PoliticalAgitator @ PoliticalAgitator @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

793

Joined

2 yr. ago

This could be the most hamfisted bit of manipulation and tone policing I've ever seen.

"We were just about to compromise after 25 years of spitting on children for not being pro-gun enough after their school shooting, but then I wasn't allowed to tone police a comment that quoted two legal gun owners flirting over the upcoming murder of a vulnerable person, so instead I'm going to align myself with domestic abusers, murderers and extremists".

You should be thankful you're not being called far, far worse things.

So you want to claim "suicide is a complex problem with many factors" when people mention suicide by firearms but the moment you want to pull out some statistics, all those complex factors are brushed aside without a second thought so you can claim "look, most guns doesn't mean most suicides".

Without a statistics from a parallel universe where America has gun laws that make even a token effort to work, those numbers are meaningless.

What we can do is look at every other form of means reduction that has ever been enacted, and watch how the number of people committing suicide doesn't just drop for that method, it drops for all methods, with results comparable to psychotherapy and medication.

You're going to have to choose which matters to you more: suicide prevention or being a simp for right-wing, pro-gun Americans and the lobby group that programs them.

Oh look you've brought genitals into it here too, even though you can't connect it to anything I've said this time, even with your eagerness to make wild stretches based on seeing the words "women" and "suicide" within 3 inches of one another.

As for the rest of your post, once again, I'm not the one arguing against evidence based suicide prevention, the pro-gun people are.

To put it bluntly, you sounds like someone that's struggling to combine "standing in solidarity with your fellow far-right reactionaries in the pro-gun community" with "doing your duty as a MRA by talking about suicide statistics like they're women's fault".

Suicide is everything from highly planned to impulsive. You've built your argument on a fallacy

Sure, I probably should have said "many suicides are an impulse", but you're going to have to do better then semantics.

But if that's the game we're playing, by your own admission, it's not a fallacy, it just doesn't cover every suicide.

Which is fine, because I'll never claim that gun control will prevent all suicides, but the types of impulse suicides I specifically detailed.

So this isn't about male suicide but guns...

Means reduction is means reduction. It remains one of the most effective methods of suicide prevention and that wont change just because this particular means reduction upsets pro-gun reactionaries.

People also got upset when their access to barbiturates, toxic gas and easy to jump off bridges was reduced. But people went ahead and saved a measurable number of lives anyway, because bridge aficionados aren't part of a death cult backed by a powerful lobby group.

When the causes of death is compared across genders is blatantly obvious the difference is the means to ACT on it.

So you're saying that men have greater access to some kind of "means", that are more lethal than other means, which increases the number of them that die by suicide?

Damn, who'd've though?

Men are less likely to seek help, more likely to ACT. This is not a uniquely American issue, its world wide in fact America does not rank in the top 20 countries.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but I'm the one advocating that we take steps to reduce the suicide rate, using repeatedly proven strategies.

It's the pro-gun commenters that you seemingly agree with who are advocating that we do less.

I even did it without bringing gender into it, because I don't feel that someones genitals makes their suicide any more of less tragic.

Unfortunately, that didn't stop you from seeing the words "women" and "suicide" used in the same post and twisting it into something you could get upset about.

Notice how its the same problem and we do not have guns accessible?

Yep, I see the statistics that have nothing to do with the point I was making.

But if they punish a rich person for crimes, whats next? Punishing other rich people for crimes? Outrageous!

The organization may be dead but the propaganda they created lives on in the heart of every gun owner.

So you're saying that if I wanted to suicide I won't if I don't have a gun. What an odd take.

Not just me, but everybody involved in suicide prevention. It doesn't matter how unintuitive you find it, means reduction works.

Suicide is an impulse and when people have access to guns, they can act on that impulse in minutes, if not seconds. It's painless and requires zero preparation time.

What other method even comes close?

You might have the tools to slit your wrists, but it hurts, it's easy to get wrong, takes much longer than you'd think and sucks the entire time.

It's also extemely difficult to seriously injure yourself on purpose. Most people have heard of "hesitation marks" but nobody has heard of "hesitation gunshots", because they're not a thing.

Okay, so what about hanging? For most people, step 1 is going to be Googling "how to tie a noose", which will immediately present them with local suicide prevention resources.

So fuck it, lets head outside.

Maybe jump off something high? How long would it take you to get to a bridge or building that would definitely be fatal? Would you need to drive? Would you need directions? Could you leave without anybody asking where you were going? Once you got there, could you climb on the edge without being seen by passers by, all of whom will immediately try and help you or call someone who can.

