Why are so many catholics anti-2nd amendment?

[Jaguar]

Here is some good data related to home invasion/burglary:

Most burglaries occur during the day, for more than half of all burglaries no one is home at the time of the crime. When violence occurs it is someone the victim knows over 60% of the time. 61% of perpetrators were not armed during the crime.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

The stats show that you are more likely to be killed if you have a gun in the home than if you dont. So far from being expendable they are safer than folks with guns.
huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

Those odds you mention are not good enough for me. You need to look at the total number of these crimes in a given area. And since when, is it not so threatening if you likely know the person breaking into your home. In which case you will not know who it is until he’s in the house and perhaps too late.

Most rapes and sexual assaults are committed by people that know the victim. Does that make it any less horrendous??

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, one is more likely to suffer injury or death in a car wreck, if one owns a car a rather than if one doesn’t

 

[Dan202]

Those odds you mention are not good enough for me. You need to look at the total number of these crimes in a given area. And since when, is it not so threatening if you likely know the person breaking into your home. In which case you will not know who it is until he’s in the house and perhaps too late.

Most rapes and sexual assaults are committed by people that know the victim. Does that make it any less horrendous??

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, one is more likely to suffer injury or death in a car wreck, if one owns a car a rather than if one doesn’t

Clearly knowing the perpetrator doesn’t make any crime less heinous, just interesting data.

Your car argument is not really applicable, of course using car puts you at a higher risk for a car accident but I dont know of anyone who advocates car use/ownership to prevent car accidents. You are advocating for firearms in order to prevent crime, that is not supported by the data.

We might have better data if the CDC had not been banned from supporting the research, maybe you are right but until you show me the numbers I cant accept your thesis.

 

[down_under]

I am not pushing to repeal the Second Amendment. Is that what you mean by anti-2nd amendment?

I would like to point out, however, that states and countries with tighter gun control usually have lower rates of gun death.

actually you are factually in error. It is quite easily proven that Chicago, new york city, LA, and other big cities where guns almost totally illegal have the highest crime rates in the country. Washington DC use to have the highest murder rate in the country at a time when they had the most strict gun laws in the country. Then they found those gun laws unconstitutional. Now DC crime rates to include murder are all dramatically reduced. It is a very straight forward example of what they mean when they say more guns less crime.

 

[down_under]

I am not pushing to repeal the Second Amendment. Is that what you mean by anti-2nd amendment?

I would like to point out, however, that states and countries with tighter gun control usually have lower rates of gun death.

Okay so you make the guns illegal and there is less gun related crime according to whatever statistic you have seen. Does it occur to you that you cannot legislate morality. That those people who were using guns to commit crimes and now using knives and baseball bats. Over all crime rates don't drop because you make guns a little harder to get. Most guns used in crime are not stolen. they were never legal in the first place. I live in Australia now (formerly Indiana) and I can tell you first hand you make the guns illegal and you will not reduce crime you will proliferate the black market and create a market that will be supplied by jewelers and people who know how. It happens often here. When guns become more expensive to buy, weather that be a monetary expense or a prosecution expense, people just start making them off the radar. Happens quite often down here in Aus.

 

[Dan202]

Okay so you make the guns illegal and there is less gun related crime according to whatever statistic you have seen. Does it occur to you that you cannot legislate morality. That those people who were using guns to commit crimes and now using knives and baseball bats. Over all crime rates don’t drop because you make guns a little harder to get. Most guns used in crime are not stolen. they were never legal in the first place. I live in Australia now (formerly Indiana) and I can tell you first hand you make the guns illegal and you will not reduce crime you will proliferate the black market and create a market that will be supplied by jewelers and people who know how. It happens often here. When guns become more expensive to buy, weather that be a monetary expense or a prosecution expense, people just start making them off the radar. Happens quite often down here in Aus.

Here is a good set of stats that support the claim that more restrictions=less gun deaths.
theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

States in the US dont really work as an example due to the porous border between states and the fact that you have already pointed out that criminals tend to engage in criminal activity. Its much more difficult to move firearms across national boundaries than state boundaries. Of course the US is the originating point for a large number of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels.

Even if I accept you argument that because you cant legislate morality no gun regulations are beneficial your ignoring the massive harm caused by accidents and suicide. For suicide in particular the harder it is for someone to find the means to kill themselves the lower the chance of suicide being carried out successfully.

