suicide is a shallow thinker

If we assume that the deaths by intentional self-harm should be the same, excluding individual factors of each country, then it makes sense to conclude that access to guns does not appear to result in fewer suicides based on his comparison.  But there are a number of problems with this argument, the first of which is that the rates of suicide would be the same, and there is no reason to think they necessarily would be.  The rates of death by intentional self-harm vary radically by country and so assuming two specific countries should correlate is simply arbitrary.  As a matter of fact, the rate of death by intentional self-harm is 25% higher in the U.S. than Australia. In the U.S. guns account for over 50% of all deaths by intentional self-harm, whereas in Australia, they only account for 5%.  It would appear from this that, at the very least, removing guns would change the method by which people choose to suicide (hanging appears to be the primary choice in Australia).   It's impossible to say that suicide rates would remain as high if guns weren't available.  Suicide by hanging is not as reliable as suicide by firearm.  In a U.S. study, fatalities by hanging/suffocation were successful 61.4% of the time, and suicide by firearm were 82.5% successful (Lethality of suicide methods).  If my math is correct, if that difference were applied to suicides in the U.S., that would result in about 15% fewer deaths by intentional self-harm, a figure which appears to be in the ball park of the difference between the U.S. and Australia, so suggesting that access to guns isn't an issue doesn't appear to be correct.   Either way, it's impossible to tell just by comparing the U.S. to Australia.  What are you basing your statement on?

(Note:  The 15% figure was derived by assuming that all suicides by firearm switched to hanging.  As noted, in Australia, 5% continue to suicide by firearm, so the actual calculation given that some percent still suicide by firearm is a good bit more complicated than the assumptions which I used.)

You are correct - simply comparing the AU/US is rather simplistic.

You also have to figure in the countries where firearms are restricted - China, Russia, India - that have a higher suicide rate.

It makes the correlation between suicide and firearm ownership look even more unlikely.

[Brian37]

Siri gibberish translator..... GUNS GUNS WE NEED MORE GUNS.

[CapnAwesome]

Anybody who thins gun access correlates with suicide is a shallow thinker

If we assume that the deaths by intentional self-harm should be the same, excluding individual factors of each country, then it makes sense to conclude that access to guns does not appear to result in fewer suicides based on his comparison. But there are a number of problems with this argument, the first of which is that the rates of suicide would be the same, and there is no reason to think they necessarily would be. The rates of death by intentional self-harm vary radically by country and so assuming two specific countries should correlate is simply arbitrary. As a matter of fact, the rate of death by intentional self-harm is 25% higher in the U.S. than Australia. In the U.S. guns account for over 50% of all deaths by intentional self-harm, whereas in Australia, they only account for 5%. It would appear from this that, at the very least, removing guns would change the method by which people choose to suicide (hanging appears to be the primary choice in Australia). It's impossible to say that suicide rates would remain as high if guns weren't available. Suicide by hanging is not as reliable as suicide by firearm. In a U.S. study, fatalities by hanging/suffocation were successful 61.4% of the time, and suicide by firearm were 82.5% successful (Lethality of suicide methods). If my math is correct, if that difference were applied to suicides in the U.S., that would result in about 15% fewer deaths by intentional self-harm, a figure which appears to be in the ball park of the difference between the U.S. and Australia, so suggesting that access to guns isn't an issue doesn't appear to be correct. Either way, it's impossible to tell just by comparing the U.S. to Australia. What are you basing your statement on?

(Note: The 15% figure was derived by assuming that all suicides by firearm switched to hanging. As noted, in Australia, 5% continue to suicide by firearm, so the actual calculation given that some percent still suicide by firearm is a good bit more complicated than the assumptions which I used.)

You don't have to compare Australia and the US. The relevant comparison is Australia to Australia, pre and post their gun control laws. Suicide rate remains the same even when the method changed.

Major control in Australia happened in 1996, but the suicide rate overall Rose for the next 3 years, even when the method changed and gun suicides dropped from 75% to 25% of suicides in the same time frame. So it's obvious that it doesn't affect suicide rates and why would it.

So your hypothesis just doesn't line up with what happened.

[LastPoet]

Siri gibberish translator..... GUNS GUNS WE NEED MORE GUNS.

Not having access to guns do not prevent suicide. What you are on about?

[Mystic]

I've been suicidal most of my time in High school and after. It has only been recently I really enjoy life, and don't hate it.

[LastPoet]

Guns are not a factor here. I knew a guy, just a 22 y.o. guy that I worked with, throwed himself in front of a train.