Suicides involving firearms are fatal 85% of the time, pills less than 3%.

[Robb]

Guns most deadly choice in suicide attempts

While suicide attempts usually stem from temporary setbacks, access to guns makes the equation much more lethal — because those who choose a gun over pills, cutting or hanging almost never survive

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- After losing his job and his girlfriend, Michael Gousha drove to a rural spot in Bullitt County with a pistol he'd bought just days earlier. Parking near an old barn, he got out of the car, fired all the bullets but one, placed the gun to his head and pulled the trigger — ending his life at 23.

Trying to silence the voices in his head, Larry Lepine of Leslie County took handfuls of illegal amphetamines — but survived to rebuild his life.

Both men were distraught. Both suffered from mental illness. The difference was that one used a gun, obliterating any opportunity for a second chance.

(snip)

Guns are used in about half of U.S. suicides, compared with 64 percent in Kentucky. And suicides involving firearms are fatal 85 percent of the time, compared with less than 3 percent for pills, according to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.

Read More: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/21/guns-most-deadly-choice-in-suicide-attempts/2572097/

[n2doc]

1. Guns are much more easily available

If one wanted to suicide by overdose, the legal options are limited unless one has prescriptions to the "right" medications. However nearly anyone can go down to the mall or local store and pick up a gun and ammo, and everyone can do so at a gun show if they lie about their background.

[sarisataka]

42. Or you could use over the counter meds available at every...

pharmacy, grocery store, convenience store, gas station....
They are very effective at inducing death when taken to excess. Acetaminophen is one of the best but I recommend against it. I have heard it is very painful to fell your liver being eaten away over the course of three or four days. Treatment is effective if done immediately but the window of too far gone comes along sooner than most people think.

[n2doc]

43. That's the thing- Acetaminophen is a very bad, drawn out death

I guess Booze is a traditional route, but also uncertain.

[sarisataka]

47. When I worked at a hospital

for a while, many teens came it after overdosing to get noticed. Once in the ER, the novelty wore off and they wanted to go home. Every one would say "I only took Tylenol". The doctors loved explaining in very graphic detail the remained of their short lives in they were allowed to go home.
It seemed effective in convincing them suicide is not a good way to get your parents to notice you more. To be fair, the doctors usually had some words for the parents as well about being lucky-this time

[FarCenter]

65. Prescription Painkillers Now the Leading Cause of Accidental Deaths

Car accidents are no longer the leading cause of accidental deaths in the United States. According to a recent report published by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics, this dubious distinction now belongs to drug poisoning. What's at the root of this trend? A river of prescription painkillers.

Indeed, the report suggests that the United States is in the midst of a painkiller epidemic. Every year, more people now die from analgesic pain relievers, such as OxyContin and Vicodin, than cocaine and heroin combined. Abuse is so bad these days that doctors are having difficulty keeping up with the demand.
...

The change atop the accidental death leaderboard officially happened back in 2008 when over 41,000 Americans died as a result of poisoning, compared to 38,000 vehicle traffic deaths. Of those, 90% were caused by drugs. It marked the first time since 1980 that car accidents were not at the top of the list.

There's little doubt that deaths by vehicle accidents are on the decline, but it does not compare to the sharp rise of poisonings. During the past three decades, the poisoning rate has tripled from where it was in 1980, while motor vehicle deaths decreased by almost one-half over the same time. And from 1999 to 2008, the poisoning death rate increased 90%, while the motor vehicle traffic death rate decreased 15%.

Looking at the period 1980 to 2008, the percentage of poisoning deaths caused by drugs increased from 56% to 89%. Of the poisoning deaths that happened in 2008, about 77% were unintentional, 13% were suicides, and 9% were of undetermined intent.

I'd bet that a lot of the "accidental drug poisonings" were actually successful suicides. If you use a gun, it's usually clear that you committed suicide, although there are a lot of "cleaning his gun and it accidentally went off" cases that are pretty dubious. However, with drugs, it is a lot harder to establish intent, unless there is a note or the person is found conscious by someone and later dies.

