Discussion Red Flag Laws

[GIGN.Officiel]

What do you think about red flag laws? Does the taking away of one suicide method really fix someone's suicidal urges?

Personally, I think the claim that taking away a gun from someone suicidal prevents them from attempting other ways is bogus. So instead of asking a controlled group, let me ask a forum full of actually suicidal people :

If someone took away your method, would you cease to be suicidal, or would you try again some other way? Would you be honest about it, or would you lie to prevent your other rights and methods from being taken away? Is it truly an impulsive decision for you that can dissipate the second you don't have easy access to your method?

And how angry are you that people really believe these laws work?

In addition, my boyfriend pointed out this after I posted: For those in the US, these laws restrict the rights of those who aren't suicidal or in a bad place. All it takes is a couple people insisting you are, and suddenly you have to prove you're mentally stable to keep your second amendment rights. We suddenly do away with innocent until proven guilty, and that's not okay.

 

[Topaz111]

Another way normies treat suicidal people like children and use their suicidality to trample their freedom.
I would not stop being suicidal if my method was taken away. In fact it would increase the risk of me attempting in a more rushed, less planned out way with an alternate method and cause a higher risk of permanent injury instead of death.
It's one of the many laws that makes normies feel like they are "good people" even though it does nothing to make people less suicidal and in fact makes them less likely to admit of having suicidal thoughts and seeking support.
Every time there is a law that restricts the freedom of a suicidal person, whether by hospitalisation, forced treatment, seizing the means etc., it makes people less likely to speak up about their feelings. This is especially important since, open discussion about suicidal thoughts early on is the best way to prevent impulsive death (though not all suicides are impulsive of course)

 

[PanaxMan]

It's pretty damn bs. I mean the 2nd amendment exists for a reason.

 

[LaetumCat]

I will be speaking as someone outside of the USA, meaning, it's very hard to actually get a gun over here in Europe. Unsurprisingly, my method of choice is not a gun.
But even so, I think even if you take someone's method of choice away, they will still be suicidal. they'll just find another way to CTB. Or another way to obtain a gun.

It's like when you were a child, and you were refused something, then you wanted it more.
Remember when you learnt about the Prohibition era in the USA in history class? Yeah.
Taking away a method doesn't quite do anything.

 

[Rogue_Gendarme]

What do you think about red flag laws? Does the taking away of one suicide method really fix someone's suicidal urges?

See, wanting to die is a simple a desire as, say, wanting to eat or wanting to live. That's to say, even if things improved a little, people would still want to die for a menagerie of reasons. So when you take away one person's preferred food they will eat another, and so on.

This is why prohibition on low-level addiction drugs is fucking horseshit and doesn't take the desire away from people nor address WHY they would get high. So you'll see a ban on marijuana and people would then want to get on more dangerous shit cuz' the low-level harm drug has been banned. Getting into opioids then into more and more harmful stuff. Take away fentanyl and you have a drug race for nitazenes now.

Apply this logic to suicide also. Take away the gun and you'd get the person jumping to death. Take THAT away and you'd get hanging, etc. etc.
This is also applicable to consensual underage sex. The root problem is not addressed (teens wanting to experiment with themselves) and campaigns stopping those shenanigans MUST focus on addressing the root cause, provide alternatives, and at the very least provide safe sex material (condoms, lubes, etc.).


It's fucking stupid. People should have the right to die, the right to get high, etc.

 

[Aflame5926]

What do you think about red flag laws? Does the taking away of one suicide method really fix someone's suicidal urges?

no it will get to extrememer methods. here is the thing. most of us try to go peacefull. do you really want to distrub the train connection for Xth of time of the month because somebody jumped infront of it. or so many people jumped from a building.
the methods will get extremer.

