This argument has to be the worst out of all the anti gun arguments.
We going to ban rope next? Ban trains, since it's a bit too easy to step in front of one? Knives?
If someone wants to kill their self, there are innumerable easy ways to do so. It's even likely in most households you could hang yourself quicker than you could get to your gun, if that's really what you wanted.
Giving up the right to own a gun so that someone who wants to commit suicide is forced to use another means is such a terrible argument.
While this argument does seem to follow the science (I'd have to dig into a few studies to see the details), it doesn't address the policy question of if people should give up their right (US) to own a firearm to protect themselves on the off-chance they become suicidal. And an even deeper discussion about if we should allow some suicides. Two of three people I know who killed themselves with guns were older men slipping into dementia who didn't want to endure that and put their families through that. Seems both rational and reasonable to me, but others may differ. This is also a pretty well-known scenario - killing oneself when facing a prolonged terminal illness, and would be interesting to see how the research treats these cases.
To be fair, the third was a tragic case of a young man who's life was ruined by the justice system's enormous penalties for supplying alcohol to a minor (20 yo at college). Although, theoretically this suicide should not have been with a gun since that offense is a prohibiting felony.
We going to ban rope next? Ban trains, since it's a bit too easy to step in front of one? Knives?
If someone wants to kill their self, there are innumerable easy ways to do so. It's even likely in most households you could hang yourself quicker than you could get to your gun, if that's really what you wanted.
Giving up the right to own a gun so that someone who wants to commit suicide is forced to use another means is such a terrible argument.