Men’s Rights activists like to remind people that men commit suicide far more often than women.
But that’s not because men are many times more miserable than women. In fact, women are far more likely to attempt suicide than men. They simply don’t succeed at it as often as men do.
The reason for this is simple: men tend to choose more lethal methods of suicide than women. And that often means guns. Indeed, most gun deaths in the US are the result of suicide, not murder.
Could we reduce the number of suicides by making guns harder to get hold of? A new study in the American Journal of Public Health suggests the answer is yes.
Researchers Michael D. Anestis and Joye C. Anestis from the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg looked at the effect four different kinds of gun control legislation — waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations — had on suicide rates, finding that
[e]ach law was associated with significantly lower firearm suicide rates and the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. In addition, each law, except for that which required a waiting period, was associated with a lower overall suicide rate. Follow-up analyses showed a significant indirect effect on overall suicide rates through the proportion of suicides by firearms, indicating that the reduced overall suicide rate was attributable to fewer suicide attempts, fewer handguns in the home, suicide attempts using less lethal means, or a combination of these factors. States that implemented any of these laws saw a decreased suicide rate in subsequent years, whereas the only state that repealed 1 of these laws saw an increased suicide rate.
This isn’t the only study suggesting that restricting access to firearms could dramatically lower suicide rates.
A 2013 study by researchers Justin Briggs and Alex Tabarrok at George Mason University found that in the United States from 2000 to 2009, each “percentage-point decrease in household gun ownership leads to between 0.5 and 0.9 percent fewer suicides.”
And the effect has been seen in other countries as well. Australia saw an 80 percent reduction in suicides by firearm after adopting stricter gun control laws and instituting a large-scale gun buyback program in the 1990s; there was no rise in suicides by other means.
This last finding may strike some as the most puzzling one. If someone is intent on killing themselves but no longer has a firearm in the house, wouldn’t they just attempt suicide in some other way? Surprisingly the answer is generally “no.”
As Briggs and Tabarrok noted in a Slate piece explaining their findings,
contrary to the “folk wisdom” that people who want to commit suicide will always find a way to get the job done, suicides are not inevitable. Suicides are often impulsive decisions, and guns require less forethought than other means of suicide—and they’re also deadlier.
MRAs who are serious about reducing the number of male suicides — not just using male suicide stats as a cheap debating point — need to start talking seriously about gun control.
Here’s a video from VOX with more information on the subject:
He also seems to forget that the suicide rates in Japan are, on some level, culturally-based as well.
Hara-kiri functioned as something of an “honorable death” and was essentially ritualistic suicide. The power of reputation still holds a lot of influence and thus some will react to the threat of gaining an infamous standing with self-inflicted death.
Which is why I conceded and will avoid its usage from now on. I’m fine with “gun-fetishist” or whatever alternative is preferred.
But, yes, some discussions on here get a bit fixated on terminology and I’d just like to avoid that.
@ freemage
Whilst I did get a whiff of concern trolling from that commentator, it is true to say that that image originated as a joke.
NickNameNick: Thanks for the proper response to the comment about “gun-nut”. I rolled right past it when I read it at first, but yeah, it does fall under the policy. So thanks for the retraction. “Gun-fetishist” is better.
Now, that said, re: your comment…
The pro-gun contingent consists, from what I’ve seen, of three elements:
NRA Leadership: The NRA is a gun-manufacturer lobby, not a gun-owner lobby. The leadership therefore opposes any regulation of guns the same way most industry lobbyists do. They’ve just managed to whip up a fervor among their membership.
