This is a rather ridiculous assertion. Gun control activists are angry that NRA lobbied to have the CDC stop producing biased gun studies designed to reach a certain conclusion. And why should the CDC, which is the federal epidemiological agency, be involved in studying crime? Crime is not a public health issue, sorry, no matter how much the left wishes it were so. It’s beyond CDC’s mandate, and Congress took appropriate action to keep them within their mandate.
We have lousy numbers on gun violence.
Why, in this sophisticated world of a data mining, where marketers can profile you within an inch of your life, can’t we track victims of violence? Not only the dead ones, who tragically are easier to count, but the ones who are shot but don’t die?
Could the answer, at least in part, be the massively powerful, heavily funded National Rifle Association?
Well, I for one am glad to see Chicago’s total handgun prohibition working so wonderfully as advertised. Certainly the NRA is responsible for guns being in Chicago where they are illegal no?  But either way, the allegation is totally false.  A quick search turns up this site, which links directory to Chicago police computers. You can search on all manner of crimes that happen in and out of schools in the City of Chicago. The data is there, for anyone who wants to compile it. The problem is that it’s no longer coming in a politically convenient package all wrapped up by the Clinton Administration’s CDC, and ready to use to push for more restrictions in a city where guns are already largely illegal.
“Why, in this sophisticated world of a data mining, where marketers can profile you within an inch of your life, can’t we track victims of violence?”
Because being 100% accurate costs too much and the numbers are, forgive the phrase, close enough for government work.
The funny thing is that IIRC, the last study done by the CDC on this issue showed that gun control had little to no effect on crime. The report was favorable to the NRA and gun rights activists, and yet they still pushed for the legislation to prevent the CDC from performing such studies; the issue of the government’s abuse of power was more important, even though the study helped the cause.
I doubt very highly the Brady Campaign or any others of their ilk would act so magnanimously if they were in a similar position.
The tragic mass shooting in Pittsburgh last night further illustrates the need for gun control in the United States. Allegheny Police Superintendent Charles Moffatt said in a press conference today that the bullets purchased by George Sodini to use in his semi-automatic weapons were illegal under the assault weapons ban that expired under pressure from then-President George W. Bush and the National Rifle Association. In other words, had the assault weapons ban still been in effect it would have been much more difficult – and illegal – for Sodini to have purchased the fire power needed to carry out his attacks against women at the LA Fitness Center. Sodini, who took his own life, is clearly responsible for the violence that occurred but President Bush and the NRA also have blood on their hands for allowing people like Sodini to get their hands on dangerous weapons of mass destruction that have no legitimate place in our society. President Obama and Congress must do more to reinstate the assault weapons ban and enact other sensible gun control measures to protect Americans. Religious leaders who want to become more involved in this important issue should visit the website of God Not Guns for additional information.
Related Link: “God, Guns & American Violence: Turning Weapons Into Ploughshares”
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2009/07/god-guns-american-violence-turning-weapons-into-ploughshares.html
“Allegheny Police Superintendent Charles Moffatt said in a press conference today that the bullets purchased by George Sodini to use in his semi-automatic weapons were illegal under the assault weapons ban…”
Wow. I guess if you’re going to spew BS you might as well just go for the gold right out of the gate.
The AWB didn’t have anything to do with bullets or ammunition at all.
I understand these issues are complicated and sometimes difficult to understand but the assault weapons ban did in fact outlaw “high capacity ammunition magazines,†as the police said yesterday.
Like hell it did. It outlawed new ones for civilians. I managed to pick up more than a few standard capacity magazines when the ban was in full effect, and except for the Glock mag, none of them were any more expensive under the ban than they are now. Magazines are too simple devices to successfully regulate in the manner the feds chose to regulate them.
You just backtracked on your point and made mine. You may disagree with me but such weapons are immoral to own and as a minister I say with great confidence that God is opposed to such weapons.
He talked to you about it did he? My point was the federal regulation did not in the least bit impact availability, because it was pointless, symbolic regulation, yet you people act as if it made those firearms disappear off the face of the earth. It did not. So why renew it?
