I do not think it is helpful to be writing essentially inflammatory things like the last comment. You should get rid of it. Plenty of suicidal people DO have people who love for them and care for them, and it's BS to say otherwise. It's practically encouragement/incitement.
As for the actual content of the thread: bare in mind a lot of firearms are restricted or unavailable in some places, and other people don't have much knowledge or experience of firearms in general because their culture doesn't emphasise their importance. E.g., I've never seen a gun other than one held by a police officer in my life, and I've probably seen under 20 in my lifetime even including police.
The problem is that human beings are deeply selfish. Even those who seem empathetic or "affectionate" are often driven by dynamics of power, manipulation, and control. Psychopaths, narcissists, people who appear to care for you but, deep down, only think about themselves. This is a reality that too many ignore because the illusion of the perfect family and unconditional love is an untouchable dogma in our society.
Anyone looking at a family with a narcissistic parent and a broken child would say: "What a great parent!" Because from the outside, people only see appearances, not the toxic dynamics, the daily psychological abuse, the sense of entrapment that takes root over time. The same applies to siblings, relatives, and even friendships: who really defines what "caring" means? Because if someone had truly cared for a suicidal person, they probably wouldn't have ended up in that situation. Maybe they would have been there more, maybe they wouldn't have ignored the signs, maybe they would have done something before it was too late.
In groups like this, there are countless people who talk about feeling alone, about struggling with abandonment issues, about being emotionally trapped in toxic family dynamics. People who want to get away from their parents but can't, who feel psychologically imprisoned, who can't even complete major life transitions—like many transgender people forced to remain in environments that destroy them. But it's not just them: this happens across all contexts, to people from different backgrounds, yet the mechanism remains the same. The trap is real, the cage is invisible but unbreakable.
And now we should also worry about sparing these people from "trauma"? Should we protect them from suffering when they never did anything to protect us from the pain they inflicted? After having made a person's life miserable to the point of pushing them to suicide, should we also write them an apology letter for the inconvenience? Maybe we should even leave a thank-you note, for bringing us to this point.
In the end, what is considered "trauma" for them is nothing more than the consequence of their actions or their indifference. You can't ignore the problem, make someone's life unbearable, and then be offended when the result is a tragedy. But the real scandal is that, in mainstream narratives, the blame always falls on the person who suffers, never on those who caused the suffering.
Psychoanalysis has long emphasized how many personality and mood disorders have their roots in family dynamics. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, introduced the concept of the Superego, representing the set of ethical and moral norms internalized by the child through parental figures. These internalized norms can become a rigid moral compass, profoundly influencing an individual's behavior and self-perception.
Later studies have explored how parental dysfunctions contribute to the development of psychological disorders in children. For example, a parent's mental illness can negatively affect their ability to adjust to the arrival of a child, relate to them, and provide adequate care—increasing the child's risk of developing psychiatric disorders in childhood or adolescence.
Moreover, psychoanalysis highlights that an individual's failure to recognize the negative influences of their parents can prevent therapy from being effective. Many patients struggle to acknowledge the role of their parents in their psychological issues, often idealizing them and refusing to question their actions. This denial prevents a full understanding of the deeper causes of distress, limiting the success of therapy.
Therefore, according to psychoanalysis, exploring and recognizing dysfunctional family dynamics is crucial for a genuine healing process. Only by confronting these uncomfortable truths can individuals free themselves from the invisible chains that bind them to cycles of perpetual suffering.
And this brings us to the most uncomfortable truth: the vast majority of suicides happen precisely because of these toxic family dynamics. Excluding "logical" suicides or those related to terminal illnesses, the fact remains that most suicides linked to depression, personality disorders, mood disorders, and other psychiatric conditions have a direct root in family dysfunction. Yes, there is a genetic component, but it is completely overwritten and amplified by family dynamics. If someone is born with a predisposition to depression but grows up in a healthy and supportive environment, they may have a relatively stable life. But if they grow up in an abusive, toxic, or manipulative environment, the likelihood of developing severe disorders and ultimately resorting to suicide increases dramatically.