I do accept that making something illegal will not keep all people from engaging in the activity so where do we draw the line what does your sliding scale look like?

 

[down_under]

@Jaguar where should it stop?

I would like background checks for every gun transfer and every purchase of ammunition. Or at least a comparison to a “no buy list” that includes a list of people with criminal activity and people that are not mentally sound. Along with that would need to be a free method to challenge inclusion on the “no buy list” that does not require the individual to have a lawyer just fill out forms and provide evidence that whatever the original problem was is no longer an issue. Contrary to popular belief many people who have been identified as a threat to themselves or others are able to purchase weapons. People with restraining orders, people engaging in spousal abuse, people in drug treatment should all have extra trouble buying a gun/amo. Of course this would need to be federal so that guns are not just imported across state lines.

What steps if any would other folks support?

NONE OF THESE.
what your saying here is completely absurd. Maybe there is some good intent here, but this way of going about it only leads to folly. You are asking the Government to vet who can do a thing. That has never worked in the past. The government is totally corrupt at this point. Not only that but these statements you are using are so vague as to have no meaning or ANY meaning at all. Look what they have done with the TSA as a prime example of what will happen when you give government authority too much power. Oh no granny you might be a terrorist never mind that the definition of terrorist we have been given is literally “who ever we say is a terrorist IS”

NOT MENTALLY SOUND really by who’s criteria and how often does that get to change

NO BUY LIST really go look at little jonny on the no fly list and see how well this idea gets applied

IDENTIFIED AS A THREAT - by who you then mention restraining order do you realize enough money will buy you a restraining order for whoever you want. Yes you can BUY a arrest warrant in many places in the US as well.

and lets not forget the political catch phrase of the day - IN DRUG TREATMENT - a school teacher can force someone to be on drug treatment for any reason she wants in many districts no doctor no shrink. simply by recommendation. people are forced onto med’s all the time by various mind benders. If they refused they can be fined or loose there kids or have other more strenuous measures placed on them. happens all the time. the antidepressant is the most over prescribed substance on the planet. It has to be the most easily abuse ridden kind of law I can think of. Did you know there is not one test for any mental disorder currently on the DSM we are on version 5 now. each time more and more common mental states get referred to as disorders requiring treatment and each time there is less an less justification for them. But the point here is that every judgement of someone’s mental state is an OPINION. with no basis in medical testing. Very often people “diagnosed” are offered no second opinion. Once you have been diagnosed however now you have the social stigma attached to your name. Based solely on one mans opinion of you at one point in your life.

It stems from a very real need however. the realization that people who are supposed to be controlled by drugs are not being controlled by drugs. We use to call these people CRAZY. They got largely more help and understanding back then. Now we give them drugs that we know are not a good match for the person on the first go. You have to wait 4-6 weeks to see the effect and more then 50% of the time you need to really discontinue and use a different drug because there was no therapeutic response to the first one. In the mean time they stab three people to death before driving the car around town looking for someone to shoot. or they just use the car which is a much more lethal weapon that is much easier to get.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GUN. Its the mentality of me first and you don’t count unless you make me feel better. Its the Dads who are absent and the moms who got more important things to do.

 

[Dan202]

NONE OF THESE.
what your saying here is completely absurd. Maybe there is some good intent here, but this way of going about it only leads to folly. You are asking the Government to vet who can do a thing. That has never worked in the past. The government is totally corrupt at this point. Not only that but these statements you are using are so vague as to have no meaning or ANY meaning at all. Look what they have done with the TSA as a prime example of what will happen when you give government authority too much power. Oh no granny you might be a terrorist never mind that the definition of terrorist we have been given is literally “who ever we say is a terrorist IS”

NOT MENTALLY SOUND really by who’s criteria and how often does that get to change

NO BUY LIST really go look at little jonny on the no fly list and see how well this idea gets applied

IDENTIFIED AS A THREAT - by who you then mention restraining order do you realize enough money will buy you a restraining order for whoever you want. Yes you can BUY a arrest warrant in many places in the US as well.