And of course once you were looking out over the edge, could you do it? It's terrifying and a very primal survival instinct will tell you to stop. Even once you jump, you're still not arriving at oblivion faster than someone with a gun would.

Maybe you could overdose on something? The 90s made it look so cool. But of course, few people have fatal amounts of drugs just laying around and for most people, it's far quicker and easier to go to a gun store.

So whats left? Shit that practically nobody does, despite the pro-gun community insist every suicide method is the same. People don't gouge their eyes to get to their brain or feed themselves into a tablesaw.

This sounds like the terrible logic of banning abortion. If we ban abortion then women won't have abortions. /S

No, it doesn't sound like that at all, you just want to signal to others that you're not right wing but still love guns.

But sure, we can stick with that analogy. Do women who aren't pregnant still have abortions? Do they just find another medical proceedure to have instead?

No that this is sarcasm because legalizing abortion has saved many women's lives

If you're pro gun, there's no use pretending "saving womens lives" is a thing you care about. 70 women are shot and killed by their partners each month, over 4 million report being threatened with a gun.

Abusers with access to guns are 5x more likely to kill their partners and guess what the gun lobby does? Openly opposes domestic abusers losing their guns.

Then you're enjoying yet another luxury that you strip from victims of gun violence.

Its not a distraction -- it's an immediate, measurable solution to a growing problem, that absolutely nobody is suggesting is the entire solution.

Meanwhile, what have the pro-gun groups that insist they (and they alone) have the solution suggested?

Video games. Marilyn Manson. Rock and rap music. Not enough prayer. Too many doors. Abortion. Legalised weed. Women. Drag Queens and gay marriage. COVID vaccines. Critical race theory. Not enough people having guns.

And what a surprise, every single one of those excuses is just blatantly something they want to attack anyway, using the "look what you made me do" excuse loved by manipulative abusers everywhere.

The boomers blame popular culture. The fundamentalists blame secularism and abortion. The fascists blame minorities. The neoliberals blame their donors not making enough money.

After 25 years of offering nothing by distractions, some marketing genius thought of "mental health", which is at least part of the problem.

But of course their take away isnt "clearly we are not mentally healthy enough as a society for such permissive gun laws", nor even "we should do something about the mental health problems are facing".

Instead, it's "Other people should build a mental health system that is mandatory for every man, woman and child in America, even if they don't want help. It has to cure mental health problems, even those beyond our ability to treat, instantly and so completely that they will never relapse, even for a second. Also, we are going to obstruct your efforts every step of the way politically, legally and by telling children they're less important that inanimate objects used to kill and oppress people".

Because the idea was never to fix the problem, the idea was to create something that would distract people for 200 years, so the money would keep rolling in.

But don't worry if the skepticism has already started to creep into your brain with intrusive thoughts like "does this mean we train soldiers to be mentally ill?" or "are they trying to say that being a right wing reactionary like most mass shooters (and gun owners) is actually a mental illness?"...

MTG has already come out and blamed mass shootings on the medication we use to treat mental health problems, ensuring gun owners still have the backup distraction of "too much mental healthcare", ready to be used the day people meet their impossible prerequisites for gun control.

Edit: down vote all you want you little bitch. I sincerely hope you take that attitude to someone in real life and they kick the absolute shit out of you, maybe then you'll realize your sheltered view of the world doesn't align with reality. Go touch grass.

Glorious. Downvotes are actually publicly visible on Lemmy and it wasnt me, but sure, go off.

Don't get embarassed though, you're still very big and scary and the "go touch grass" still hurts my feelings no matter how many times right wing reactionaries use it, because I'm that insecure.

Spoken like someone who hasn't had depressed friends off themselves after years of trying to talk them off the ledge.

I sincerely want to be sympathetic because I do know what thats like.

But its easy enough to swallow that compassion when I remember that you're only pulling out that trauma and heartbreak to defend gun laws that rob thousands of people of the chance to escape that same fate.

Because you don't get to "talk people off the ledge" when they have a gun. There is no ledge. Those critical opportunities for help and self-reflectance, that have saved thousands of people from bridges, rooftops and bathtubs full of blood, are all lost.

And the people talked off ledges don't just find another ledge. Only 1 in 10 people who survive a suicide attempt go on to die by suicide, but the survival rate of self inflicted gunshot wounds is functionally zero.

Its why, if someone you care about is struggling with depression or trauma, the very last thing you should do is give them a gun.

Fortunately for the gun-lobby, the only people gun owners seem to care about is themselves, no matter now many of their children blow their brains out with daddy's poorly secured firearm that he bought to "keep his family safe".

