EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one of a series of articles on gun rights. Each addresses a common anti-gun trope.

“Guns make suicide easier and more common!”

This argument in favor of gun control is a tragic one. It’s also a textbook assemblage of logical fallacies and sloppy thinking.

Lets start with the numbers.

According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, there are about 44,000 suicides in the US each year, and half of them are carried out with a gun. Two thirds of all gun deaths in America are suicides, so it’s understandable that people might associate guns and suicide. But, it remains that half of America’s suicides are carried out by other means, and that for every successful suicide, 25 are attempted unsuccessfully. It’s a safe assumption that those unsuccessful attempts are overwhelmingly not by firearm, but lets focus solely on “successful” suicides for the moment.

One might think that, if there was a strong causative connection between firearms ownership and suicide, that America would have a uniquely large suicide problem. This is decidedly not the case. America ranks 48th among the world’s nations in terms of suicide rate, per the World Health Organization, and that list’s highest-ranking nations aren’t exactly known as gun-loving or gun-rights meccas. Other sources put America in a similar middle-of-the-pack position, further calling into question any attempts at establishing a causative link between suicide and gun availability.

But, lets consider for the sake of argument that having access to a gun makes suicide easier and more certain. It seems logical to conclude so, and there is research to support the argument. After all, shooting yourself in the head is more final and more certain than swallowing a bottle of pills.

Under what principle of liberty or governance that is compatible with liberty can such a datum be used to justify the infringement of others’ rights? Isn’t prior restraint incompatible with the sanctity of our rights? Do we shut down newspapers because some might publish libels? Do we tell someone he can’t speak because he might incite to riot? Do we cut tongues out because someone might yell “fire” in a crowded theater? How, then, do we justify limiting everyone’s gun rights because some people find it easier to commit suicide with a gun than with a bottle of pills, a can of gasoline, or an open high-rise window?

We can’t.

Furthermore, the only sort of infringement that would stand a chance of being effective is one that takes away all forms of guns from individuals. If you’re hell-bent on doing yourself in, a shotgun is just as (or more) effective as a pistol or an “assault weapon” is. Is the suicide argument powerful enough to warrant a full-on gun ban? Only a dyed-in-the-wool gun banner would say “yes.” But, such people don’t actually need the suicide angle to justify their banning proclivities, anyway, which makes the suicide argument merely one of convenience. The sheer number of guns in America, the strong support for gun rights in most of the nation’s states, and the irrelevance of type of gun to commission of suicide make the idea of reducing suicide rates by getting guns out of civilian hands a practical impossibility.

Finally, lets talk about suicide itself. It is a tragedy whenever it occurs, and we as members of a society should and do feel an obligation to help those who are contemplating it. But, from a position of principle and liberty, it is the ultimate expression of self-ownership, is it not? Yes, this is an uncomfortable thing to say, and even many liberty-minded folks are squeamish about accepting the argument that suicide should not be debarred by the government. But, consider this in the context of the gun-suicide debate.

In general, we find the argument that we should ban guns because they increase suicide rates made primarily by the Left. We also hear a “my body, my choice” mantra chanted by the Left whenever abortion rights come up. The speciousness of the Left’s “my body, my choice” aside, isn’t suicide “my body, my choice?” How does the Left reconcile its defense of individual rights on the abortion issue with its infringement of individual rights with regard to suicide?

It bears repeating: the raising of gun suicide as a reason to infringe on gun rights is tendentious. The people who do so are simply grabbing onto yet another emotional argument because they think it helps them advance their anti-gun agenda, and if this weren’t an issue, they wouldn’t change their anti-gun opinions one whit.

So,

Gun rights lesson #668: While suicide might be easier with a gun, there’s nothing unique about America’s suicide rate compared to that of gun-restrictive nations. Ill-use of an individual right by one person does not justify infringement of many others’ rights. Those who advance the gun-suicide argument as a reason to infringe gun rights are very often ideological hypocrites, who are simply making emotional arguments to achieve their ends. Finally, only a ban on all firearms would get suicide weapons out of civilians’ hands, and that’s about as likely to happen as Kim Jong Un getting elected President of the USA.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.