[hack89]

2. So what gun law will prevent suicides?

perhaps the answer is a national database of people with mental illness - if you are in the database you lose your guns.

[Orrex]

3. It's not just about *preventing* suicides, though that's part of it

The subject of suicide is likely to come up in any discussion of annual gun fatalities, and gun advocates will often assert something along the lines of "they would have found some other way to do it." The subtext is that guns are no more deadly than any of a million other methods of causing death.

The reality is far different: guns are far more lethal than other weapons or substances.

However, when advocating for guns, it is difficult to admit this fact while also trying to assert that guns don't kill people.


It would be nice if we could prevent suicides by gunshot. Absent that, it would be nice if would eliminate a bogus talking point from the gun advocates' bag of tricks.

[hack89]

4. I appreciate how deadly guns are

I just see suicide as a personal choice. I have no problem with identifying suicidal people and taking away their guns as long as there is due process and it is temporary.

While we are talking about bogus talking points, why can't we separate the suicide deaths from crime/negligence when talking about gun violence. Two separate problems with two separate solutions. I understand that 8,000 has less of an emotional impact than 30,000 when it comes to gun control but on the other hand a little nuance might shed the needed light on mental health and suicide prevention. We have been very successful reducing gun crime - we need to do the same for gun suicide.

[Mojorabbit]

5. Great post! nt

[pscot]

8. Yeah, because gun advocates are so susceptible

to nuanced argument.

[hack89]

11. It is the gun controllers that minimize mental health

and focus purely on guns.

The idea of two separate problems with two separate solutions seems to be beyond them.

[Skip Intro]

35. +100. n/t

[Robb]

9. I think it would be helpful if you identified yourself as an NRA member in posts like this.

It's disingenuous to paint yourself as a neutral party.

That said, I think it's also helpful to consider the possibility, no matter how illogical it might seem to you, that making guns less available to everyone might be helpful in reducing the number of suicides and homicides.

Finally, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth on this "personal choice" business. You can't call it a "personal choice" and then advocate a database of the mentally ill as a means of prevention; a substantial portion of the mentally ill cannot make informed choices about their own wellbeing by law.

[hack89]

10. So how do you plan to make guns less available to healthy people with no criminal records?

that is what you have to do to reduce suicides - few people go through their entire lives suicidal.

The state of NY has such a database - it was their reaction to Newtown. Don't you support it?

[Orrex]

13. I accept that you appreciate how dangerous guns are, but...

the actual danger of firearms is still downplayed by gun advocates when having the debate, even here on DU.

You can see it in discussions about a child dying in a locked car in summer time, or about someone drowning in a pool, or about injury due to ingestion of household chemicals. In every single thread on those subjects, a gun advocate will roll out statistics to declare guns to be much safer than a bottle of Windex.

It is reasonable to lump together suicides, accidental deaths and murders by guns when the issue in those cases is the lethality of the weapon. It's also appropriate to discuss the different causes and contributing factors of those fatalities, but as long as guns are claimed to be relatively safe, then I see no reason why we can't discuss gun deaths in the aggregate.

[hack89]

14. On the other hand we see those aggregate death totals

being used to advocate for gun control laws to prevent America's ongoing "epidemic of gun violence" even though criminal gun violence has fallen to historic lows. Two thirds of gun deaths are suicides.

We should be talking about single payer health care with full mental health coverage. We should be talking about suicide prevention programs. But we don't. As far as gun controllers are concerned that 50 year old white guy killing himself in Kansas is no different from that 17 year old gang member getting shot in Chicago - just another excuse to restrict gun rights.

[Orrex]

18. It is appropriate to address multiple issues at once

Until we see a rash of people storming into elementary schools and committing mass suicides, we will continue to place a different priority on gun murders versus gun suicides.

You yourself asserted suicide to be "a personal choice," so that changes the stakes considerably.