and lets not forget the political catch phrase of the day - IN DRUG TREATMENT - a school teacher can force someone to be on drug treatment for any reason she wants in many districts no doctor no shrink. simply by recommendation. people are forced onto med’s all the time by various mind benders. If they refused they can be fined or loose there kids or have other more strenuous measures placed on them. happens all the time. the antidepressant is the most over prescribed substance on the planet. It has to be the most easily abuse ridden kind of law I can think of. Did you know there is not one test for any mental disorder currently on the DSM we are on version 5 now. each time more and more common mental states get referred to as disorders requiring treatment and each time there is less an less justification for them. But the point here is that every judgement of someone’s mental state is an OPINION. with no basis in medical testing. Very often people “diagnosed” are offered no second opinion. Once you have been diagnosed however now you have the social stigma attached to your name. Based solely on one mans opinion of you at one point in your life.

It stems from a very real need however. the realization that people who are supposed to be controlled by drugs are not being controlled by drugs. We use to call these people CRAZY. They got largely more help and understanding back then. Now we give them drugs that we know are not a good match for the person on the first go. You have to wait 4-6 weeks to see the effect and more then 50% of the time you need to really discontinue and use a different drug because there was no therapeutic response to the first one. In the mean time they stab three people to death before driving the car around town looking for someone to shoot. or they just use the car which is a much more lethal weapon that is much easier to get.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GUN. Its the mentality of me first and you don’t count unless you make me feel better. Its the Dads who are absent and the moms who got more important things to do.

This is a discussion board not a legislature of course I just posted broad strokes not specific legal language.

I cant respond to any of your problems because the root of your concerns is that you dont have any faith in the US Govt, I think it is way out of whack myself and that the patriot act is just a way to do things like warrantless wiretaps and the whole thing should be repealed. If you dont believe that the justice system works at all then why bother about the law to begin with?

 

[Jaguar]

NONE OF THESE.
what your saying here is completely absurd. Maybe there is some good intent here, but this way of going about it only leads to folly. You are asking the Government to vet who can do a thing. That has never worked in the past. The government is totally corrupt at this point. Not only that but these statements you are using are so vague as to have no meaning or ANY meaning at all. Look what they have done with the TSA as a prime example of what will happen when you give government authority too much power. Oh no granny you might be a terrorist never mind that the definition of terrorist we have been given is literally “who ever we say is a terrorist IS”

NOT MENTALLY SOUND really by who’s criteria and how often does that get to change

NO BUY LIST really go look at little jonny on the no fly list and see how well this idea gets applied

IDENTIFIED AS A THREAT - by who you then mention restraining order do you realize enough money will buy you a restraining order for whoever you want. Yes you can BUY a arrest warrant in many places in the US as well.

and lets not forget the political catch phrase of the day - IN DRUG TREATMENT - a school teacher can force someone to be on drug treatment for any reason she wants in many districts no doctor no shrink. simply by recommendation. people are forced onto med’s all the time by various mind benders. If they refused they can be fined or loose there kids or have other more strenuous measures placed on them. happens all the time. the antidepressant is the most over prescribed substance on the planet. It has to be the most easily abuse ridden kind of law I can think of. Did you know there is not one test for any mental disorder currently on the DSM we are on version 5 now. each time more and more common mental states get referred to as disorders requiring treatment and each time there is less an less justification for them. But the point here is that every judgement of someone’s mental state is an OPINION. with no basis in medical testing. Very often people “diagnosed” are offered no second opinion. Once you have been diagnosed however now you have the social stigma attached to your name. Based solely on one mans opinion of you at one point in your life.

It stems from a very real need however. the realization that people who are supposed to be controlled by drugs are not being controlled by drugs. We use to call these people CRAZY. They got largely more help and understanding back then. Now we give them drugs that we know are not a good match for the person on the first go. You have to wait 4-6 weeks to see the effect and more then 50% of the time you need to really discontinue and use a different drug because there was no therapeutic response to the first one. In the mean time they stab three people to death before driving the car around town looking for someone to shoot. or they just use the car which is a much more lethal weapon that is much easier to get.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE GUN. Its the mentality of me first and you don’t count unless you make me feel better. Its the Dads who are absent and the moms who got more important things to do.

Well stated! Much better than I.

