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
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.)