I would welcome a single payer healthcare system with mental health coverage. Suicide prevention programs would also be helpful. But until either of those comes to pass, it seems that a temporary measure is probably preferable to inaction, even if it means that someone somewhere might have to give his real name when he buys an assault rifle, for instance.

[hack89]

20. Of course someone should give his/her real name when they buy a gun

that is why we need universal background checks. My state has universal background checks - they are not a big deal.

Concentrating on gun murders is appropriate - just stop using "30,000 gun deaths" to justify laws against it.

I support all proposed gun control laws with the exception of a AWB and registration. I also support quadrupling the size of the the ATF and cracking down on illegal gun sales.

[Orrex]

27. I see absolutely no problem with universal gun registration.

I'm sorry, but I have never heard a single reasonable objection to gun registration. I'd also like to see ballistic fingerprinting, but let's go one step at a time.

Also, universal background checks should be digitized and retained, rather than written on cards and destroyed immediately after the transaction.


In addition, I haven't heard anyone credibly claim "30,000 gun deaths" are annually due to homicide, except by dubiously asserting that "suicide is murder of oneself." However, a quick bit of googling got me to two interesting 2010 figures from the CDC:

Total homicides: 16,259
Firearm homicides: 11,078

Yikes!

The same site shows 19,392 firearm suicides for 2010, which I suppose is where we get the 30,000 figure. Of course, firearm suicides outnumber total homicides for 2010, which is indeed interesting. Absent a single-payer healthcare system with mental health services and/or suicide prevention programs, what might be done about this?

[hack89]

28. According to the FBI, there were 8,775 firearm murders in 2010

For comparison there were 10,225 in 2006

People here don't say there are 30,000 murders. They lump in suicides and crime, call it "gun violence" and use it to push gun control laws that are absolutely irrelevant to reducing suicides (and crime in most cases). I just want a more honest discussion. Two separate problems with two separate solutions.

I stand with the ACLU on registration. They think there is a privacy issue. I do support registering gun owners - every gun owner should have a Firearms ID card to purchase and own guns and ammo.

[Orrex]

29. I see nothing wrong with calling it gun violence, because that's what it is.

What are we to make of the FBI's figures differing from the CDC's? Do you have the link for the FBI data?

I'd also like to repeat my question, which you may have overlooked: absent single-payer healthcare with mental health treatment and/or suicide prevention programs, what do you propose to do about all of the gun suicides? "A more honest discussion" is a nice platitude, but it isn't a solution.

I stand with the ACLU on registration. They think there is a privacy issue. I do support registering gun owners - every gun owner should have a Firearms ID card to purchase and own guns and ammo.

Not sure I understand you here: we should register gun owners but not guns? What good would that do? If you own 25 guns that aren't registered and 24 of them are stolen, what good does it do to register the owner?

[hack89]

38. Short of a database to report and track psychiatric patients

(which was New York's answer to Newtown) I am not sure that much can be done. And even that solution raises obvious patient privacy issues. Most suicides suffer in silence and never undergo treatment- how do you identify them and intervene? Few are chronically depressed/suicidal - most are perfectly fine when they purchase their guns. There is no way to look into the future and determine who will eventually commit suicide.

As for registering owners, unlike you I think that both the problem and the solution lies with people, not chunks of metal. An ID card would ensure that a gun owner has passed a background check and is eligible to purchase and own guns. It would also make closing the "gun show loophole" easier - no card no private sale. And if someone is deemed ineligible to own a gun then it will be easier to track him down.

Here are the FBI crime stats. These are the official US government crime statistics - they put out a report every year.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s

[Orrex]

39. "Chunks of metal"

You can't seriously believe that it's simple as trivialzing the undeniable lethality of guns by giving them a comic description, can you?