 

[down_under]

I don’t know … all those venomous snakes and spiders down there would worry me a tot more.

okay lets flesh that out. in the US when the wife runs from the spider and says honey kill it, it is probably a daddy long legs of some such and there is no danger for the husband with his shoe. the same goes for the snake and the shovel. In australia the spider is quite likely as large as the sugar jar and you hope so because then it might only hurt when it bites you. its the ones the size of the palm of your hand, the little ones, that might kill you before you dial poison control. shooting one might actually be the right idea depending on the context because you don’t want to get anywhere near it.

snakes don’t even go there.

 

[down_under]

CA has strict gun laws but neighboring states dont, the same goes for Chicago the guns just come in from Indiana and other states with weak gun laws, many times they are purchased legally and then sold to others who transport them across state/municipal lines the same is true in DC.

Switzerland has universal gun ownership by law abiding sane citizens in the military/reserve not just handed out to everyone with an ID.

and yet Chicago has very high rates of crime when compared with the surrounding areas that have largely more guns. Gee maybe the people living in high gun control areas are seen as an easier target then the folks who live in high gun freedom areas.

 

[Dan202]

and yet Chicago has very high rates of crime when compared with the surrounding areas that have largely more guns. Gee maybe the people living in high gun control areas are seen as an easier target then the folks who live in high gun freedom areas.

Or poverty plays a role, the crime in Chicago is focused in poor areas with little economic/educational opportunity not in the rich parts of the city. If the criminals were plotting based on lack of weapons dont you think they would go for high income neighborhoods not the gang two blocks over?

 

[down_under]

Still the fact is the data shows that you are less safe with a weapon in the home than without. You may however feel like you are safer but it doesn’t change the fact that the data shows an increased risk of homicide/suicide in homes with guns that outweighs the numbers of home invasions. Now the standard response to the data is that people dont report successful prevention of crime if thats the case they have no one to blame but themselves for not reporting crime that merited brandishing or using a firearm.

I still think that no one (on this forum) has suggested outlawing private ownership of firearms, just more regulation of the weapons and while I am thinking about it maybe some validation that they can use them safely. I grew up in a rural area and have shown several friends how to shoot both rifles and handguns I like shooting. I do think that some guy in the city buying a gun and having no idea how to handle it doesn’t make anyone any safer.

More sensless regulation IS BANNING by incremental its the entire point. The data does not show a gun problem. The data shows a depression treatment problem. The data shows a society narrative problem where large amounts of people are convinced that if life is not comfortable it is not worth living. Ban away all the firearms in the world and you will not reduce the suicide rate any more than you reduce the crime rate. You just change the means.

 

[down_under]

Where exactly are guns prohibited in the home? Even when Chicago’s handgun ban was in place you could legally obtain a shotgun. Did crime drop in Chicago/DC when the handgun bans stopped?

YES IT DID at least in DC to a dramatic extent. I do not have the figures for Chicago right in front of me so I can only speculate JUST LIKE YOU.

the difference of course is that I would not do that.

 

[down_under]

Clearly knowing the perpetrator doesn’t make any crime less heinous, just interesting data.

Your car argument is not really applicable, of course using car puts you at a higher risk for a car accident but I don’t know of anyone who advocates car use/ownership to prevent car accidents.

We might have better data if the CDC had not been banned from supporting the research, maybe you are right but until you show me the numbers I cant accept your thesis.

Your argument is not really applicable Of course using a car puts you at a higher risk for a car accident but I don’t know of anyone who advocates banning cars to reduce the road death toll. Even the licensing requirement is often a rubber stamp. I do know of large organizations that recommend optional driver safety classes and defensive driving classes and familiarization courses to reduce the road death toll. but nobody really believes that banning the car is the solution.

 

[Dan202]

More sensless regulation IS BANNING by incremental its the entire point. The data does not show a gun problem. The data shows a depression treatment problem. The data shows a society narrative problem where large amounts of people are convinced that if life is not comfortable it is not worth living. Ban away all the firearms in the world and you will not reduce the suicide rate any more than you reduce the crime rate. You just change the means.

Regulation is not incremental banning, what exactly would you be comfortable with is the status quo as good as it gets? Wouldn’t we at least attempt to keep guns out of the hands of folks that have been threatening themselves or others?

