This story appeared in the Post over a year ago, but I still thought it was worth highlighting, for the reasons I explain below. This is a reprint from my blog, wantsomewood.blogspot.com.
This fascinating article makes a good case for the installation of anti-suicide barriers that break the falls of people who try to kill themselves by jumping off high bridges (in this case, the Golden Gate Bridge, which doesn’t have any such barriers). The case is strong because of several studies (cited in this companion article) that conclude that the conventional wisdom that people who want to commit suicide are determined to do so, and will find another way to do it if the first way they attempt is denied to them, is wrong. For example, one 1973 study followed death records and determined that of 515 people who attempted suicide at the Golden Gate bridge between 1937 and 1971 and survived, 94% were either still alive, or had died of natural causes.
Obviously, it’s good news that most people who are prevented from committing suicide do not try again in the future. What strikes me is that these studies provide direct evidence that certain kinds of gun control–specifically, waiting periods and background checks before someone buys a gun–are good, life-saving ideas. The NRA and other gun fanatics (as well as the bloggers who apologize for them) insist that those who would commit suicide (and homicide as well) will simply find another way to do it, if no gun is available to them. These studies poke a huge hole in that notion. After all, if people who are prevented from jumping off a bridge rarely try to do so again in the future, it’s common sense that those who are prevented from shooting themselves will behave similarly, and will rarely try it again.