So we have a new incoming Chief Firearms officer in Saskatchewan. It seems the right time to discuss policy advocacy that this office *must* include: the relationship between firearms and suicide. A thread, and a tough one.
https://www.saskatchewan.ca/government/news-and-media/2020/july/28/chief-firearms-officer

First: I come to my perspective by way of personal pain. My brother was a firearm suicide. The impact of his choice reverberated through my family. It is a terrible, nightmare path. And he was the *classic* case: a decision bourne of impulse, with easy access.

We grew up in a hunting, trapping family. We all went from pellet gun to .22 to shotgun to rifle, with hunter's safety training and the healthiest of respect, care, training and Dad's admonitions for safety. Guns were/are a tool, we respected them, did not abuse.

My family took gun ownership seriously, and when gun registration came around, Dad and my brothers found it unnecessary and a ridiculous liberal intervention. But, complied. Grumpily, but eventually.

With that background established, setting my family firmly within the realm of 'law-abiding gun owners', let's switch gears. Question: do you know the statistics around the connection between guns and suicide? Well if you are a gun advocate, you should. So here you go.

About 80% of firearms deaths in Canada are gun suicides.
Start with that fact, walk around with it, hold it in your heart.
About 80% of firearms deaths are gun suicides. By, no doubt, law abiding gun owners like my brother.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html

Men are 4x more likely than women to commit suicide, and 13x more likely to use a gun. That situates the gun-suicide connection firmly as a serious issue for Canadian men. It cannot be ignored.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html

There is something called proximal risk factors, including "relative availability of culturally-acceptable lethal means of committing suicide." One of those, of course, is gun ownership.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p4.html

The fatality rate for a gun suicide is north of 80%. In other words, it is not an option which allows for intervention, treatment, saving. It is overwhelmingly lethal. There is no proverbial second chance.

Proximal household risk looks like this: Suicides involving a firearm occur at a higher rate in households in rural and Indigenous communities, where (as was the case in my own family), hunting and trapping correlate to a higher availability of guns.

However in Canada, research indicates that gun registry/restrictions have little beneficial effect on reducing gun suicides -- (though they *have* gone down in the last 50 years.) That's not where I'm going with this thread, if you're yelling at me. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7302582/

(Remember: thousands of studies comparing gun suicide Canada/USA showcase that clearly, gun availability, gun culture, and gun access are a huge factor. I refuse to minimize that basic, and obvious, comparison.)

Gun suicides are linked clearly to income, to outside factors of loss and adversity, to impulse and to proximity. It's complex.

To add another dimension, there has been an increased focus on issues of mental health supports in rural and Indigenous communities. Foundations such as @domoreag have done tremendous work to advocate and fight against stigma, raise awareness and promote change. It's critical.

Tristen Durocher and @walkingwithour1 deliberately and courageously raised specific awareness of the suicide crisis in Indigenous communities and more particularly northern Saskatchewan. It's heartbreaking.

So my question is this: how can we, in good conscience, advocate for an increased focus on mental health issues, (which includes suicide as the ultimate terrible end result of mental illness) -- without *also* formally acknowledging the role of guns?

About one quarter of Canadian suicides are gun suicide. But, recent research suggests that those who choose a gun are doing so as a result of an acute crisis, not a chronic crisis. Not lengthy illness, but sudden. Impulsive. And, lethal. Intervention is difficult.

So what's my point? The whole conversation about gun ownership, registry, provincial political attitudes, law-abiding gun ownership, regulations, liberal bashing -- whatever. I don't really care where you stand on any of that. Hire a pro-gun Chief Firearms Officer. Sure.

But make damned sure that it becomes part of his mandate to face, head on, the *very clear* the role of guns in lethal suicides. Do not sidestep, prevaricate or pretend that's a minor side issue and only for those who are seriously ill.
* It. Is. Not.*

If we have a Chief Firearms Officer with an office that does not produce policy and a massive advocacy campaign that deliberately tackles gun suicide as a crucial part of its mandate, then the office is a political sham.

In the end, responsible gun ownership ALSO must include a clear recognition that gun suicide is real, it's lethal, and it must be addressed head on *by the community that advocates for guns*. Which includes me. So here is my voice. Where is yours?