I will happily agree that mental health treatment in the US is lacking and would be more than happy to support significantly more mental health treatment especially talk therapy or talk therapy in conjunction with pharmaceuticals. I would actually be happy to support restoring all the funding for mental health that was cut during the last 30 years. Having spent years working in mental health facilities both (name removed by moderator)atient/outpatient adult/pediatric I can tell you that the current state of affairs is deplorable. People get admitted we stabilize them an then turn them on the streets to de-compensate again.

Getting guns out of the hands of people at risk for suicide would in fact reduce overall suicide rates, suicide is generally an acute event not chronic. hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

I am not sure its a narrative problem as much as a reality that the wealth disparity leads to a disparity of options. While I cant condone criminal activity I can see how people can be trapped in that mentality due to socioeconomic realities. Also remember that much of the inner city violence is gang violence not poor folks attacking rich folks.

washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

 

[PTL]

To answer the question simple and straight: because many so called Catholics are liberal. They support a left wing government no matter what.

 

[down_under]

Here is a good set of stats that support the claim that more restrictions=less gun deaths.
theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

1 Of course the US is the originating point for a large number of the weapons used by the Mexican drug cartels.

2 Even if I accept you argument that because you cant legislate morality no gun regulations are beneficial

3 your ignoring the massive harm caused by accidents and suicide. For suicide in particular the harder it is for someone to find the means to kill themselves the lower the chance of suicide being carried out successfully.

4 I do accept that making something illegal will not keep all people from engaging in the activity so where do we draw the line what does your sliding scale look like?

1 the US government sold those weapons
In September 2009, John Dodson, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was assigned to the ATF’s Phoenix office. What he found there shocked him. The bureau was encouraging gun dealers to sell weapons in bulk to known straw buyers, who would funnel those guns to Mexican drug cartels.

read about it here
nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-excerpt-how-america-gave-guns-to-mexican-drug-cartels/

2 you just committed a classic conversational tactic my wife uses all the time. You either do agree or you do not agree. You changed the subject so as to dodge an answer. Maybe that was not your intent, but it was the out come.

1. the accident argument was a lie when Hilliary coined it. she had to include “children” as old as 25 engaging in gang warfare to come up with this number. There are approximately 250 (give or take 30) safety accidents in the US. shooting someone selling dope on your corner is NOT an accident.
   suicide is not solved by making firearms illegal. it just changes the form. you want to solve suicide you engage people and care about those who live in your neighborhood. you work to end the hook up culture and the absentee father ism that permeates our culture. You help people deal with the **** they have to deal with.
2. Making something illegal will never keep almost anyone who really wants to engage in the activity from doing it. home invasions just happen with bats. rapes just happen at knife point, suicide happens with knives and drugs, and if they really want a gun they are easy enough to get even on a desert island. Even with extreme gun control on a small isolated island north west of Europe the violence did not stop. It got worse. The English bobby for years needed nothing but a night stick and a whistle. Now we can argue the terrorists made the change to submachine guns necessary. I would then like to ask you given the laws in England at the time “how did a group of people the size a little league baseball audience reign terror on england for so long if there laws were so effective”.

its not your facts that I argue with its the premise. I stand by my assessment you cannot legislate morality.

 

[down_under]

Regulation is not incremental banning, what exactly would you be comfortable with is the status quo as good as it gets? Wouldn’t we at least attempt to keep guns out of the hands of folks that have been threatening themselves or others?

I will happily agree that mental health treatment in the US is lacking and would be more than happy to support significantly more mental health treatment especially talk therapy or talk therapy in conjunction with pharmaceuticals. I would actually be happy to support restoring all the funding for mental health that was cut during the last 30 years. Having spent years working in mental health facilities both (name removed by moderator)atient/outpatient adult/pediatric I can tell you that the current state of affairs is deplorable. People get admitted we stabilize them an then turn them on the streets to de-compensate again.

Getting guns out of the hands of people at risk for suicide would in fact reduce overall suicide rates, suicide is generally an acute event not chronic. hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/
hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

I am not sure its a narrative problem as much as a reality that the wealth disparity leads to a disparity of options. While I cant condone criminal activity I can see how people can be trapped in that mentality due to socioeconomic realities. Also remember that much of the inner city violence is gang violence not poor folks attacking rich folks.

washingtonpost.com/business/economy/economic-mobility-hasnt-changed-in-a-half-century-in-america-economists-declare/2014/01/22/e845db4a-83a2-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html

This is a good intellectual conversation we are having I should like you to know. A good stimulating conversation.

