Check out the CA study. It showed handgun owners had a 0.64 ratio to nonowners for all other suicides. The ratio for all-case suicide for handgun owners was about 3X for males. It also showed about half of the suicides in the 12 year following happened within a year of ownership (for obvious reasons). This study is an outlier. The paper makes the case that suicides in the home should be similar to all suicides in their sample, but something is off if not that.
It is somewhat concerning how you drew completely incorrect conclusions (well, I'll step back from that - moreso that you're using it to support a position of guns being "less unsafe") from that paper, particularly that you've said the ratios are likely lower when the paper itself suggests that given their limitations, the ratios are likely higher outside of their study design and the state of California. It's almost as if you don't know how to critically interpret scientific literature.
Last edited: