Are you talking about this everytown, which again proclaims the 3x risk of gun deaths?

https://everytownresearch.org/firearm-suicide/

> a major critique of this methodology remains unanswered: that the increased risk of completed suicide is so tightly coupled with military servitude that the role of guns cannot be convincingly established in either the univariate or multivariate analysis.

> What do you say to this?

I say this supposedly major critique isn't represented in the data. The everytown article you seem to be mentioning recommends tighter gun controls.

<slow blink>, yes, we know that the best funded arms restriction organization in the world recommends tighter gun restrictions. Obviously.

I have to say: I think that you have stopped making sense or putting in any effort to this discussion so I'm just going to move on.

In 2016 a meta-analysis of 130 studies across 10 countries also found them to be effective. I think one of the strongest predictors of suicide is gender - but I'm not sure you'd find many gun control advocates advocating for gender based controls. But I suppose since the studies sometimes don't explicitly call out the correlation between gender and suicide that their methodology and conclusions must be... invalid???

I fully acknowledge and think it is an absolute tragedy that veterans can't access the support services they need, and I think that problem, and the problem of mental health issues in America could be mostly addressed by a better healthcare system.

For many of the gun suicides and some of the murders though, better gun control is effective.