General Geoff
Member
I know there have been threads about this in the distant past, but didn't want to resurrect a years-old thread.
We know that the largest figure of gun related deaths in the United States is suicides, from what I remember well over half the total number on a yearly basis. Antis use this figure as some kind of proof that firearm accessibility leads to greater deaths, in this case from suicides alone. Studies show that firearm accessibility does not lead to more suicide attempts, but merely more successes (as firearms are an exceedingly effective method of ending one's own life). This also leads to the major discrepancy in attempts vs successes in regards to males vs females. Males who are suicidal tend to use highly physical methods of self destruction, such as gunshot wound, jumping off a tall building, driving a car into a brick wall at 90mph, etc. whereas women tend to use drugs, poison, asphyxiation, or exsanguination, all of which are more easily treated/reversed after the attempt, for better or worse.
What this boils down to, is that firearms provide a highly effective means of ending one's own life. This must be acknowledged in order to move on in a logical debate with someone who attempts to use this angle as a reason to restrict private firearm ownership. I submit, however, that suicide is a person's right.
We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a person wants to end his or her own life, is it not their prerogative to do so? I know it's often an incredibly selfish act, as it can devastate the lives of those close to the individual, everyone who cares for them. But that doesn't mean it's not their right, if they decide there is no other recourse and are inconsolable. As a friend or someone else close to a suicidal individual it is of course your responsibility to try to talk them out of it, attempt to make them see reason to continue living. But again, at the end, is it not their right to end their own life?
This forces the debate to a higher philosophical level which is often necessary to discern whether an individual is a "true believer," i.e. one who values societal worth over individual liberty. It allows one to evaluate whether a person is a lost cause, and occasionally forces a person to consider their philosophical standpoint where they never had before.
Thoughts, opinions?
We know that the largest figure of gun related deaths in the United States is suicides, from what I remember well over half the total number on a yearly basis. Antis use this figure as some kind of proof that firearm accessibility leads to greater deaths, in this case from suicides alone. Studies show that firearm accessibility does not lead to more suicide attempts, but merely more successes (as firearms are an exceedingly effective method of ending one's own life). This also leads to the major discrepancy in attempts vs successes in regards to males vs females. Males who are suicidal tend to use highly physical methods of self destruction, such as gunshot wound, jumping off a tall building, driving a car into a brick wall at 90mph, etc. whereas women tend to use drugs, poison, asphyxiation, or exsanguination, all of which are more easily treated/reversed after the attempt, for better or worse.
What this boils down to, is that firearms provide a highly effective means of ending one's own life. This must be acknowledged in order to move on in a logical debate with someone who attempts to use this angle as a reason to restrict private firearm ownership. I submit, however, that suicide is a person's right.
We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a person wants to end his or her own life, is it not their prerogative to do so? I know it's often an incredibly selfish act, as it can devastate the lives of those close to the individual, everyone who cares for them. But that doesn't mean it's not their right, if they decide there is no other recourse and are inconsolable. As a friend or someone else close to a suicidal individual it is of course your responsibility to try to talk them out of it, attempt to make them see reason to continue living. But again, at the end, is it not their right to end their own life?
This forces the debate to a higher philosophical level which is often necessary to discern whether an individual is a "true believer," i.e. one who values societal worth over individual liberty. It allows one to evaluate whether a person is a lost cause, and occasionally forces a person to consider their philosophical standpoint where they never had before.
Thoughts, opinions?
