Which has always been the case, even prior to the firearm-related restrictions implemented in the wake of the Port Arthur incident. Why are the firearm-related restrictions in the nation of Mexico and the nation of Venezuela not working? Why is there still firearm smuggling occurring in the nation of Japan?
There are no firearm apologists present. Only those who actually understand the matter at hand, and do not blame an inanimate object for the evils of the individuals.
Fewer gun deaths perhaps but that doesn't mean people aren't getting their lives cut short by other means in those other developed nations. Lets say in country A, ninety people are killed by being shot and ten people are killed by other means (stabbings, stranglings, being bludgeoned, being rammed with vehicles, ect.) that's a total of 100 people who got their lives cut short. In country B, ten people are killed by being shot and a hundred and ninety people are killed by other means, that's a total of 200 people who got their lives cut short. Even though country B has far fewer gun deaths it has a much greater number of people that get their lives cut short overall, twice as many as in country A.
how they view it is irrelevant, it is a sin under nearly all if not all circumstances but then lots of things are sin so who cares. just for clarification on the word sin. it developed from the world of archery. essentially it means anything that isn't a bullseye
No. There are minor sins, severe sins, and very severe sins. That is the case in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Suicide and murder are some of the worst sins.
If tobacco was banned, its consumption would decrease drastically. Of course, some people would obtain it illegally, but its consumption would decrease drastically.
Illicit narcotic substances such as heroin and opioids are prohibited in the united states. Yet the country is currently being consumed by an opioid crisis, with the number of deaths due to overdose increasing rather than decreasing. Prohibitions do not work. They simply make the public want the prohibited good all the more, to the point they are willing to support criminal activity to get what they want. There are no exceptions to such.
Had they not been banned, the crisis would have been much worse. Perhaps millions lives would have been lost.
Ninety seven percent of the suicides committed annually around the world prove the above claim to be false.
As was stated on the part of yourself, incidents that are not documented cannot be counted. Therefore what could have been is of no relevance. Only what has occurred, that being abject failure on the part of total and absolute prohibitions, exist to truly be counted.
All the modern drugs have been available for hundreds of years in one form or another and the drug crisis was never as bad as it is today. On the other hand, if people choose to do stupid stuff, why should the government stop them and why should I pay the bills for it?
The Society has a duty to disabled people who can not make good decisions. The Society has a duty to physically disabled people. All Citizens must pay taxes.
Society has no such duty. Family has somewhat of such a moral obligation but I have no obligation to take care of the children of another. If I choose to, in my own community, in my church, with my neighbors, etc., that's a wonderful thing - it's called charity. But society, in the form of government, has zero responsibility to care for the individual. I can provide the court cases to back it up, if you'd like.
Which State? This Country? A moral obligation? By what moral Authority? The Constitution? If so explain and show where in the Constitution or in the history of SCOTUS rulings, that moral authority is codified. BTW, is it moral, to infringe on the rights of the majority to ‘maybe’ have some hope to make it difficult for someone from carrying out a decision of self harm?
Then stop claiming that society has a duty to provide care to others, when there is no evidence to support such a ridiculous, nonsensical claim.
Then the state can control the citizens. If I am supporting someone then I get to tell them how to live so as to not abuse my support. We pay taxes for a limited government, as defined in the US Constitution. We pay for government to do what we cannot do for ourselves. Caring for ourselves is something we can do without government. Can you find any authority in your living version of the Constitution that allows the government to care for individual citizens? I don't see it in my original, as amended, version. I'll concede, though, that the States could provide caregiver services if the state's constitution allows it.
I believe, the Society has a duty to provide well-being to all members. Moral values can not be proven or disproved.
