First, and most importantly, it's missing any hint that a perspective might exist recognizing a right to suicide. Second, it fails to provide a single reason justifying the paternalism underlying gun bans enacted to prevent suicide in particular ("You can't have a gun because you might use it to kill yourself"). And, third, there's something glaringly missing from the recital of success rates for different suicide methods:
More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.
"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.
That's right - no mention of hanging, which has a lethality rate of up to 70%. Mention of this fact might have undermined the political point Stobbe was trying to make. (The article also fails to address the paradoxically high suicide rate in gun-free Japan - over twice that of the United States.)
As I have previously written, there is some evidence that reducing guns correlates to reducing suicides. What I object to is taking the "more guns means more suicide" statistic as license to argue in favor of coercive suicide prevention policies, such as gun bans, without examining in the slightest the philosophical basis for such a policy.