Scripture tells that those who put their faith in weapons instead of God will always create conditions where violence escalates. Last year the Brady Center noted that: “In the four years since the federal assault weapons ban expired on September 15, 2004, at least 163 people have been killed and 185 wounded with military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, including at least 38 police officers killed or wounded.†I would hope that you would condemn the availability of weapons used to kill cops and that are also used in these terrible mass shootings. Otherwise, you stand with the killers. Thank you for taking the time to discuss this issue with me and for conceding that my point was correct regarding the ban.
Except I don’t use mine to kill cops, Reverend. I use mine for competitive shooting. Yes, they have sporting purposes. They always have. They are also handy for self-defense, otherwise police wouldn’t keep them in their patrol car.
There’s a difference between violent and predatory and violent and protective. By your argument, we should disarm the police and military too. Maybe you believe that, but it’s an extremist minority viewpoint, and I would argue if you ever call 911, you’re a hypocrite, because you’re asking other men to come and engage in violence on your behalf.
There is no God, only Man.
Reverend, why didn’t you, or any minister, or anyone, try and reach out to this twisted individual? That would solve almost all of our problems right there. Whatever happened to “love your fellow man?”
This guy had this disgusting act PLANNED out. For a year. And EVEN “chickened out” in his own words several times.
PLANNED.
If not a gun, then what, a bomb? An SUV into a crowded park or outdoor mall?
He could have just turned off the lights and swung around a chainsaw, or brought in a tank of gasoline and a lighter.
It’s not the object. It’s the person.
Come and get them, “Reverend.”
It is people like you, who seek control over others, that has made me become an atheist.
I do not put all of my faith in my weapon, but I have faith it will work and I put faith in my training.
I also put faith in the fact that I really don’t WANT to employ violence and would rather de-escalate or avoid risky situations as much as possible.
God didn’t do it for me. I did.
Using divine authority as an excuse to exterminate your enemies.
Where have we seen that before?
You people think we are just automatrons who just pull out our guns at the first sign/sight of trouble.
Had you cared to actually research firearms safety, you’d probably realize that wouldn’t be the case.
The lights are out. You don’t fire on a muzzle flash, because you really have no idea what is in front of the muzzle flash or behind it. You CAN run. Hopefully, you’ll find the light switch and be able to draw on the bastard. Or, you’ll find the door, push it open, and allow people to quickly find their way out. We’re fine with either of those outcomes.
Mr. McCurrie, the majority of senseless, tragic firearm deaths in this country are male suicides. It has been that way for many years.
Therefore, if the prevention of senseless, tragic firearm deaths is your main priority, then this should not be a gun ownership or regulation issue for you. This should instead be an issue for you of outreach towards men and boys at risk of suicide.
The good reverend forgets an eye for an eye.
I have to also wonder why Jesus allowed his disciples to carry swords. He may have admonished Peter in interfering with his fate, but one wonder what Peter was doing with a sword in the first place if Jesus frowned on having weapons for self-defense.
I apologize for the misspelling of your name, Mr. Currie.
Jesus said (from Matt 5):
“38 ‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.†39But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.”
If you actually think Jesus wanted his followers to carry weapons I urge you to attend Sunday school. I also provided a link to my recent sermon on this topic that talks quite a bit about why nearly every church across the globe works to rid the world of guns and other weapons.
Rev. Currie,
First, if you are going to make blanket statements about “almost every church in the world” wanting to ban weapons, you’ll need to provide what we like to call “facts” in support.
Secondly, perhaps you don’t understand Scriptural critical reading, but “turning the other cheek” in a cultural context refers to not replying to an insult to one’s honor with violence. I am unaware with any major Christian denomination or Scriptural scholar that interprets that as barring the use of violence in defense of oneself against unjustified attack.
That being the Scriptural support for the doctrine of “Just War” by the way.
Perhaps a bit more seminary time is in order?
I was answering the commenter who suggested an “eye for an eye†was Christian tradition when it is clearly not. Non violence is the way of Jesus. I assume you did not attend seminary and thus don’t have a theological education. That being the case, I would be happy to recommend books you might find useful that provide a truly critical read on Christian theology and violence.
