In an ideal world, all problems could be fixed at their source, but in practice, we shouldn't limit ourselves to only solutions that target the source of the problem. As a much simpler example, it's common and pragmatic to take painkillers to treat headaches, even though they certainly don't make any attempt at fixing the source of the headache.
Gun control (and other forms of means restriction) is effective at preventing suicides. It's not a satisfying solution (after all, the people it saves are still miserable), but it works, as indicated by many studies. That doesn't mean we shouldn't dig into why people want to kill themselves and try to fix those (like with mental health treatment or more proactively helping people maintain financial or social stability); I think we should probably take both approaches simultaneously.
From my understanding, people with mental health issues may be more likely to consider suicide. So my opinion is that suicide should be considered a symptom of an illness that needs medical attention as opposed to an inalienable right like free speech.
That said, I do also agree that in some cases, not all, suicide is a symptom of an illness.
I think the way of reconciling these two positions is to make mental healthcare ubiquitous with low barriers to access - and help people to get in to care earlier before things escalate. Additionally, our national policies should seek to minimize the number of 'dead ends' in people's lives without opportunity to move forward or upward.
I, personally, have come to the sad conclusion that I cannot trust my mind to act in my best interest at all times. In the past, I have made the decision to kill myself, and if I had access to a gun, I likely would not be alive today. I'm happy to be alive, and I'm grateful to live in a culture where guns are rare. I worry about getting into that mental state again, so as one preventative step, I make sure to never own a gun and never live with people who own guns.
There are plenty of milder analogies that I think are relatable to a lot of people, like limiting the amount of unhealthy food you have at home to avoid mindless snacking. If unlimited Cheetos were available to everyone all the time, it would probably make the world a worse place.
In your analogy, isn't the gun the painkiller?
The body faces [problem with complex causes] and wants to respond with [overreaction resulting in severe outcome]. Rather than addressing the causes, you take an approach that replaces [severe outcome] with a more appropriate [less bad outcome].
In the suicide situation, the severe outcome is death and the less bad outcome is significant emotional pain. The overreaction is the tendency of depressed people to believe that death is the best choice, even though they would not make that decision after careful thought in a clear state of mind.
In the headache situation, the severe outcome is a headache and the mildly bad outcome is the lingering pain even after painkillers and the inconvenience of having to take them. The overreaction is the continued pain inflicted on the person, even when all reasonable steps have already been taken.
So no, the equivalent of the painkiller is the restriction of guns. Both reduce the severity of outcome, but neither helps with the underlying problem.
Reducing access to means and methods is known to work to reduce the numbers of people who die by suicide.
Literally every single person contemplating suicide has access to means. Every single one. No matter how much regulation is imposed which is why it is stupid to attempt to regulate to begin with and usually used as a means to push a secondary agenda. Even someone strapped to a bed and force fed will eventually die from the process.
The only cure for suicide it access to mental health assistance and reasonable living conditions. Even that won't "cure" someone who truly wants to die.
Also I very much appreciate your bad-faith implication that I have a mental disability. Thanks for that.
Remember this one too: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
Your comment might get hidden because it was flagged, but your points need to be addressed. Suicide contemplation is a function of desire, so restricting access to means may help deter some of the people who have a weaker desire to commit suicide.
> The only cure for suicide it access to mental health assistance and reasonable living conditions. Even that won't "cure" someone who truly wants to die.
This may be the best long term "solution" to suicide. The fundamental problem isn't that people are killing themselves, it's that people want to be dead. It seems unscalable to try and "solve" the problem by banning every conceivable thing that could be used as a weapon. That doesn't solve the problem any more than spraying green paint on diseased grass fixes your yard; it is a superficial fix.
Society should be measured not only by its economic output, but also by the percentage of people who would rather be dead than live in it. You can't conclude if a monkey has patience if you don't give it access to a banana. Only when the monkey has access to the banana and refuses it, can you conclude that the monkey has learned patience.
There have been a number of natural experiments that have shown this: when the UK switched from coal gas to natural gas, or when catalytic converters were introduced.
You can probably find research to support this on the NCISH website.