If someone took away your method, would you cease to be suicidal, or would you try again some other way? Would you be honest about it, or would you lie to prevent your other rights and methods from being taken away? Is it truly an impulsive decision for you that can dissipate the second you don't have easy access to your method?

also i would lie to any mental health care. society already shown that honesty is not the way anymore. so why would be honest about it?
i had the thought years and my head. maybe a lot of us have set up conditions boundery of the minimum acceptable life would be. and life just crossed that boundery.
just like how the law works right? be within this parameters or else you get puninished

And how angry are you that people really believe these laws work?

very. the problem is everybody class of suicidal is being group up into one.
that is also makes the treatment being 1 standard which make inhuman experiences.

If think its time to make changes in the law to make it easier. quality of mental health falicities are dropping.
make it count for those that can work for them. but let the ones that already made up their mind go in peace.

its a F joke. optimistic people makes laws about pessimistic people.

 

[Fadenself00_]

very. the problem is everybody class of suicidal is being group up into one.

People who are suicidal because of a chronic illness - like me - are tortured so much by this fact.

Even in cases like mine, suicidality is treated as a totally separate "illness". Almost as if I say I cought a dangerous and highly contagious disease or something.. People group things into broad labels, so unempathetically, like stupid morons.

Instead, people like us would need empathy and understanding, without other people wanting to regain control of the situation by labeling you as ill/dysfunctional/out of your mind, etc..

 

[TAW122]

All the posters on here have excellent answers and here is mine.

I'm a US citizen and I am very much against red flag laws and fortunately, I don't live in a state that has implemented such laws (yet) and hopefully never. I think red flag laws are really just a poor attempt to appear to be helpful, but hide behind a fig leaf/cover for paternalistic interventions and infringment of civil rights under the guise of protection and wellbeing.

Nobody has mentioned this example yet, but suppose for the general populace (normies and non-suicidal people, similar like minded people), if there was certain laws hampering speech or what they could do because of "morals, or any other arbitrary thing (we don't like xyz speech or action)" and laws were made to curtail, limit, or impose restrictions and even enforced (moral, ethics police force), the populace would be taking to the streets and demanding their rights, and general unrest would follow! So yeah red flag laws are nothing more than an pretext and excuse wrapped under the wrapper of benevolence while paternalistically dictating what 'suicidal' people can/cannot do and treating them less than a human being.

Also, I am not a lawyer nor legal expert, but I know that things in the US constitution is considered the Bill of Rights and "shall not be infringed" is a part that I still stand by. This includes the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms. I believe that any red flag laws are unconstitutional because they violate 'due process' (then again, a lot of people just look past due process and pretend it doesn't exist, even for suspected or accused subjects). Again, not a legal expert or lawyer, but that's my take on it.

As for whether I would continue to be suicidal, yes absolutely, because the conditions that cause my suicidality do NOT cease the moment an option to exit/find peace (through CTB'ing) is taken away. I would resort to other means if I didn't have a reliable method to check out. I definitely will say what I need to say to not have my rights infringed, even telling them what they want to hear ("No I am not suicidal, I'm doing okay, I'm fine, etc.") and be even more protective of what I do (which I've always been and I could never be too careful with my intentions). I don't consider my actions to be impulsive, especially if I made up my mind, continued to and sustained an unwavering wish to die, even if it was drawn out throughout years. I've been suicidal for about all of my adult life and that is not changing anytime soon, barring some exceptionally thing that solved ALL my problems that led to it (nearly zero chance for that in reality..). If I didn't have my reliable method, I would choose other methods and take the next more reliable means, and that is something that I don't want to do for obvious reasons (collateral damage, more brutal end, less reliability, etc.), so I'm protective of what I have.

I would say that I'm quite angry, but also really frustrated at the ignorance, hostility, and even aggressiveness that these people have towards believing that red flag laws work, they don't truly work and only serve to make themselves feel better about themselves and feeling that they 'saved someone', 'prevented suicide' (but only temporary - because the ones who really made up their mind will either try until they succeed, resorting to more desperate (and likely brutal) methods which may even involve unwilling participants, like other people, cops, and more), even though it only pushes the problem underground, did not solve the underlying problem. I suppose 'out of sight, out of mind', virtue signaling (I'm so great I prevented CTB said the forced-lifer, preventionist), etc.