It is ludicrous to pretend that these "chunks of metal" aren't actually a factor in gun violence or that people are solely to blame. It is vanishingly rare to see people killing themselves or others with "chunks of metal," and referring to a precisely engineered and machined firearm as a "chunk of metal" (even ironically) means that you aren't seriously engaging the subject, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The rusty fuel door that I replaced on my Impala is a "chunk of metal." The $500 pistol that a felon bought at a gun show without a background check is not a "chunk of metal."


Even so, you haven't explained how registering gun owners would solve anything at all, since 24 of your 25 guns could be stolen and used in murders, and we'd have no idea where they came from or who was responsible for them. How would your proposed gun card prevent private person-to-person sales of firearms? How would these sales be policed? Hell, you could sell your 24 guns to convicted felons for cash, and without any gun registry there'd be nothing to stop you, since there'd be no way to trace the guns back to you. Even if you were caught, you could simply claim that they were stolen.

How would a gun owner's registry card help that?

[hack89]

40. So my guns are stolen and the thief kills someone.

You still don't know who stole them from me. Tracing the gun will not lead you to the killer, will it now?

Why not simply pass a law requiring me to report when my guns are stolen? You would then have a description with a serial number. If it shows up at crime scene then you can call me, investigate, and return my property.

As for your other question - considering that there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns in America, explain to me just how registering guns will eliminate all those evils you list? There will be a vast pool of weapons circulating that will ensure that criminals will have all the guns they want.

[Orrex]

41. If the gun is registered to you, then you are responsible for it, aren't you now?

Why not simply pass a law requiring me to report when my guns are stolen? You would then have a description with a serial number. If it shows up at crime scene then you can call me, investigate, and return my property.

Why not simply pass a law that the barn door must be locked after the horse gets out?

Without a national registry, how would we confirm serial numbers? You could report any numbers at all and thereafter file an insurance claim for the theft, and who could prevent it? You could jot down the serial number from one of my guns. Who would know?

Unless you're requiring gun owners to submit their serial numbers to a national registry, of course.

As for your other question - considering that there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns in America, explain to me just how registering guns will eliminate all those evils you list? There will be a vast pool of weapons circulating that will ensure that criminals will have all the guns they want.

Those guns should be registered, obviously. And if an unregistered gun is identified, then it should be seized and destroyed.

If you were to sell your 24 registered guns to convicted felons and those guns are later discovered by law enforcement or used in a crime, then you would be criminally liable for having sold them. At the very least you'd be an accessory before the fact for having provided material assistance in the commission of a crime. Or if you claim that the guns were stolen, then you are criminally liable for having failed to report them as stolen. And you can't possibly claim that you didn't know they were stolen, because responsible gun owners are responsible enough to keep track of their firearms, of course.

What you're saying is that, because we as a society have been stupid and irresponsible about gun ownership in the past, we should therefore continue to be stupid and irresponsible about gun ownership forever.

[hack89]

44. No - not in the US legal system

if someone steals my car and runs you over, I am not responsible. If I can show I meet all legal storage requirements, I am not responsible for anything a criminal does if he steals my guns.

Confirming serial numbers is easy. You go to the manufacturer. He tells you - "yes, that is a valid serial number. We sold it to this dealer." You go to that dealer. He tells you "yes, we sold that gun to person x." There is a direct path from the manufacturer to me for every one of my guns. Here's a clue for you - insurance companies have been insuring guns for a very long time without a registry. It doesn't appear to be a problem.

Right now you cannot arrest me for selling guns to felons - by law I am barred from conducting background checks therefore I have no way of knowing. Now if I could ask the buyer for a valid firearms ID card ...

[Lee-Lee]

48. I never understood

Why we can't make running a background check on somebody as easy an a smart phone app.

This is 2013. The 1970's tech that gun shops have to use with calling, waiting on hold, reading all the info, waiting for the person on the other end to type it in, and wait for an answer that can sometimes take days is ridiculous.

You would sell UBC a lot better if you put it as a phone/website app where the seller goes in, enters the buyers data, gets a yes or no, and then either goes on with the sale or doesn't.