Walter Wink’s short book is a good place to start:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Nonviolence-Third-Way-Facets/dp/0800636090
As for Christian churches / denominations that support gun control, I am happy to provide examples: The Roman Catholic Church, The World Council of Churches (alone the RCC and the WCC represent the vast majority of the world’s Christians), and the National Council of Churches USA (which represents 45 million American Christians in many denominations). You can also count the United Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, etc. as supporters of gun control. In fact, the only Christian denominations openly opposed to gun control are conservative evangelical churches that make up a tiny minority of the world’s Christians.
Finally, the concept of “Just War” is another issue and is more complex than the one sentence you offered.
Astonishingly, I do have a bit of theological education, though not from seminary.
Thank you for the list of denoms.
Can we have an estimate on when are you going to answer the commenters asking you about outreach towards suicidal men — by you specifically in your community, and by gun ownership opponents in general?
Or at the very minimal least some kind of clear acknowledgment that you’ve read our comments and understand our points?
Wantedd to make sure my memory was correct, but I would note that the churches cited allow for “personal self-defense” as biblically allowable, which was the topic at issue, not “gun control”.
The two are hardly synonymous.
Further, as far as their gun control stances go, PC(USA) (of which I am most familiar) and the rest to my knowledge do not attempt to justify their support of the AWB and handgun bans on specific Scriptural references at all, they simply restate VPC’s talking points and refer to such restrictions as (against all evidence as it turns out) a way to reduce gun violence.
So, still looking for your Scriptural and Theological basis for considering personal self-defense unjust.
…but feel free to introduce irrelevencies again. I enjoy digression as much as the next guy.
My comment was, in fact, about gun control. And again, you are welcome to listen to my sermon on the topic for more:
God, Guns & American Violence: Turning Weapons Into Ploughshares
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2009/07/god-guns-american-violence-turning-weapons-into-ploughshares.html
Here is the PCUSA statement on gun control:
http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-gun.htm
And as the National Council of Churches has stated:
“It is increasingly evident that guns, rather than providing the security people seek and rightfully deserve, only add further to our sense of unease and danger. The escalation of gun violence compels us to call for an end to the manufacture and easy distribution of such instruments of destruction. A faith that expresses compassion for all God’s children is opposed to violence in all forms.”
As for the question regarding suicidal people, I often provide pastoral care to emotionally disturbed people and many over the course of over twenty years in social services and ministry who are suicidal. It would be safe to argue that is true for all clergy. The use of guns in suicide is another reason such weapons should be limited in terms of availability.
“In 1976, this statement was re-affirmed, but also specifically worded to “. . .not cover shotguns and rifles used legitimately by sportsmen.
intentionally work toward removing handguns and assault weapons
Being that semi-auto ‘assault weapons’ are the primary firearm used in competitive shooting nationwide, these statements are contradictory.
As was stated, they’re relying on ‘talking points’ and not facts to base their policy on.
I wonder how many members of those said denominations own the very firearms they’re supposed to be against. You know those ‘bitter’ people who cling to their God and their guns?
But Mr. Currie, that is not the point. The point is that the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths are male suicides. I will try to explain why this should matter to you clearly:
Virtually no one is opposed to the idea of outreach towards suicidal men and boys.
However, a great many people are opposed to your efforts to reduce gun ownership.
As a result, a significant amount of your resources must be expended on countering their opposition.
Therefore, you could expect to achieve more and greater prevention of senseless, tragic firearm deaths by engaging in outreach towards suicidal men and boys instead of mutual opposition with firearm ownership and deregulation advocates.
In fact, you could even ask them to work with you in outreach towards suicidal men and boys, and they would very likely agree and assist you, thereby multiplying your effectiveness in preventing senseless, tragic firearm deaths.
Men and boys would end up valuing themselves and their integrity more highly, and consequently would not only kill themselves less often, but be less likely to kill others as well.
What do you think, Mr. Currie?
Here are the real facts about guns:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/2008-death-and-injury-stat-sheet.pdf
As Acksiom said, YOU aren’t doing ENOUGH.
Instead of fixing the root problem, you go for a mere tool.
Then, when they cut their own wrists, or immolate themselves, what are YOU to do?
There are 200 million guns in the hands of some 35-40% of Americans. If the vast majority of American gun owners were really a problem, the numbers would be astronomical. As it is, you could provide numbers on automobile misuse which would make the head spin. I mean, leaving the car idling in the garage is a leading cause of suicide death too. And WHO studies show that pesticide poisoning in a serious problem.
