The highly debated issue of suicide was explored as well. The World Health Organization ascertains, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.” While this is true, removing the firearm does not remove the suicide risk. The study points out that, “The evidence, however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means,” concluding that there is “no social benefit in decreasing the availability of guns if the result is only to increase the use of other means of suicide and murder, more or less resulting in the same amount of death.”
No, no, no, Ms Cruz. You have badly misread and misquoted what Kates and Mauser wrote. Here's what they actually wrote:
Epitomizing this theme is a World Health Organization (WHO) report assert‐
ing, “The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates.”43 The authors, in noting that the presence of a gun in a home corresponds to a higher
risk of suicide, apparently assume that if denied firearms, potential suicides will decide to live rather than turning to the numerous alternative suicide mechanisms. The evidence,
however, indicates that denying one particular means to people who are motivated to commit suicide by social, economic, cultural, or other circumstances simply pushes them to some other means.44
It is interesting to note that Kates/Mauser footnote 44 actually notes the Brady Law caused a decrease in suicides and doesn't support the idea that if one method of suicide is unavailable then a suicidal person will be pushed to some other means.
In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that most suicides are impulsive acts; that is, if a suicidal person is somehow deterred or prevented from a suicidal impulse, most won't commit suicide. Additionally, states where gun ownership is more prevalent have higher suicide rates.