Most gun owners are more concerned about the hassle and expense of both people going to a dealer and paying them $25-50 to do the paperwork if they sell a gun as much as anything else. Make it easy, concerns go away for a large percentage.

[Orrex]

49. Do retailers maintain records of who purchases which guns? For how long?

Why is this information not nationalized? What could possibly be the benefit?

No - not in the US legal system
if someone steals my car and runs you over, I am not responsible. If I can show I meet all legal storage requirements, I am not responsible for anything a criminal does if he steals my guns.

You asked what would be different if we had a national gun registry. Your objections are not consistent with your question because are based on the current inadequate system rather than on the system that I propose.

Under that proposed system, if a gun that is registered to you is used in a crime, then either:
1. You let the criminal borrow your gun, in which case you are responsible.
2. You sold the gun to the criminal without having it re-registered, in which case you are responsible for the illegal sale, which would be a felony, at least
3. The gun was stolen and you failed to report it, which would be a felony, at least
4. The gun was stolen and you reported it, in which case you may or may not be liable depending on the circumstance of the reported theft (e.g., did you leave it in the back of your pickup or was it secured in your gun safe?)

The law that I am proposing would legally require responsible gun ownership. In contrast, you are claiming that a Gun Owner's Card will magically reduce or stop gun violence.

Since you're so quick to point to the millions of existing firearms as the reason that it's absurd even to suggest the possibility of a gun registry, then what in the world would your magic Gun Owner's Card to about them?

[hack89]

50. Ok. Lets see what happens

it will be interesting to see if Congress ever revisits gun control.

[Orrex]

53. Of course they won't while the Conservative Party maintains a majority

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we had a Congress that wasn't running in fear from the NRA and its proxies.

[hack89]

54. Makes you wonder why there isn't a political counterweight to the NRA

if support for gun control was so widespread.

[Orrex]

55. A multi-billion dollar, centuries-old industry has a lot of firepower

They've been rigging the game for many decades. It's hard to overcome that kind of momentum, even when a clear majority of the population is shown to favor increased gun regulation.

[hack89]

58. Could be

I just find it interesting that there are no influential gun control groups. You would think that there would be at least one organization that rivals the NRA in membership if not in influence. Instead you find small impotent groups with tiny memberships and dependent on charitable grants for survival.

[Orrex]

64. The NRA is the propaganda wing of the gun industry

There is no multi-billion dolloar gun control industry to match this.

[Lee-Lee]

51. Gun dealers must retain records for 20 years minimum n/t

[Orrex]

52. Is this accessible in any reasonable way?

My understanding, from the discussions immediately post-Newtown, is that these records are typically kept in hardcopy and are easily lost or damaged. If so, then it is preposterous that such records should be kept only in such an obsolete format in the digital age.


In addition, I have heard that records for background checks must be destroyed after completion of the check? Is this correct?

[Lee-Lee]

56. What typically happens

Is that the gun dealer keeps the copy and must make them available at any time to the BATFE.

They can come anytime and ask for a specific serial number, or all purchases by a person. No warrant required.

If a dealer fails to keep the records, they face loss of license or even jail time. If they shut down, they send all the records to the BATFE.

The dealers are allowed to keep a ledger in paper or digital format, but the BATFE insists that all of the actual purchase forms, the form 4473, be kept in hard copy. However most dealers are hesitant to keep electronic ledgers because 20 years is a long, long time in the digital age, formats change, and keeping records current that long could be a hassle. For example if I handed you a bunch of floppy disks with data from 1993, would you be able to open them? Would the program used to create them even still exist?

They do indeed destroy specific background check data after a certain number of days- if it was a clean check. It is a privacy concern, and I can see both sides of it. The dealer enters the approval number on the form, and this approval number stays valid, and I am told there is some sort of checksum control where the DOB is tied into the approval number so that an agent can spot check that an approval is valid for the person on the form.