The vast majority of Americans responsibly handle firearms. I’m not about to agree that we restrict everyone, effectively turning the country into a low level prison / mental assylyum, where the people can’t have anything dangerous because they might misuse it.
That’s not the world I want to live in, and if it’s what you think your religion mandates you can take your religion and shove it along with the rest of the religious right agenda. No thank you. Not for me. I’ll take our secular republic, thank you very much.
I don’t agree that the good Reverend isn’t doing enough. In his mind, he’s doing plenty. Looking at his ministry, I think there’s many laudable things he is doing. I wouldn’t paint with such a broad brush as to deny his good deeds.
But I think it’s completely reasonable to have a different conception of the righteousness of self-defense than he does, and I fail to see how the imposition of his religious views on me through force of law, as he advocates, is any different than the religious right forcing their views on social issues such as gay marriage, sodomy, abortion or any other myriad of issues typically associated with the right.
I prefer to be left alone by the religious right, or left. I respect your faith, and good deeds, and may even agree with much of it. But ultimately we have a secular government, and once you remove yourself from persuading through scripture, faith, and preaching, and instead hijack or advocate hijacking the force of law, you’re done with me.
Actually, I don’t believe my faith opinions should have any more or less sway in the public square than someone whose opinions are informed through other avenues. I believe in public debate and democratic systems. I’m happy to put these issues before representative bodies – like Congress – and the courts, when needed. Thus I am pleased that today the United States Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to a seat on the United States Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, was one of the most qualified people to be nominated to the nation’s highest court in the last one hundred years. Her nomination drew 68 votes – all Democrats and a small number of Republicans. Sadly, the majority of Republicans, towing the line of the National Rifle Association and extremist voices from the Religious Right and others, opposed the nomination. Nevertheless, an overwhelming number of senators supported the nomination. The Supreme Court will benefit from her experiences and judicial philosophy. Today was a victory for America and a defeat for extremists like the NRA.
Thank to those who have respectfully engaged in this discussion with me today. At this point, I don’t think my further participation on this site will further inform the debate.
Judge Sotomayor, nominated by President Obama, was one of the most qualified people to be nominated to the nation’s highest court in the last one hundred years.
Hyperbole much? Let’s not get crazy here. I might be willing to accept an argument along the lines that he was more qualified than the person she’s replacing, but saying she among the “most qualified” I think is a bold statement.
As U.S. Senator Bob Menendez noted, Judge Sotomayor has “more qualifications in terms of federal experience than any justice nominated in the last 100 years.”
I just offer the facts.
Yeah, because Senators are well renowned for just stating the simple facts, rather than delivering up politically charged hyperbole.
So Rev. Howabout the fact that 70% of those murdered w/ firearms (most of those ‘teens’ the Brady’s like to include) had prior criminal histories and were involved in criminal activity at the time? Or the fact that 80-90% of the murderers had criminal histories?
Those are facts you won’t find from the Brady Campaign. They would rather people believe it’s the 99%+ of legal firearm owners who aren’t committing any crimes.
Criminals should not get guns, I agree, but you make it so easy for them. The NRA is basically an advocacy organization for criminals and terrorists. I would dispute your overall facts, however, and note you cite no legitimate source of statics.
Having said that, I do agree that too many young people are involved in criminal activity and that’s why I support additional treatment for drug addiction and more funding for schools. You might not agree with me on gun control but I would encourage you to be an advocate for public education and universal health care that includes drug treatment and mental health treatment. Reducing gun violence will take more than one approach.
“Statistics†was the word I meant to type in that second sentence.
Criminals should not get guns, I agree, but you make it so easy for them. The NRA is basically an advocacy organization for criminals and terrorists.
In which case you’re saying that I, and my 10,000 or so readers, and four million NRA members are criminals and terrorists. This is why we cannot have a dialog with your side of the issue. Step one toward dialog is to stop believing and spewing statements like that. Step two is to recognize our interests as legitimate, even if you don’t agree with many of them. Then maybe there can be some dialog about tackling violent crime. But if that’s that attitude you’re going to come to us with, we’re not going to listen to you, and we’re going to keep destroying your movement politically.