The Gun Fetishists: These are the folks (mostly but not exclusively white and male) who have bought into the notion that their guns are a symbol of their toughness. They believe every myth the first group propagates, including the notion that personal firearms will be necessary when the time comes to overthrow a tyrannical government. Because the NRA uses a lot of appeals to toxic masculinity, these folks are also usually very politically conservative. This was not always the case–there was a time when the Black Power movement embraced gun-ownership as a way to stand up to the police, and there’s still a bit of that culture left over in many urban minority neighborhoods–the belief that you need a gun because you have to be responsible for your own protection. This group is a minority, but a very FOCUSED minority. Remember, if one person in a thousand believes something fervently, that means you’ve got 300,000 people willing to write their Congressional Representatives about the latest proposal.
The Plain Folks: Pretty much anyone who wants to be able to own a gun. Some are hunters, some are sport-shooters, some live in areas with poor police protection and feel the need for self-defense, some are even collectors, owning far more guns than they would ever practically want to use for about the same reason I own fiftybillioneleventy polyhedral dice. This group is usually amenable to reasonable gun restrictions. I talk to them, about registration and storage and training requirements, and they usually are just fine with most stuff, and willing to consider other elements as “unnecessary, but an acceptable compromise” from their point of view. Plain Folks, from what I’ve seen, actually make up the bulk of the gun-owning community.
The problem is that the NRA has made gun-control such a third-rail issue in this country that anyone willing to advocate for gun control is frequently one of those folks who really and truly does want to ban all guns. At best, they’re woefully ignorant about gun owners and gun ownership.
Consider the “assault weapon ban” that serves as a focal point of so much debate. The law, as written, is silly. If a weapon fits a basic description, there’s a list of additional features that turn it into an ‘assault weapon’ for the purposes of the law–IIRC, any two features from the list makes the grade. Some of these are sensible–I think an extended magazine is on there, for instance. Others… not so much. No one, in the history of modern gun violence, has ever said, “Look out, he’s got a bayonet!” When confronted with a law with such absurd elements, the Plain Folks group starts giving the gun-control advocates the side-eye.
What’s needed, then, is an advocacy movement that both supports gun ownership AND reasonable regulation. We just don’t seem to do good with middle-ground issues like this.
Alan: I’m not familiar with the origination of the image. I’m willing to be corrected.
Glockslinger: You could at least tell us a bit more about that ‘landmark’ study you cite, since David cited several that came to different conclusions.
A quick Googling reveals a landmark 1970s study on suicide called “Where Are They Now?” The researcher tracked down 515 people who had survived attempts to kill themselves by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge (America’s most popular suicide spot). Only 35 of these people had gone on to commit suicide by other means.
From this and other data, he estimated that 90% of survivors of suicide attempts will not ultimately kill themselves. More recent studies have supported these results.
http://www.speakingofsuicide.com/2013/07/05/suicide-attempt-survivors/
I won’t even get into the repulsiveness of trying to shame people for failing to kill themselves or claiming suicidal people are just doing it for “attention.”
@ freemage
Yeah, it originated as joke about poor design, and it’s being doing the rounds since. You’ll see it as “Microsoft launch new handgun” and similar.
As for the NRA, I’m actually a card carrying life member. Now before you all duck for cover, let me explain how that came about and why I think it’s relevant to the points Freemage has just made above.
Some years ago I was after a particular torch. These torches were quite expensive. However the NRA were doing an offer where if you took out life membership you got one free. You could pay the membership fee in instalments. Essentially you paid annually for (I think) 5 years or so then that was it.
So I sent paid the first year and subsequently got my torch (and also a Charlton Heston baseball cap for some reason).
I didn’t pay the next year’s fee. I didn’t think it was very likely that they’d come over to England though and demand their torch back.
But here’s the thing, not only did they not even request the fee, they kept sending me the three magazines I’d signed up for (that was part of the deal) and all their other bumph, including the offers and that was still going on years later. The magazines probably still got to my old place for all I know.
So as far as the NRA go I’m still a member. I wonder how much of their claimed membership is like that?
May I suggest gun fellator as a non ableist alternative? It’s actually more accurate than nut anyway.
