I think you’d need to show that suicide is a bad thing before getting to invested in preventing it.
Japan has a suicide rate a 133% that of the US and yet zero gun ownership. The country is neither hell on Earth nor heaven. More importantly, it seems to show that Christianity prevents more suicides than a lack of guns does. If you’d take away everyone’s guns to stop suicides, why wouldn’t you impose Christianity?
I didn’t realize that gun control and Christianity were the only two differences between Japan and the USA that might account for suicide rates. Thanks for fighting my ignorance.
Do you also feel that laws against theft, murder, etc. do not protect you, because criminals by their nature do not follow these laws?
First, guns exist and thrive because America was built on them. For better or worse, this is fact. We would be nowhere without them. They are not necessarily our future, but the rights we enjoy are wrapped up in this and the most important of freedoms, that of speech.
Guns are tools, no more, no less. They do not act independently of the will of their users, they make no decisions, they choose no sides.
What a few posters here and what the majority of pro-control folks glance over, and in fact what most people glance over, is the idea that we, or our parents if we are not of the age of majority, are responsible for our own actions.
If suicide by firearm is the highest, for instance, among a certian age range of young men, the issue isn’t the method, the issue at the root is how we deal both individually and societally with mental health. Sure, the young man may not blow his head off if there are no available guns, he may however descend into behavior that will kill him slowly and painfully and could perhaps take someone else along for the ride.
We refuse to accept the fact that some people are broken and need fixing. Klebold and Harris were examples of those ‘broken’ people.
They killed a lot of people because the parents couldn’t be bothered to take action, and, to be honest, the limp-wristed approach society has taken has left us with a tendency, via political correctness, to hog-tie parents thus preventing sometimes necessary and direct action. There was a place and time in America where guns were a part of every day life for almost everyone, yet the spree killings are a more recent thing.
Guns are demonized as a “Bad Thing” ™ but in reality are little more than a tool for a job. That job once was feeding one’s family and protecting hearth and home. Today, it is a tool of sport, as well as one of defense, no longer being necessary to feed one’s family, unless of course one so chooses. The fact that bad people misuse it is a concern, but the right of the good people outweighs and always should, the deeds of the miscreant.
I will grant, our media has glorified the gun, our music takes it one step further but the knee-jerk pendulum swing reaction to guns is straight out of left field, as are the reactions that the right-wing pro-gun crowd has to any minor perceived slight. All the rhetoric in the world will serve only to muddy an already murky issue and fail as it always does to bring needed clarity.
Criminals do not follow the law. See, that is why they are criminals. They have shown through their actions, their disdain for the statutes that the rest of us follow. As such, the law provides consequences for the law breakers, but no protection for the rest of us except a false notion of security.
Don’t those “consequences” act as deterrents? If so, wouldn’t that be an actual benefit (actual improvement in safety) for the rest of us?
No they don’t. They keep those who would never cross that line from even coming to close to doing so, but otherwise, those intent on breaking the law will do so.
For an example, walk down the street in the worst part of town. Flash some money around and otherwise act the fool. If someone attempts to mug you, tell them that what they are doing is against the law and there will be consequences to be paid for their actions.
Let us know how much protection the laws gave you.
I didn’t say it provides absolute protection.
But are you seriously suggesting that all criminal laws are useless? That things wouldn’t get any worse if we legalize mugging/theft?
Wrong; making guns harder for the general public to get makes it harder for criminals to get them. America’s willingness to let itself be flooded with guns ensures that criminals in America and elsewhere have access to a cornucopia of guns.
No, its more like illegalizing violence of any kind for any reason.
So, if a mugger attacks you and you fight back YOU get in trouble with the law for violence.
Sure as hell won’t help YOU any, but it aint really likely to deter the mugger who was going to get violent anyway.
A) Why not go for both of them if you’re already pro- one? Or alternately, why not prioritise them by how many lives they save? I suspect you’ll find that Christianity saves more suicide lives than a lack of guns does.
B) What other suggestions do you have? Religion and guns are two differences. Do you have a third to throw on the pile?
One thing I haven’t seen touched on is the possibility of a child finding the gun and accidentally killing someone or themselves. I suspect this is what some people who want to ban guns want to prevent.
And it would work. As would trigger locks, locked gun cabinets, keeping ammo separate from the gun, teaching kids how to (not) handle guns, etc.
I’m all for restrictions on how easy it is to obtain firearms, but nothing that a gun ban is supposed to ‘solve’ strikes me as worth the effort. They either have dubious chances of working (crime), can be dealt with through education and basic safety measures (accidental shootings), or are ultimately unrelated to firearms (suicides).
I’m still having trouble understanding this point of view. In your ideal world, would everyone be free to attack you? And that’s OK as long as you’re also free to fight back?
Nope. I didn’t say that at all.
Which is why those cities with the most stringent controls are the safest gun free zones in the world. Another example is the efficiency of “gun free” school zones. Look how well they stop school shootings.
Smugness aside, people in the REAL world are free to attack you right now. The only thing that stops them is their conscience, or their would be victim.
You’re not going to make the effort to explain what you did intend to say? I guess I might as well stop trying to understand your viewpoint then…
Maybe by quoting it someone will read it instead of just saying “guns are bad” over and over.
Of course, and as usual, the OP is brushed aside so another multipage “Huh uh”/“Uh huh” fest can thrive. If only I could understand how the anti’s posts have any relation to the question asked…
Considering we began discussing the effectiveness of gun control laws, and have now moved into the overall criminal justice system, I can’t say that I am disappointed. My initial point was that gun control laws greatest/only effect is measured by those who obey and don’t plan on breaking the law anyway.
Gun Registration - Criminals show no compunction about not registering their guns. As such the only folks who register are not the ones who commit the crimes anyway.
Gun Bans/Confiscation - Again, the only people who turn in their guns are the folks who wouldn’t break the law anyway. The criminals out there are now happy as they have less armed citizens to worry about.
Assault Weapon Bans - A stupid law that targeted guns that are involved in less than 1% of crimes. Not a single gun was pulled “off da street” and new models were created in order to thwart it. Completely ineffective.
Perhaps you can suggest a gun control law that you think has worked well in either saving lives or stopping crime?
How about I just save him a lot of time searching?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167