Hacker News Reader

Comment by alangpierce | Hacker News Reader

> That isn't treating the source of the problem at all.

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.

View on HN

As someone who thinks suicide is an unalienable human right, I find it insulting that someone may wish to take my guns, in order to stimy any attempt I may make at committing suicide. I am certain this is a minority view.

That’s an interesting opinion I’ve never heard before: suicide as an inalienable right. For clarity, you’re not referring to euthanasia by any chance, are you? If not, can you elaborate on why suicide is or should be an inalienable right?

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.

It's interesting to consider. I'm inclined to agree with b1r6 and would say that autonomy over one's life is only complete if you also have the right to end it.

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 do agree. If you cannot end your life, then you have to accept living under whatever terrible conditions that other peoples grudging charity will give you as you refuse to work or participate in society.

It's definitely a difficult issue. I think your perspective works out great in a world where all people have free will and their decisions are consistent and intentional, reflecting their "true self". In a world like that, additional freedoms nearly always lead to better outcomes, but I don't think that's the world we live in.

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.

> it's common and pragmatic to take painkillers to treat headaches

In your analogy, isn't the gun the painkiller?

No, I could see how you could interpret it that way on a surface level, but to make the analogy more explicit:

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com