Good discussion thread nevertheless.

 

[ThatStateOfMind]

My ideal method is likely firearm. If that were taken away, it would totally not reduce it. My next option would probably be FSH. I don't think removing methods will help, it will cause impulsive, less planned attempts.

 

[caesium]

If someone took away my ideal method I'd just try another one. The idea that taking away things like firearms will prevent someone from attempting is just illogical. If someone wants to die they'll find a way to die.

And as someone from the US, the main reason I don't seek out professional help is because I don't want my rights taken away. I don't want to be involuntarily committed or forced on medications. Personally I think laws like this aren't only unhelpful, they're actively harmful because they encourage people to be secretive to keep their autonomy.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Taking away (relatively) peaceful methods won't stop all people feeling suicidal- surely? The reasons they want to kill themselves in the first place won't change. If anything- it dumps on them yet another problem/ frustration- that they are effectively trapped here.

As to whether it will prevent the person from actually attempting a more risky/ brutal/ painful method- it maybe depends on the person. There's no denying that a lot of people remaining alive here are only doing so because they can't seem to get their hands on a method they feel confident enough in.

It likely depends on the person though. Their level of desperation, recklessness, resourcefulness. People will be resourceful when they are really desperate and I suppose some methods the authorities may struggle to ban all together.

I'm sure it does reduce the amount of successful suicides- by restricting the most peaceful/ lethal methods. But then, perhaps that actually pushes people to try unreliable methods. I've read that only one out of every twenty five suicide attempt is successful.

Plus- it's hardly a cure for misery- as I see it. Maybe in a handful of cases, a person realising they have no reliable way out will concentrate all their efforts on life instead but, I doubt that's terribly common.

It's almost like saying- damn- I forgot to pack pain killers so- I'll just decide not to have a headache. I doubt someone with so many problems they are suicidal can easily think their way into being pro- living.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Trazyn]

Taking away people's methods doesn't work. I've known so many suicidal people in my life, including myself. We just find other ways. This forum is proof of that.

If society really wanted to help, they'd look at the root causes. Bad parents, unaffordable/poor health care (depending on country), shit living conditions, cost of living, housing crisis, stagnating wages, social media addition, dating crisis, AI threatening jobs, climate change. The list goes on and on and on.

But society just wants to be seen to do something, not actually fix the problem. Even if that something is just to delay the inevitable and squeeze a few more years of productivity out of people. Especially if doing something might mean they make less money. Add on to that all the pot stirrers like the BBC, or people who have lost someone to suicide (while my heart goes out to them, it doesn't suddenly make them experts or people who should be listened to when making policy decisions). And that is assuming that people close to the deceased aren't at least partially responsible and just trying to shift their own guilt (I've known far too many suicidal people with abusive parents/partners to ever assume that isn't the case).

 

[iamnotadinosaur:(]

I think that a lot of people depend on one main planned-out method, and if that gets compromised then there would just be a delay in the ctb date while they find a new method. One must be very determined to die in the first place to overcome the instinctual will to live, and determined people always find a way eventually.

 

[Hvergelmir]

I think that a lot of people depend on one main planned-out method, and if that gets compromised then there would just be a delay [...] determined people always find a way eventually.

Research shows that many suicides are impulsive.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11924695/

So instead of asking a controlled group, let me ask a forum full of actually suicidal people

You can expect forum members to be among the less impulsive people, who consider suicide a rational decision and a right.
We don't represent the general population.

And how angry are you that people really believe these laws work?

I don't even know if they work, or not. Someone ought to make a statistical graph, including the introduction of various laws.
Does the rate stay flat, decrease temporarily to then rebound, or what's the real effect?

 

[GIGN.Officiel]

Research shows that many suicides are impulsive.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11924695/

You can expect forum members to be among the less impulsive people, who consider suicide a rational decision and a right.
We don't represent the general population.