The NRA has opposed background checks, worked to allow assault rifles that are essentially weapons of mass destruction to be put on the streets, and has even opposed back ground checks for those on the Terrorist Watch list attempting to purchase firearms.
If the shoe fits….
We’re talking about a constitutional right here. There is no constitutional right that can be removed by getting onto a secret government list. If you want to drop the nonsense and really talk, I think a lot of us are willing. But you have to drop the nonsense first. Assault weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. They are a legal fabrication that did not exist before the anti-gun folks came up with the term. They are ordinary firearms owned by millions of Americans. I think you know this. We’re not talking about machine guns here.
For the record, NRA supported the instant background checks we have today. What they opposed was the Brady waiting period. NRA supported that much to the chagrin of their more extreme members, I might add.
Understand my goal is an activist is to send you folks into the dustbin of history alongside the Womens Christian Temperance Movement, who also made some quite valid observations about the social ills caused by alcohol abuse, but who chose to remedy the problem by prohibiting alcohol. You’ve already lost on gun prohibition. That’s pretty much off the table, but you want to get as close to it as you can. We’re not going to let that happen. You can insult us all you want, but at the end of the day, we’re going to win this right for now, and for future generations.
Well it’s good to know that the good Reverend has no problem throwing Due Process under the bus along w/ other inherent rights.
Please, Mr. Currie, since you’re continuing the conversation after all, may I too have my respectful treatment of you reciprocated with a meaningful response to the following, which I have reposted here for your convenience?
But Mr. Currie, that is not the point. The point is that the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths are male suicides. I will try to explain why this should matter to you clearly:
Virtually no one is opposed to the idea of outreach towards suicidal men and boys.
However, a great many people are opposed to your efforts to reduce gun ownership.
As a result, a significant amount of your resources must be expended on countering their opposition.
Therefore, you could expect to achieve more and greater prevention of senseless, tragic firearm deaths by engaging in outreach towards suicidal men and boys instead of mutual opposition with firearm ownership and deregulation advocates.
In fact, you could even ask them to work with you in outreach towards suicidal men and boys, and they would very likely agree and assist you, thereby multiplying your effectiveness in preventing senseless, tragic firearm deaths.
Men and boys would end up valuing themselves and their integrity more highly, and consequently would not only kill themselves less often, but be less likely to kill others as well.
What do you think, Mr. Currie?
“You might not agree with me on gun control but I would encourage you to be an advocate for public education and universal health care that includes drug treatment and mental health treatment. Reducing gun violence will take more than one approach.”
I’m confused. If this is really your position, then why aren’t you even acknowledging just the mere existence of my suggestion to invite your opponents to contribute to outreach towards suicidal men and boys on your part?
Let alone meaningfully addressing it?
I agree with you that more needs to be done to prevent suicides. As I said in response to your question before, the use of guns in suicide is another reason such weapons should be limited in terms of availability. I also wrote here that I support additional treatment for drug addiction and more funding for schools. You might not agree with me on gun control but I would encourage you to be an advocate for public education and universal health care that includes drug treatment and mental health treatment. Reducing gun violence will take more than one approach.
Here’s some additional info that might help with your question:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/issues/gvstats/suicide/
Gun Violence Statistics and Studies
FIREARMS AND SUICIDE
Keeping a firearm in the home triples the risk of suicide and increases the risk of suicide with a firearm by a factor of 171. Thirty-four percent of U. S. households contain a gun2, and half of gun-owning households don’t lock up their guns, including 40 percent of households with kids under age 183.
•Suicide attempts with firearms are much more likely to be fatal than attempts with other methods. Firearms are used in only 5% of all suicide attempts, but more than 90% of the attempts are fatal. In comparison, drugs or cutting are the methods used in 85% of suicide attempts, but the attempt is fatal only 3% of the time.4
•Too many people die from firearm suicides in the U.S. In 2006, 16,883 U.S. residents killed themselves with a firearm, including 2,040 young people (ages 10-24).5 To see a breakdown of firearm suicides by age, click here. To see an overview of the problem of suicide in the United States, click here.
