Of course, if guns are not accessible, criminals will still have them, and use them to overpower those who do not. That is why we fight for the second amendment- it protects the law-abiding from law breakers. Not perfectly, but pretty well. Mental problems and lack of character are the core issues and causes of gun violence. However, we refuse to address that effectively- for example medical privacy prevents known mentally disturbed people from being added to the ATF database of people who are not allowed to buy firearms. Of course that does not prevent criminals from stealing firearms. But if there were no firearms in existence, it would be true that there would be no firearms deaths. Then, the criminals would use knives, swords, bombs, poisons, vehicles, rocks, fists, hammers, ice-picks, frying pans, rope, spears, arrows and any of an endless of things that become murder weapons in the hands of a person intent on murder. I think the record for a mass killing was some 60,000 people in Constantinople long ago. But of course, such killings are not relevant to the anti-gun mind, that seems to assume that if a murderer can't get his hands on a gun to do the job with- he will just give up and go home...... In 2017, per the FBI- 403 people total were killed by rifles, which includes all calibers and styles including the dreaded AR-15. 1591 were killed with knives and cutting instruments. Seems your kitchen is truly an arsenal of deadly weapons.... and probably needs to be raided in the interests of public safety. 696 were killed by use of personal weapons- meaning, hands, fists, feet.... So apparently, we are all armed with deadly weapons, limited only by our size, strength and character.... 467 were killed with blunt objects- meaning hammers, clubs, candlesticks, rocks... Which are such common items as to be available everywhere and would defy regulation.... There is however, ONE common denominator that is a weapon, present is all these deaths- and that is a person whose mental state is set on murder and violence. Without that single factor, all those statistics vaporize. Now if you can address and remove that one element common to all murders- murders will cease, regardless of the number and nature of weapons available. WHY do we not address that? In part, because we are distracted by people insisting that guns are the cause- and we should focus on controlling the guns to control the murderers. That entire argument is a fallacy from the start. It appeals to fears and emotions and disregards logic and obvious facts in evidence- and promotes ignorance. Nobody ever solved a problem that way.
Paradoxically, recidivism rate in USA is much higher then in Norway. Prisons in USA break people. Prisons in Norway rehabilitate people. Here.
A failed attempt at one ending their own existence does not mean a better qualify of life, however. A failed attempt can lead to an even worse quality of life if the individual winds up paralyzed, in a persistent vegetative state, or with permanent brain damage.
Firearms amount for less than half of all successful suicide attempts committed annually in the united states. This is a confirmed fact.
Current technology and material resources are sufficient to sustain all people -- not just the fittest. Terrible as it is, I would/may have been a fan of Social Darwinism had I not been "unfit". I am one of tens of millions of people with disability.
A claim that cannot be substantiated with actual evidence. All of which is meaningless when there is no more room for them. The homeless encampments in the state of California are proof of this, and even they are overcrowded. Fitness, or the perceived lack thereof, does not change the reality of the matter. Where is the actual evidence of such? The truth of the matter is that human lives do not have any innate value, except to those who are able to exploit them for their own personal gains. Human lives are regarded as nothing more than commodities to be bought, sold, and traded, as if they were nothing more than a pack of batteries at a convenience store. They are provided with nothing but lip service and meaningless gestures to lead them to believe they matter to someone, but in truth they do not matter at all. They are nothing more than pawns to be played and weaponized for political points, and lose all importance once they can no longer be exploited. Take David Hogg for example, who has largely dropped off the map and fallen into obscurity.
About 85% of people in USA believe in Old Testament -- all Jews, Christians and Muslims. Old Testament absolutely rejects the idea of Social Darwinism. Sadly, had I been fully able, I may have accepted Social Darwinism.
What does the Old Testament have to say with regard to providing help to others when there are no resources available to provide said help? Whether or not it is accepted, it is ultimately reality. Meaning such are the confines that must be worked within by everyone who intends to be present. Meaning those who cannot get assistance must find their own way in life, rather than expecting someone else to simply give it to them.
According to Judaism, charity is a Positive Law -- similar to taxes. Christianity and Islam have similar laws.
Such does not address the question relating to an absence of necessary resources, simply because there are not enough said resources to help everyone that is in need. The world simply does not have enough producers to provide care for absolutely everyone in the world that needs it. The notion of social darwinism becomes far easier to accept as being valid, when one recognizes and realizes that they and their existence holds no intrinsic value, either to themselves, or to those that are known to themselves.
US GDP per capita is about 100 times absolute theoretical minimum. In Ancient World, GDP per capita was about 1.5 times the theoretical minimum.
How come suicides didn't drop like that in Australia or the UK after their gun bans? They stayed the same.
Then how come Australia and the UK didn't see a drop in suicides when they implemented their gun laws? Their suicides and for that matter, their murder rate stayed the same.
Australia's ban was designed to take the guns that were most useful for committing mass shootings out of circulation (by that measure it was a phenomenal success). It wasn't designed to address suicide. Do you really think someone needs a semiautomatic firearm to commit gun suicide? Do you really think the typical gun suicide victim shoots themselves multiple times? The UK banned handguns but less than 1% owned them before the ban. So you wouldn't expect it to have much of an effect one way or the other.
The number of mass shootings that have been committed in the aftermath of the Port Arthur incident would suggest it has not actually been a "phenomenal success" at all.
Australia was free of mass shootings for 22 years following the buyback and then a farmer used a gun to murder several members of his own family in 2018. He was able to obtain a semiautomatic rifle due to a loophole in the law for farmers. But having a mass shooting once every few decades is preferable to having several mass shootings a year.
What of the Darwin incident that occurred the following year? What of the Osmington shooting of the same year? What of the number of shootings committed that are one victim short of meeting the qualification of being considered a mass shooting? How many more supposedly prohibited firearms remain in public hands and unaccounted for in the nation of Australia, and able to be utilized for the purpose of committing mass shootings? How many firearms has the government of the nation of Australia lost track of and cannot account for? How many unregistered firearms are still present?