I don't even know if they work, or not. Someone ought to make a statistical graph, including the introduction of various laws.
Does the rate stay flat, decrease temporarily to then rebound, or what's the real effect?

I appreciate your more logical approach to this issue. I think the problem is that statistics are known to be generally iffy. How can we rely on statistics in a matter like this? Are we looking at whether or not they succeed again, whether or not they attempt again, or whether or not they remain suicidal? I think in terms of success someone commented a very good point that taking away one of the most effective methods (firearms) forces one to choose less effective methods, in which they're less likely to succeed. The data, if based on success alone, might show there were less successful attempts after, but that data can't speak on if the issues remain present, if the subjects of study continue to search for methods, if they attempt again and suffer because of a sketchy method, etc. TLDR statistics might not be the best reference in a discussion like this, and this is coming from an empiricist.

 

[chaotic_crow]

All they're doing is putting people in more danger. Taking away the easier more certain methods make people turn to things that can injure them for the rest of their life. Or can make them more and more desperate and willing to do anything

 

[intr0verse]

I don't think these laws are made to prevent suicide; rather, they're made to prevent untimely deaths and i think limiting access to peaceful means does indeed reduce the number of premature deaths. The suicidal is a special sub-category for which such laws might not work (although i personally think they are to some extent) but it really depends on how determined the person is. In my case, i know i'll never be able to do a violent method so if i'll never have access to a peaceful one, that will count as a positive statistic in support for such laws.

 

[TAW122]

Taking away people's methods doesn't work. I've known so many suicidal people in my life, including myself. We just find other ways. This forum is proof of that.

If society really wanted to help, they'd look at the root causes. Bad parents, unaffordable/poor health care (depending on country), shit living conditions, cost of living, housing crisis, stagnating wages, social media addition, dating crisis, AI threatening jobs, climate change. The list goes on and on and on.

But society just wants to be seen to do something, not actually fix the problem. Even if that something is just to delay the inevitable and squeeze a few more years of productivity out of people. Especially if doing something might mean they make less money. Add on to that all the pot stirrers like the BBC, or people who have lost someone to suicide (while my heart goes out to them, it doesn't suddenly make them experts or people who should be listened to when making policy decisions). And that is assuming that people close to the deceased aren't at least partially responsible and just trying to shift their own guilt (I've known far too many suicidal people with abusive parents/partners to ever assume that isn't the case).

Exactly. Deprivation or subtraction of means to an (reliable and peaceful) end, only leads to desperation and even if one doesn't CTB, but wants to CTB yet couldn't, they become 'desperate' and it doesn't mean they suddenly turn a new leaf and start enjoying life (sentience) itself, but rather either suffering through miserably until end of time, or even (for some) lashing out against the world and more.. But yes, many forced-lifers, and preventionists, prohibitionists just don't see it that way and even the desperate ones that make headlines (if you know you know), gets written off or dismissed as "oh noes, we can't believe it happened!! Tragedy struck!, etc." but in all reality, these masses just don't really care (even though they act like they do) about the outcome, only that people are NOT allowed to exercise their bodily autonomy with regards to deciding when to quit (an unwanted) sentience, because it hurts their (the forced-lifers') morality and worldview, narrative.

 

[Hvergelmir]

I think the problem is that statistics are known to be generally iffy.

Agreed.

statistics might not be the best reference in a discussion like this, and this is coming from an empiricist.

What are the alternatives?

 

[plantlife]

In fact it would increase the risk of me attempting in a more rushed, less planned out way with an alternate method and cause a higher risk of permanent injury instead of death.

The most egregious part is, most of society considers permanent debilitating injury a preferable outcome over a successful suicide

 

[dontwakemeup]

I can understand why red flag laws were implemented, and they probably prevent a tiny fraction of us. I highly doubt if you take someone's primary method away it will prevent them from formulating a new method. These extreme laws only forces people to seek different and certain inhumane methods. This population have made it clear that we will do almost anything to escape this life as to why so many different methods have been used!