I had looked into getting my FFL as part of my side business, but at the time the zoning where I was living would not allow a home based business, so that was out. But I got pretty familiar with what all happens.

If the background check comes back a denial, then that isn't destroyed, but they virtually never pursue the fact that a felon or other prohibited person was trying to buy a gun, so they just let a known prohibited person attempting to get a weapon go out to try and get one illegally some other way- despite the fact that if it got to the background check stage that attempted buyer committed a federal felony. I ran into this when I was working a domestic violence case- the husband was subject to a restraining order, tried to buy a gun, lied on the 4473, was turned down- but the BATFE and US Attorney were not interested in prosecuting it even though it was an easy open and shut case.

[Orrex]

60. Great info--thanks

It still strikes me as absurd that a BATFE agent would have to request that info from the dealer, rather than having it centralized.

I don't have a particular problem with the destruction of background checks that pass, but I'd like a longer holding time, I think.

As far as digital storage goes, I think that image formats are fairly long-lived. At a previous job I routinely reviewed scanned & archived contracts from 20 years earlier.

Even if I couldn't read a floppy, there are other options. Heck, just a few days ago I listened to a CD that I bought in 1989!


What would be the impact if someone were legally barred from attempting a second background check for a certain period after failing a check?

[Lee-Lee]

66. It isn't a problem of them doing a second check

A person denied once will be denied every time unless whatever disqualified them is removed from their record.

The problem is here we have this person. We know the law says they can't own a gun. We know they are actively trying to get one. We do.... nothing. So maybe they accept they can't have a gun and quit trying. Or maybe if they don't care about breaking the law they go get one on the black market, steal one, or get someone to do a straw purchase.

What we should be doing is prosecuting every single one. When you fill out the 4473 you certify, under penalty of Federal Perjury, that you are not disqualified- you actually check the box next to each possible disqualifying thing and state it does not apply to you.

If you check yes on any one, the dealer never makes the call. So if they make the call and you get denied, unless you can somehow show you were not aware you were a felon, restraining order, were a fugitive from justice, were declared legally crazy or other disqualifying issue, you are guilty of perjury.

And the gun dealer must hold on to this form. The form that the person signed swearing under oath.

So look at the situation. Here is a person we know is ineligible to own a gun. We know they are actively trying to buy a gun. The dealer has the form they filled out that proves they committed a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Easiest. Case. To. Prosecute. Ever.

And in 99% of cases, they do...not a damm thing. How many of those people go on to get a gun illegally?

[GreenStormCloud]

62. What would gun registration accomplish?

Solve crimes - Nope. Criminals rarely leave their guns behind when they commit a crime with them. Usually, if the gun is captured it is captured along with the criminal, at the same time.

Further, because of the 5th Amendment, you can't require illegal gun owners to register their weapons. That was decided by the SCOTUS a long time ago.

So gun registration is worthless as a crime fighting tool.

[Orrex]

63. The SCOTUS has been wrong many times

Rather than repost what I've already posted, I invite you read my previous responses on the value of gun registration, where I addressed most of your concerns.

In short, gun registration would be invaluable as a crime fighting tool because it would force gun owners to act like the responsible gun owners that they invariably claim to be.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. After twelve years NY dropped their ballistics fingerprinting.

All new guns sold have to be ballisticlly printed, starting in 2000. In 2012 NY abandoned the program as it had not helped in solving a single crime.

[Orrex]

31. Interesting--wasn't aware of that.

Citation?

[GreenStormCloud]

32. It was in DU last year in the Gungeon.

Googling brings up lots of hits but they are all gun blogs doing happy dances.

I googled: New York drops ballistic fingerprinting

[Orrex]

34. There's a problem of methodology, of course

If you take the fingerprints of a fraction of the people in New York noone else's, then you're out of luck unless the subsequent crime is committed by one of those people.

Same with guns: if you fingerprint a tiny fraction of the guns in the US, then it doesn't help much if a non-fingerprinted gun is used in a crime.