Just to pick you up on one thing, men have higher suicide rates than women across the world, with more women attempting suicide than men-that’s correct, but in countries where guns are had to access, the means of attempting suicide are very similar across gender lines (Hanging and poisoning by drugs or other means) and even in the US, suicides my firearms are the most common method for women.
This suggests that the previously held view that “Men attempt suicide less but use more severe methods” is incorrect and actually the gender disparity comes more from women being more likely to seek support, and more likely to have their warning signs responded by Doctors, other medical staff and friends, than men. Other theories state that women are more likely to consider the feelings of others when they plan a suicide attempt, and leave room to allow a change of heart, whereas men may stick to their decision once made.
However, as the research quoted suggested, making stricter gun laws would definitely result in lower suicide rates, even though it is likely the gender disparity will remain.
Weirwoodtreehugger: That’s not much of an improvement at all, in broader context. There are way too many misogynist and homophobic insults based on the idea that somebody performs fellatio.
I hate both of those SO MUCH. Particularly the latter; if someone did indeed attempt suicide just for attention, wouldn’t that be a sign that there was something wrong and people should, I don’t know, try to help?
Not to mention the cheap rhetorical tropes of implying that there is something fundamentally wrong with those who disagree with you, rather than leaving open the possibility that there is room for debate.
Alan – your reason for being a member of the NRA is hilarious, but what I don’t understand is how on earth did you know that the NRA were offering the torch that you wanted for free?
@ Ellesar
Ah, let me take you back to a time shrouded in myth, when strange beasts roamed the land and at night we would gather around a magic portal called ‘AltaVista’ (a lost tome now)and cast such spells as “Surefire + torch + price”.
I should point out I quite enjoy target shooting so I’m certainly not anti-gun. When I was in London I was a regular at the Stock Exchange Rifle Club.
Ironically I am a member of the English NRA, but that’s less a political movement and more a thing for people who want to use the range at Bisley at discount rates.
I don’t know what alta vista is, but I am guessing you are saying you did the old fashioned form of ‘googled it’.
I didn’t know there was an English NRA, though I know we have shooting ranges somewhere. But the only time I am likely to see a real gun it will be being wielded by a gangsta wannabe (One was found in the bushes of my local park), so I am in no hurry!
You sweet summer child. (It was a search engine from the pre-Google days, when there were a dozen major search engines and they all kind of sucked.)
@Ellesar
You can tell all you need to know about the English NRA in that the homepage has a glass of beer and a plate of food on it and ‘bar facilities’ is listed before the description of the actual range.
http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/bclubs/clubs.asp?site=NRA&cid=59
I looked at gun fellator as more like saying someone’s love for guns is so intense and beyond reason it’s like lust. But I can see how it comes off homophobic, so I’m happy to drop it.
Mij,
There’s no reasoning with people who think the most mild of regulation is a slippery slope to the government banning and confiscating all guns. They are unswayed by facts. What’s the point in treating them as reasonable?
Maybe we can call them “extremist pro-gunners”? I don’t know.
@JM
I didn’t know that was a myth! I always thought it was because men had a harder time accepting help so they’d go for more extreme methods than women would or something. Not a good excuse but still.
Offtopic: Fruitloopsie’s table-flip gif compelled me to find the source. (Epic Tea Time on Youtube)
After seeing Alan Rickman first look up, I thought it deserved to be made into a gif too.
I present Disapproving Alan:
http://i.imgur.com/6v28AKW.gif
This is false causation. While restricting firearms may reduce suicide rates, there is no evidence that it will reduce the differential between the sexes. I believe the difference is wholly cultural and that a better (and more realistic) course of action is a reëvaluation of dealing with mental illness.
Gun fetishists…gun wankers…gun huggers…gun suckers…
David, I just read this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/this-california-law-is-helping-men-213035804.html
Article about a men’s rights group that goes around suing women’s organizations for “excluding men”, ultimately shutting some of them down after drowning in legal fees. Enjoy!