Leviticus 19:14 "Do not place a stumbling block before the blind". Sadly too many Americans of Christian Faith fight for the Second Amendment. As long as guns are accessible, people with mental problems will obtain them.
And so long as those with mental problems with to end their own existence, they will find a way to go about doing such. The nation of Japan is evidence of such, with an annual number of suicides that easily matches the number of firearm-related deaths in the united states. The matter of suicide is not a firearms-related issue, as attempting to restrict them to any degree that would qualify as "meaningful" would not serve to reduce the number of suicides the united states experiences in a given year. The method of choice may change, but the end result will always be the same. Such is a constant, nor a mere variable. Once an individual decides to end their own existence, they have made their decision and there is nothing more that can be done about it to make them decide against it. All such endeavors do is serve to waste and deplete finite resources that could be better utilized elsewhere in other applications, while ignoring the underlying causes that serve as motivation for an individual making the conscious decision to end their own existence.
That number of gun deaths in a developed country is horrifying especially considering the very limited utility of guns in the modern world.
The nation of Japan proves otherwise. The number of murders and suicides committed without firearms proves otherwise.
First, the united states is not a developed nation. Second, it does not matter how limited the utility of firearms in the modern world may be, so long as their use by private citizens is legal. In this particular case, self defense against the threat of harm posed by others who do not value human life.
Screw it.. gun rights are more important than those who suffered.. gun rights keep all Americans from suffering!.
Japan's rate of suicide is higher than the U.S's rate of suicide, despite not having firearms in Japan.
Japan could have a higher suicide rate because an unusually high number of people attempt it. That doesn't change the fact that a suicide attempt with a gun is more likely to be successful. Suppose that 1000 people in country A attempt suicide with a gun. 90% succeed so there are 900 suicides. Suppose that 2000 people in country B attempt suicide without a gun. 50% succeed so there are 1000 suicides. If all other factors are equal then the country with more guns will have more suicides.
"After we controlled for these characteristics through conditional logistic regression, the presence of one or more guns in the home was found to be associated with an increased risk of suicide (adjusted odds ratio, 4.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 8.5).... "Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it might someday be used in a suicide. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:467–72.)" https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705 The study found that suicide victims were almost 5 times more likely to have lived in homes where guns were kept.
The anti-gunners are anti-freedom and support a police state to control the masses. Freedom can be messy.
But I thought you claimed that suicide was caused by guns being easily available. Japanese culture isn't the issue.
Then change how the united states regards suicides, rather than struggling in vain to try and keep suicidal individuals alive against their will.
The work of Arthur Kellermann once again? Has it not been demonstrated to a sufficient degree, that his work does not actually say what it is claimed to say? Arthur Kellermann admitted in his research that his findings only applied to those who are already prone to engaging in illegal activities, such as substance abuse, dealing in illicit narcotic substances, or domestic violence. As well as noting that being single, and renting an apartment rather than owning a home, were factors more associated with criminal activity than firearms ownership.
And yet there is no evidence to demonstrate it is legal firearm owners who are responsible for the majority of firearm-related deaths in the united states. If such evidence did indeed exist, it would have been presented by now.
They're at least indirectly responsible if they support the lax gun laws which result in criminals being able to easily access firearms.
You're probably just parroting some false claims about the study that you read on a gun apologist website. Feel free to read the study itself to find out what it actually does say.
Nearly half of all firearms found in the possession of prohibited individuals in the state of California, were originally sold in the state of California to begin with. Is it going to be argued that the firearm-related restrictions in the state of California are simply not strict enough when they are demonstrating a nearly fifty percent failure rate? Could the case be made that anyone who supports ending the so-called "war on drugs" is at least indirectly responsible for every death that stems from the use of illicit narcotic substances?