I suspect that gun advocates will claim that this means that ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work, when in fact it simply means that it doesn't work if done piecemeal.

[BainsBane]

19. Universal background checks will help

[hack89]

21. Which I support.

I live in a state that has UBCs.

[BainsBane]

24. So what are you doing to get them passed at the federal level?

You spend a lot of time arguing against gun control. Are you going to do anything to advance the background checks you say you support? Have you written your representatives about the proposed legislation discussed in the gungeon and elsewhere on DU? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623636

[hack89]

26. All of my representatives and Senators support UBCs and I have written to them

I also have discussed it with them face to face.

My recommendation to them was to make it a separate bill and to keep Senator Feinstein away from it.

[Lee-Lee]

6. Having responded to a lt of suicide calls

This really is a bit skewed- because most suicides with a gun were people who hell bent on ending their own lives. They did not warn anybody right before (I am talking directly saying "I am going to shoot myself right now", not displaying general warning signs). They just did it.

Same was true for hanging- they just did it.

In contrast most pill overdoses were pleas for attention more than serious attempts at suicide. They were usually done after a phone call to say they were going to do it (almost always to the recent ex or whomever they wanted to lay the guilt trip on) or followed up by a phone call, or done in a way that they would be discovered "in time". And sadly some were staged- flush the pills, lay the bottle out, and act. Usually teenage white girls pulling that one- only to find out the ambulance crews didn't stop treatment for "just kidding".

I can only think of one intentional overdose call where the attempt was not discovered in time to get them to the hospital. The rest were because they wanted to be.

A lot of the statistics here have to do with how serious the person is about actually ending their life- more serious people pick more serious methods. Guns, hanging, jumping etc.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Guns and pills aren't the only methods of suicide.

There are many that are extremely effective.

Jumping from the Golden Gate Bridge (or other very high structure.)
Tying weights around yourself and jumping into deep water.
Drinking strychnine. (Worked for the Jim Jones camp, and that crazy CA comet cult.)
Jump at night from a ship at sea.
Hanging yourself.

And many other methods. The study is greatly flawed by comparing only guns and pills.

[Robb]

12. The study does not just compare guns and pills.

For others who can't be bothered to read it:

[GreenStormCloud]

16. It leaves out lots of methods.

And it groups other methods. Poisoning/overdose groups two different methods. Fall does not specify the heights of the falls - I seriously doubt that jumping into the Grand Canyon (or other steep, deep canyon) would have a 69% survival rate.

[BainsBane]

23. You can find those methods on the CDC site

those other methods are uncommon. Guns is the most popular method followed by pills. The mortality rates for the two are dramatically different, as the OP illustrates. Guns are how most people kill themselves. That is a simple fact.

The Grand Canyon "would have a 69% survival rate" is complete fabrication. What you think might be bears no relation to actual practice. Statistics exist on the most common methods and you could easily find that if you had the slightest interest in the truth. You don't get to make stuff up to justify your obsession with guns. No one believes you anyway. We aren't mentally deficient.

[GreenStormCloud]

25. Try reading what I actually wrote.

I did NOT say: "would have a 69% survival rate".

I said: "I seriously doubt that jumping into the Grand Canyon (or other steep, deep canyon) would have a 69% survival rate."

Nor am I concerned with how common particular methods are. My point is that there are many methods that have 99+% effective rates, with some having 100% effectiveness.

If my health should deteriorate to such a point that I wanted to go with dignity, I will breathe pure nitrogen. A bottle of nitrogen is not expensive, rubber tubing is cheap, a face mask is easy to rig up, and it is 100% effective. Breathing pure nitrogen is painless and fast. And it isn't messy like a gunshot.

[n2doc]

33. Many of those require physical dexterity and a lack of fear

You forgot one ever more common one: Death by Cop

[hobbit709]

15. Having worked in a crisis center most pill ODs are a cry for attention.

Those that decide to really do it will, even with pills.
The deal with a gun is that you can't change your mind once the trigger is pulled. A lot of ODs take the pills and then call 911 before it's too late.

