politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Seems to be a big deal when you start talking guns and mental health, but with all the fixations on "mass shootings", they lose this little stat:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
"In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were accidental, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined."
54% of those deaths were suicides. 26,368.
(43% murder, 3% "other", accidents, etc.)
Also in 2021, 38,358 men committed suicide compared to 9,825 women.
https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/suicide-data-statistics.html
3.9:1, if almost 4x more women than men were dying for any reason, it would be a national crisis. "Something would have to be done!"
Mental health for men? Silence.
I hear what you are saying but I wouldn’t even say that line about if it were women it’d be a national crisis. Time has shown again and again that society will gladly throw away a group of people without needing to devalue your words with a statement like that.
Anyway there’s a lot of things to discuss around this.
We can dive into the societal role of men with being encouraged to bottle up because “grown men don’t cry” and toxic masculinity.
We can talk about rates of gun ownership between genders that is a big factor in suicide risk.
We can unpack the issue with people not having the money for mental health resources. Which can be solved through general wage increases or through the state.
The point is to say that instead of using a crisis to step another group of people we should be approaching these things from a point of intersectionality.
Edit: Just to be on topic I am completely for restrictions on guns as a easier means to dealing with shootings.
The crazy people shouting “dont take my guns” while also touting the line of “it’s a mental health isssue” without being open to addressing that problem gets me so worked up.
There are people who advocate for "men's rights" things, but they're mostly conservatives, and they leave out the horrifying statistics about gun ownership among men because they're also in the pocket of the gun lobby.
It's a taboo subject even amongst family members of those affected to talk about the role of firearms in suicide.
The reality is that gun ownership can turn a bad, lonely night into a person's last one by pure virtue of the fact that it's so readily available, and so often deadly.
If your bad, lonely night is that bad and lonely, you probably were unstable to begin with.
I wonder how many of those gun suicides were actually impulsive, and how many were premeditated.
You don't have to wonder, this has been studied: Gun owners and their families are up to 8 times much more likely to kill themselves than are non-gun-owners.
That doesn't include attempts though. I think we agree that guns are most effective, but I'd like to see if gun owners are more predisposed to attempt than non gunners
People aren't silent about men successfully committing suicide at a higher rate to women. You hear about it all the time. However, it isn't an issue about men being overlooked, like you imply. Women attempt suicide at a higher rate. Why didn't you discuss that? Is it being ignored?
The fact of the matter is suicide by firearm is the worst offender. Attempted suicide needs to be prevented for everyone equally, but firearm ownership should be more restricted, and there should also be tools out there to get your firearms away from you temporarily if you're feeling suicidal or depressed. Men are more likely to own firearms, which is the issue that needs addressing to fix the disparity, not men being ignored.
Then any old asshole could just lie and say their neighbor or family member or spouse is suicidal, and disarm them. Abusers absolutely will exploit that to subjugate their victims.
And it's not really moral to say those men shouldn't be allowed to kill themselves if they want anyway. Do people have self-ownership or not? Yes or no?
Others could be injured in a firearm suicide, and someone still has to clean up the mess. Self-euthanasia is it's own topic, but I think most could agree that the solution to assisted suicide isn't allowing unstable people to own firearms.
Any other solution would require getting permission from the state to die in some way or another, meaning you effectively don't have a right to die on your terms.
I disagree, ropes are easy to find or make, and you only need a couple pounds of force to asphyxiate; people hang themselves from doorknobs and shit, it's super reliable if you do it right.
Allowing unstable people to own firearms is a danger to others, and would only increase impulsive suicides and messy survivors.
It comes down whether you find that having a gun is a fundamental right or something. I just don't think it is. Yes, it's a perfectly acceptable cost for a random acquaintance to make a fake complaint and get my gun taken. It would be only a mild inconvenience to have my gun taken away even permanently. I do like going to the range and shooting, it's a fun sport for sure, but it's not my identity.
It's not just a fundamental right but the basis by which rights even can exist. Without access to violence, you cannot say no, and you cannot stop other people from doing whatever they want to you, meaning you are without rights without access to weaponry, namely guns.
Violence does not require firearms, nor would our pea shooters do anything to an Abrams or Bradley, or anything else slightly up armored. Unless you think this "fundamental right" includes anti-tank and anti-air weaponry, then the argument is moot. Homemade explosives will be much better for the fight than your "operator firearm" with no tactics training. Then, during the fight, there will be plenty of guns to be looted from those fighting you. Revolutions don't require armed citizens. They never have. They require smart and inventive citizens who use gorilla tactics.