I can easily post sources and do when it's important

Can you post a source for this claim?

Your statement "I know what the numbers are" is verification of that. You are basically saying "if you don't know, I am not going to tell you", just like a child.

You mean in my reply to you not posting the numbers that you said you looked at?

So not only do I have to spoon feed you the numbers, I have to spoonfeed you the numbers even after you claim to have checked them, without actually posting what they were or where you read them.

Sounds like you either lied about your fact checking or are holding me to a standard you don't hold yourself to so that you can get upset.

Most of all, Karen, if you want to talk about bad faith, let's talk about your constant and consistent need to get quippy and obtuse.

Probably not a good insult to throw around when you're being functionally identical to an anti-vaxxer.

You obviously have strong feelings about this subject, but your delivery is just bad. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything by being smug.

I'm so sorry. How dare I call you out for pushing dangerous misinformation without also cradling your head in my lap, stroking your hair and telling you that you're my special special boy.

That's surely the problem and not that the pro-gun community is self-absorbed, backed by a powerful lobby group and will literally threaten to kill people if they propose changes to gun laws.

Guns are machines

For killing people

Guns don't have feelings

Nope, but the legsl gun owners sure do do and they don't seem to be able to control them.

Guns don't jump up and magically shoot things because they got pissed off

Nope, you're thinking of legal gun owners again

Guns don't call people stupid or get emotional.

Which is a shame, because thats a massive improvement over things like "mutilating a room full of children beyond recognition after they were legally sold to a teenager, despite known red flags, by a company that targets their advertising at teenagers"

Guns don't get drunk and rape kids or beat their spouse.

Yep, legal gun owners again. But don't worry, gun lobby groups have publicly stated those people should keep their guns, no matter their history of domestic violence.

All linked, as per your demands because the important part of this conversation -- far more important than the lives of innocent and vulnerable people -- is that it happens in a tone and manner that you have personally approved.

I have validated my own claims, to my own standard, under my own volition. That's why I hold this opinion in the first place.

You either haven't, or have chosen to dismiss the evidence because it's inconvenient to the opinions you want to hold.

Also, links on social media are completely visible and transparent. You should know exactly what they link to and were information is hosted. A good study will generally have good sample sizes and plenty of peer reviews.

It's not stupid to click the link, its stupid to let someone on the internet assure you they've provided all the context you need.

The British medical journal Lancet published a study back in 1998. It's had hundreds of peer reviews. Does that mean that if somebody links it on social media, you'll just accept it?

Because that paper was the origin of "vaccines cause autism". It has been linked millions of times by a group of people who are spreading misinformation that kills people.

Want me to send you a link next time I see one? You can strut into their midst with links to the hundreds of studies that disprove it.

I'm sure it won't be a waste of your time and I'm sure every counter argument will be made in only the best of faith.

Oh apparently its permissable to not provide links when you do it.

But don't worry, I know what the numbers are so I wont deliberately waste your time in an act of bad faith in the hope that next time you just let people spread misinformation.

Even disregarding that nowhere has gun laws that allow violent, suicidal people to acquire guns as easily as America, numbers are not the whole story.

Every time widespread means reduction has been implemented, those numbers have gone down.

I'm sorry if that hurts your guns feelings.

It's not my responsibility to spoon feed you information and you shouldn't be trusting posts on social media just because they do.

There's no better way to feed people dogshit than studies and graphs stripped of context.

If someone wants to off themself, they're going to do it whether they have a gun or not

Not supported by science nor statistics. There is no better way to reveal that not only are you not an expert, you havent even made a token effort to be informed.

Instead, you've just assumed you know everything there is to know about suicide prevention without looking and what a surprise, it just happens to align with whats most profitable for the gun lobby.

America has "many" mass shootings because the baseline for other countries is "once a decade", not because the number has many digits.

You're either fully aware of this and being manipulative or you reacted emotionally without thinking -- not a good trait for a gun owner, but one shared by all the ones who committed suicide or killed their partners.

A suicide is a suicide and the method of suicide is irrelevant.

Which is your gut feeling about how suicide works, not supported in any way by anyone involved in the study of suicide or suicide prevention.

The claim "they'd just do it another way" is bullshit.

It has been repeatedly and conclusively demonstrated that means reduction (which the pro-gun community won't allow) and survivability (which guns don't have) play an extremely important role in suicide prevention.

Guns are absolutely part of the issue. Unfortunately, the pro-gun community prioritises sweeping gun deaths under the rug to maintain their profits and possessions over actually protecting anyone.

To block AI from hoovering up all our data, without paying them.