•If suicide is attempted with a firearm, it is almost certain the person will die. Many fewer people make it to the hospital than would be the case if another method were used. Consequently, the number of hospitalizations for firearm suicide attempts is much lower than the number of deaths. In 2006, only 4,291 people survived an attempt to kill themselves with a gun and made it to the hospital. To see a breakdown of suicide attempts with firearms by age, click here.
•Firearm suicide is a problem among young people. Almost 50 percent of youth suicides (ages 10-24) are committed with guns, making firearm suicide the 4th leading cause of death for this age group.6
•Youth who commit firearm suicide usually get the gun from a parent. Eighty-five percent of youths under age 18 who died by firearm suicide used a family member’s gun, usually a parent’s.7
•States with high household gun ownership have more suicides than states with low household gun ownership. The excess suicides are almost entirely due to firearms.8
•A gun in the home is more likely to be used in a suicide than to be used in self-defense. A gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.9
Updated April 2009
Endnotes:
1. Douglas Wiebe, “Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study,” Annals of Internal Medicine 41 (2003):771-782.
2. Tom Smith, Public Attitudes Towards the Regulation of Firearms (2006), (Chicago, Illinois: National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, 2007): Figure 2. See also, Lisa Hepburn, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, “The U. S. Gun Stock: Results from the 2004 National Firearms Survey,” Injury Prevention 13 (2007): 16. The number of guns in the home is estimated via telephone survey research. The U. S. does not register guns, so it is not possible to count them.
3. Renee Johnson, Tamera Coyne-Beasley, Carol Runyan, “Firearm Ownership and Storage Practices, U.S. Households, 1992–2002: A Systematic Review,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27:2 (2007): 175.
4. Matthew Miller, David Hemenway, Deborah Azrael, “Firearms and Suicide in the Northeast,” Journal of Trauma 57 (2004):626-632. (See also: E. D. Shenassa, S. N. Catlin, S. L Buka, “Lethality of Firearms Relative to Other Suicide Methods: A Population Based Study,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 57 (2003): 120-124. For public awareness materials on the importance of reducing access to the most lethal means of suicide — guns — click here.
5. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, with data from CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (2006, most recent year available), http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
6. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, with data from CDC National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (2006, most recent year available), http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
7. Harvard Injury Control Research Center, National Violent Injury Statistics Center, Characteristics of Victims of Suicide (Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, 2001). See also Harvard Injury Control Research Center, Means Matter: Suicide, Guns, and Public Health (Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health, 2007) available at: http://www.sprc.org/library/MeansMatter.pdf.
8.Matthew Miller, Steven Lippmann, Deborah Azrael, David Hemenway, “Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide across the 50 United States,” Journal of Trauma 62 (2007):1029-1035.
9. A. L. Kellermann, “Injuries and Deaths due to Firearms in the Home,” Journal of Trauma 45:2 (1998):263-67.
Thank you for replying, Mr. Currie. Unfortunately, however, you’re still not addressing my actual suggestion.
Again:
Virtually no one is opposed to the idea of outreach towards suicidal men and boys.
However, a great many people are opposed to your efforts to reduce gun ownership.
As a result, a significant amount of your resources must be expended on countering their opposition.
Therefore, you could expect to achieve more and greater prevention of senseless, tragic firearm deaths by engaging in outreach towards suicidal men and boys instead of mutual opposition with firearm ownership and deregulation advocates.
In fact, you could even ask them to work with you in outreach towards suicidal men and boys, and they would very likely agree and assist you, thereby multiplying your effectiveness in preventing senseless, tragic firearm deaths.
Men and boys would end up valuing themselves and their integrity more highly, and consequently would not only kill themselves less often, but be less likely to kill others as well.
What do you think, Mr. Currie?
No one disputes that suicides are a problem, and I don’t dispute that guns are often the tool. But how do you prevent that? You speak of “restricting access.” How do you do that when, in all likelihood, the vast majority of gun suicides are by people who have a clean background and who could pass a background check?
The only thing that’s going to work is prohibition, or near prohibition, and you know we’re not going to go for that. The American people aren’t going to go for that, because it’s an extreme position.
Then there’s the fact (also not mentioned by the Brady’s) that where ever prohibition or near prohibition have been implemented, suicide rates showed no change due to substitution.
Thirdpower, I’ve seen that asserted before, but also believably counterargued. Would you please direct me to some reliable resources that I can vet for my own use?