[fglad]

17. From what I've gathered, most pill deaths are unintentional.

[PufPuf23]

22. What is troubling is the higher than general population of suicide or other

violence by gun by current or exe military and LEO.

Are we prepared to prohibit off duty gun possession to current or exe military and LEOs?

I would add a third category, the gun fetish. These people make me nervous.

Are we prepared to classify these three groups on a database along with the somewhat amorphous mentally ill classification?

I grew up around guns (grandparents had a hunting and fishing resort, guns were part of life cycle) and own guns but many gun owners make me nervous.

[L0oniX]

36. Golden Gate bridge sucessful suicide rate is...

Access is however ...limited.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Golden Gate was an example.

There are lots of very high structures and cliffs in the U.S.

Or a person can lay down in front of a fast freight train.

[The Straight Story]

45. Here's an idea - ban suicide by gun. Problem solved

Unless, of course, it is not the gun that drives people to suicide.

Then you might have to try and spend some time tackling real problems, which is harder and does not led to laws that make people 'feel' better.

[Orrex]

57. Better to protect Our Precious Guns at all costs

while bemoaning the sorry state of the economy and the world at large.

That's like saying "a vaccine would have prevented his illness, but since he didn't get vaccinated, we should do nothing except mock the people who want to cure him now that he's sick."

[The Straight Story]

61. It is not the guns I see as precious, but our personal freedoms

From abortions to guns to owning land to other choices we make - I don't see us each as the enemy we need to monitor and fear, but I do see the 1% and the few who hold power as such.

Those same people that, if, you and I didn't have guns would have people around them with them. That if folks could not have abortions because they were outlawed here still could because they could fly elsewhere to get them. The people who would be happy to see us all neutered and our rights removed so they would have less to fear from us as they themselves got more and more power and protection.

Damned shame some would want us, the people, to give up things that we wouldn't dare ask others to do. The reason they want that is because they will convince both sides to fight against each other and keep removing freedoms and using fear of each other to accomplish it.

Each election it will go as they plan - they will rile up the fear of the populace on the one side by using god and punishment, the other side using fear of each other and their freedoms and how us citizens need controlled or we will shoot each other.

And each time one side wins and makes inroads. Abortions are slowly, state by state, getting outlawed. More gun laws. More smoking laws. More bans on carrying water and such on planes. Kids getting arrested and thrown out of school over stupid things.

All the while the few run around laughing at us for being so dumb.

We slip into poverty, addiction, homelessness, unable to get medical care. Some strike out and steal bread from a store and go to prison while the wealthy steal billions and sit back laughing while doing the same drugs that would send others to jail.

We will march around and yell all day about what less than 1% do with their guns while we sit silent as the 1% of us all profit from wars, poverty, and death.

Would that Obama had spoken and fought as much for single payer as other things.

Would that folks would post stories each day about the problems caused from health care and the deaths from that, poverty, etc.

No. We will blame guns. We will call our society violent because of them when they are nothing more than a symptom of something bigger that we ignore and hide from.

We will use deaths and suicides to promote an agenda against something that the few want us to be rid of all of the while passing up the real issues that underlay it all.

I don't own a gun. They are not precious to me. My right to own one if I choose though is. And I don't like people who want to remove the rights I have - especially when they have no problem with the few in this country having those same rights because they can hire 'professional security' folks to protect them with guns because for some reason they trust those people more than each other.

The few won the battle, we hate and fear each other and only trust them. The rest of us don't deserve certain rights and protections.

[The Straight Story]

46. Oh, here is some news you can use:

Suicide has been associated with tough economic conditions, including unemployment. War seems to have peculiar effects on suicide rates.

(with links to sources here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States )

But let's not work on fixing the causes of things, too hard ya know.....

[Demo_Chris]

59. Suicide by jumping from tall buildings is approaching 100%

I propose we ban these death traps.