Idk what world you live in, but i say no all the time to people and i stop them from doing whatever they want to me all the time without resorting to violence, havent resorted to violence at all since i was teenager. If the cops want to arrest me, a gun won't stop them either.
Yes we have self ownership but i would also want my family and friends to stop me if i got irrational for a moment and tried to burn down my house. I do believe we should have a right to euthanasia but if im not terminally ill i absolutely want my family to stop my from committing suicide in a moment of desperation.
That's your choice, sure, but not everyone's, and forcing people to live is very, very much worse than death. I've witnessed it happen for myself. All suicide prevention is is denying someone else their autonomy, self-ownership, and rights so you can make yourself feel better. Even in crisis, people do not lose their rights.
Yes euthanasia is very logical, but allowing people to kill themselves in a moment of desperation is not. Sure, if there's an argument that perpetual depression is a good reason for euthanasia, i buy that.
But letting someone kill themselves because they got really drunk and really sad one night, for example is not "respecting self autonomy."
Real question here. I don't know how the number of attempts is calculated. If a single person attempts unsuccessfully 3 times, then is that recorded as 3 separate attempts? Or is this recording the number of unique people who have attempted suicide any number of times?
If it's the former then it may be an indicator that women prefer methods of suicide that are less likely to succeed, but it is much harder to tell how many individual women actually attempt suicide compared to men.
Also, if a person is suffering enough that they're seriously contemplating suicide, is taking that option away from them really the right thing to do? There's also the issue of any such system being abused. It's easy to imagine law enforcement using this as a way to disarm groups and individuals for political reasons.
For the first part, I'm not sure how it's counted.
For the last, I think we need legalized assisted suicide. I don't think suicide should be taken on a whim, but I do think it should be legal for people suffering, and they should have access to painless methods. They should first be checked to see if there's anything we can do to help them though. (All of this should be paid for through taxes, not by the person suffering. Elon Musk has more than enough money to cover this for everyone.)
People are already saying something has to be done because it is a national crisis. Toxic gun culture prevents any serious actions
Comprehensive mental health care for all is not being blocked by gun culture, it's being blocked by the typical Republican calls of "SOCIALISM!!"
The right has been pretty open about what kind of America they want to live in and what they're willing to do to get there. We should all believe them and take them seriously, because they are fucking serious.
Fascist militias are popping up left and right, and the only gun control measures that pass end up restricting the rights of citizens in blue states while red states continue expanding their own. Unless you can magically disarm the entire nation simultaneously that cat is out of the bag.
I'm optimistic about the future and hold no deluded fantasies of armed conflict, but there may come a time where you'll wish you had access to normal capacity magazines and non-nerfed rifles. Jon Stewart is not going to come rescue you when they have you on your knees in front of a ditch.
Disarming the working class under the current hyper-capitalist regime doesn't really work in our favor either, and in most instances gun control is proven to be a political loser that equals to nothing more than a waste of time/effort and only serves to cripple a campaign.
Solid.
You were doing so well until you tried the "People care so much more about women's health! Pity me!" line.
Strange how Viagra is required to be covered by all insurance but birth control isn't. Whose priorities are privileged there?
It's not about pitying me, it's about pitying the state of men in general, where, if the genders were reversed, it would be considered a national crisis.
For example:
https://universitybusiness.com/men-are-falling-behind-in-higher-ed-and-it-may-not-be-letting-up/
Key stats:
"Women became the majority demographic to attend college decades ago, and today, they make up almost 60% of U.S. college undergraduates."
(between 2017 and 2022) "male enrollment at 4-year public institutions has dropped nearly 6% more than women, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Among all student demographics in this sector, white men experienced the sharpest decline in enrollment, falling nearly 20%."
"The rate at which men are graduating from 4-year institutions is 6% less than that of women, according to the National Center for Education Statistics."
"The Class of 2023 reported that while 68% of young men want to go to college, only 57% expect to actually attend. On the other hand, 83% of young women want to go to college, and 77% expect to go."
Or...
https://www.mibluesperspectives.com/stories/health-and-wellness/male-mortality-why-men-die-earlier-than-women
"In 2021, the average life expectancy was 73.2 years for men and 79.1 years for women."
None of this is incorrect.
But I have been hearing about this plenty. For example, in the article we are discussing.
Mental health is not considered enough in general. What makes you think it is worth for men?