Even if we take "you can impulsively shoot yourself at a moment's notice" as a good thing (I don't think it is), none of that is correct:
1. Any gun will do, and france (and more generally europe) has extensive allowance for hunting and sports shooting, both of which can easily be used to try to kill yourself.
2. Try being an important word here, fucking up a gun suicide attempt is a common occurrence and can leave you extensively maimed and debilitated (e.g. gun pointed too high, recoil moves the gun and blows up your entire face leaving you alive, gun pointed too low, bullet hits the palate or misses the skull entirely and hits the spine, ...)
3. Whether successful or not, finding a gun-suicide is one of the worst discoveries you can make, to say nothing of the cleanup (mostly in case of success).
While a gun is not the worst suicide method by a mile (train, car, or cop involve and endanger other people), it's still a shitty one.
That "side effect" is is not because of impulse buying and getting guns on short notice. In fact, there's a mandatory waiting period in 1/5th of US states (10 days in California) specifically to prevent that situation, which seems like a _very_ good idea to me. It's about a) getting them without learning a large amount of material (not everyone memorizes things as easily as engineers), and b) without approval buy someone who might actually object.
To get a gun in France, you need a hunting/sports license. The hunting license requires a 1-day theoretical and practical exam, as well as a medical exam that is specifically meant to verify if the physical and mental health is compatible with the stated purpose of the purchase. Whereas in the US, you need at most a trivial knowledge test (firearms safety certificate, with questions like in which direction to point the gun. possible answers: safest possible direction, up, down, north (!) [1]) to buy a firearm (hunter's safety education is only required to purchase a hunting license, not a gun).
And regarding your third point, sure, but the solution to that is to provide a better, legal, safe and professionally supervised pathway. Anything else makes as much sense as writing a law that bans cancer.
[1] https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms...
Cool story but that’s got nothing to do with my comment.
> That "side effect" is is not because of impulse buying
The impulse I’m talking about is once you have a gun in your home. Going out to buy a gun to shoot yourself seems unlikely as there’s plenty if faster ways to commit suicide along the way unless you live next door to a gun shop.
> And regarding your third point, sure, but the solution to that is to provide a better, legal, safe and professionally supervised pathway.
A better, legal, safe, and professionally supervised pathway… to shooting yourself tanks to the second amendment?
You do realise I was replying to a specific comment yeah?
And I meant a better pathway through the medical system, not involving firearms. Using guns for that seems all around awful, and it is sad if people do see that as their most realistic option.
I would encourage anyone who is interested to review medical literature on the subject. Even a shotgun wound to the head is survivable if the weapon is not suitably oriented. In the least fortunate cases, both of the eyes, nose, and/or jaw may be removed, along with the rest of the face, without resulting in death.
It is not without reason that qualifying individuals are willing to pay aid societies in Switzerland thousands of US dollars for assistance in ending their lives. The required lethal dose of barbiturates is incredibly difficult to obtain legally.
Perhaps in the near future, firearm suicides will be considered along the same lines as back-alley abortions, a barbaric practice made necessary by our denial of a basic human right.
Yet for some reason most folks would be fine with former and strongly reject the latter, maybe due to religious dogmas around suicide.
Anyway this way out of topic, most folks going through this in ie Switzerland would be barely able to hold the gun properly. Its much more about dying with dignity (which gun has 0) and ending it all with power over one's fate, instead of misery dragging out for months and years, of which elderly homes are choke full.
Yes, I'm sure we'll see growth in self-inflicted, fatal gunshot wounds, administered while surrounded by their loved ones.
There is no such thing as a good gun death.
The issue with guns and quick access to death is suicide can often be impulsive. Something hits wrong, a traumatic event happens, or just a temporary depression. All of those can lead to death by suicide that wouldn't have otherwise happen.
There needs to be nuance. I fully support someone's right to die by suicide, but I also support a waiting period with plenty of "opt out" opportunities.
It also does not have to be cruel or painful. We have a painless methods for someone to die.
Also, jurisdictions are increasingly allowing assisted death in non-terminal cases. For example, Canada is poised to expand its assisted death program to individuals with mental illness. That is effectively carte blanche for anyone to access assisted dying.
But not by just getting drunk one evening and deciding to end it all! I have to repeat the question: you really don't think there's a moral distinction to be made here?
The majority of those who severely defend the 2nd amendment are conservative and thusly - it won't be handled.
It's as you state, morally bad, to take ones own life. That's the perception/belief setting idea for conservatives and the actual thing you're going against. Reality/facts actually have a very difficult time changing people's beliefs as we've seen with COVID, drugs, etc.
What does this mean? Just trying to understand the assumption being made about me.
Your right to "go how you wish" ends when it impacts others. For example, if you jump off a building there's a good chance you could kill a person you land on.
Then there's emotional trama. If you feed yourself to the lions at the zoo, you've harmed the onlookers and likely given people/children PTSD.
Which is mostly a good thing, as it leaves some room for relenting.
> People should be able to go as they wish, it's bodily autonomy.
There's a difference between being able to go as you wish, and being able to go as an impulse you can't take back.
There's a reason professional medical assistance is needed. Human bodies are pretty resilient and as an amateur you often have no experience in the matter. Professional do.
The professional medical bit would mostly be to ensure proper oversight, proper handling of the remains, and allow the service to be provided to people physically incapable of doing so on their own.
The sooner the better. You don't want the body to stay undetected for any period of time.
Or the simple fact many people don't know that most just deceased people release some poop and pee.
Neutral gas asphyxiation (“exit bags”).
It’s possible to screw up but fairly limited, I think the only real risk is getting found too soon. That aside it’s reportedly a really calm way to go.
> I have a hard time coming up with examples, as after all the body has to be disposed off eventually.
Oh yes unless you throw yourself in a volcano that’s always going to be an issue. It’s mostly the other bits which the method has an impact on.
Well I guess an other option is a diving suicide, but that requires a lot of planning and certifications so seems unlikely to be worth.