This line of argument "For a sufficiently [blah] ...." rarely adds value, be it "a sufficiently smart compiler ..." or "sufficiently motivated individual".

These add little to no value because in most of the cases where such a line of argument is put forward, there is a sizable set that do not satisfy the "for a sufficiently [blah]" condition. Not only are these sets sizeable, sometimes they are the particularly relevant set.

Many suicidal people have been talked out of it. So its not hard to believe that lack of access to quick measures would have influence.

Digression: I blame movies for popularizing shooting at one's temple. That's how many end up with a botched attempt. If one must, one should take out the brain stem as quickly as possible.

> Anyone sufficiently motivated to kill themselves will find a way.

This is untrue, and it's dangerously untrue.

> The only thing reducing access to firearms will do is change the method of suicide.

Method substitution tends not to happen, or it takes some years to happen.

We know this from some natural experiments. For example, car exhaust fumes used to be a common method, and then we got cleaner engines and catalytic converters and again we saw a long lasting drop in deaths by suicide.

And even if every person did substitute a different method it's likely they'd be using a more survivable method.

Knife, rope, car accident, drug overdose are significantly less likely to be successful than a gunshot. They also take longer, and the longer it takes, the longer the person has to reconsider.

Also, you don't often see a knife, rope, car, drug overdose, skydiving, or assisted suicide used in a murder-suicide scenario. (Murder-suicide by car certainly happens, but not as often as with a gun.)

Hm; I stand corrected then. Thanks, guys, especially for pointing out the car exhaust and other things. All of those things are true (about additional time to be talked out, etc). I was coming from the perspective of someone who followed Sir Terry Pratchett's campaign for legal suicide in response to things like Alzheimer's, where it isn't the kind of thing one is likely to be talked out of. In that case, of course, people are campaigning for legal euthanasia, so it's a bit different.

We know from interviews with survivors that many people don't have a "diagnosed mental illness", but have something more like "rapid onset dispair". And that more people survive if they don't have easy access to their prefered method.

For example, in the UK this has meant phasing out some ineffective and dangerous medication; reducing the pack sizes of others; and encouraging doctors to safer prescribing of opioids.