And another crucial point: in this group, people mostly talk about trauma caused by strangers, not so much about family trauma. This is an entirely different issue. Strangers are not people who "care" about you—they have no real connection to the victim. Their role is often that of passive or even active spectators of someone else's suffering. Just look at what happens with car accidents: how many people stop to stare, to film, to take pictures? Then they share it all on social media without the slightest empathy, without being truly "traumatized." So all this sudden concern for "trauma" seems highly questionable. The reality is that other people's suffering, for many, is nothing more than a spectacle to watch from a safe distance, and suicide is no exception.
And as for firearms and those who favor this method…
This is not about who has seen more guns or which culture emphasizes firearms more or less. This is not a debate about how common guns are in certain countries or how familiar people are with them. The main point is the effectiveness of the chosen firearm in relation to the dynamics of suicide. If firearms are being discussed, it is to evaluate which ones are truly effective and which ones carry a high risk of failure or irreversible damage without achieving the intended outcome.
Opening discussions about firearms only to shift the focus to less reliable methods not only creates confusion but also increases the risk of extremely dangerous situations for those involved. If there is an objective to be achieved, then the discussion must be about effectiveness, rather than straying into tools or means that statistically do not guarantee a certain outcome. There is no point in discussing methods that are notoriously unreliable, as it only creates unnecessary doubts and fuels chaos.
And let's be clear: this discussion is directed solely at those talking about firearms. There are other threads where completely different methods are discussed, and there is no need to mix everything together. If someone wants to talk about something else, they can do so elsewhere. This is a specific issue that needs to be addressed rationally, without unnecessary diversions.
Lastly, one crucial thing to highlight is that if someone has never handled firearms before, they should choose a weapon that minimizes the margin of error. The .22mm is a small and low-powered round, and an inexperienced person risks causing massive damage without achieving the intended outcome, unless they have exceptional aim, like a trained marksman (which most people do not have). For this reason, if someone without prior firearm experience decides to use one, then it makes sense that they should choose something that provides a reliable outcome, minimizing the risk of failure or survival with catastrophic injuries.
Discussing firearms without considering their practical effectiveness only creates confusion, and that is precisely what should be avoided.
And when it comes to other methods, confusion is just as prevalent in the mega-threads discussing different approaches. Take hydrogen sulfide, for example—there are discussions where no clear, logical explanation is given regarding the exact dynamics of what needs to be done. In some cases, crucial safety details are completely overlooked, with the assumption that a person will automatically understand what precautions they need to take.
People don't even specify that eye protection is essential, that gloves are a necessity, and that even minor mistakes in handling can lead to catastrophic consequences. The risks involved are enormous and often underestimated, yet they are hardly addressed in those discussions. And these are not trivial risks—exposure to hydrogen sulfide in the wrong conditions can lead to permanent blindness, among many other severe health hazards.
It's not just about having access to a method—it's about understanding exactly how it works, the dangers involved, and how to mitigate them. And yet, in many of these threads, critical information is missing or downplayed, which leads to increased confusion and extreme risks for those trying to understand the process.
d let's be clear, this is not about inflaming discussions or creating flame wars, this is about clarifying and specifying critical points, which is something entirely different. The real risk of "escalation" does not come from having a precise and logical discussion, but from someone handling dangerous substances or methods without the right precautions because they have obtained misleading or incomplete information from threads that discuss everything except what is actually useful to achieve the intended goal. That is where the real danger lies, not in heated discussions, but in the lack of clarity, misinformation, and underestimated risks. If a person does not take the proper safety measures with what they are handling, that is where the situation can escalate into a serious, irreversible mistake. So, if we want to talk about "risks" or "escalation," we should focus on the real issue, which is the fact that many discussions lack essential practical information, leading to dangerous misunderstandings that could have been avoided.