I don’t have a problem with your arguments again its your overall premise that I am not agreeing with. If we could get guns out of the hands of violent people or suicide contemplators…they would contemplate another means of doing it, or they will get the gun illegally. If I am planning a suicide I am not planning to be around to face the charges of the illegal/stolen gun. If I’m planning a murder I am most certainly not worried about theft or the legality of the method that I use. If I am then I am not going to drive down the street with a loaded gun, carry a loaded gun without a permit, shoot a loaded gun accross a road or within 50ft of a road. these things are all already highly illegal. they don’t stop deer hunters mate. how are they going to stop murders.

 

[Dan202]

1 the US government sold those weapons
In September 2009, John Dodson, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, was assigned to the ATF’s Phoenix office. What he found there shocked him. The bureau was encouraging gun dealers to sell weapons in bulk to known straw buyers, who would funnel those guns to Mexican drug cartels.

read about it here
nypost.com/2013/12/01/book-excerpt-how-america-gave-guns-to-mexican-drug-cartels/

2 you just committed a classic conversational tactic my wife uses all the time. You either do agree or you do not agree. You changed the subject so as to dodge an answer. Maybe that was not your intent, but it was the out come.

1. the accident argument was a lie when Hilliary coined it. she had to include “children” as old as 25 engaging in gang warfare to come up with this number. There are approximately 250 (give or take 30) safety accidents in the US. shooting someone selling dope on your corner is NOT an accident.
   suicide is not solved by making firearms illegal. it just changes the form. you want to solve suicide you engage people and care about those who live in your neighborhood. you work to end the hook up culture and the absentee father ism that permeates our culture. You help people deal with the **** they have to deal with.
2. Making something illegal will never keep almost anyone who really wants to engage in the activity from doing it. home invasions just happen with bats. rapes just happen at knife point, suicide happens with knives and drugs, and if they really want a gun they are easy enough to get even on a desert island. Even with extreme gun control on a small isolated island north west of Europe the violence did not stop. It got worse. The English bobby for years needed nothing but a night stick and a whistle. Now we can argue the terrorists made the change to submachine guns necessary. I would then like to ask you given the laws in England at the time “how did a group of people the size a little league baseball audience reign terror on england for so long if there laws were so effective”.

its not your facts that I argue with its the premise. I stand by my assessment you cannot legislate morality.

1. They were investigating, however poorly the transfer of arms from the US to Mexico. Surely you dont believe they came up with the idea just to keep busy.
2. I do agree you cant legislate morality but you can take actions for the public good.
3. I dont know what Hillary argument you are referring to I will take your word for it. I do think your stats might be a little low but maybe they are averages.
   motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/children-killed-guns-newtown-anniversary
4. Would you support gun locks or laws similar to Norway to prevent weapons from being stolen? I agree that you cant prevent crime by eliminating guns, but you can reduce the lethality of those events.

It seems that no data would convince you to modify the status quo unless the change is less control. I didn’t set out to change anyone mind, it has been an interesting conversation and I suspect it has been way more than the OP intended.

 

[Dan202]

This is a good intellectual conversation we are having I should like you to know. A good stimulating conversation.

I don’t have a problem with your arguments again its your overall premise that I am not agreeing with. If we could get guns out of the hands of violent people or suicide contemplators…they would contemplate another means of doing it, or they will get the gun illegally. If I am planning a suicide I am not planning to be around to face the charges of the illegal/stolen gun. If I’m planning a murder I am most certainly not worried about theft or the legality of the method that I use. If I am then I am not going to drive down the street with a loaded gun, carry a loaded gun without a permit, shoot a loaded gun accross a road or within 50ft of a road. these things are all already highly illegal. they don’t stop deer hunters mate. how are they going to stop murders.

I see your point about criminals=criminals thats why most of my suggestions revolve around making it harder for guns to end up in criminal hands not banning them outright. I would support mandatory gun safety training along the lines of what I got as a scout or in hunter safety training. I like trigger locks and the Norwegian laws requiring lock boxes to be bolted to the house so the guns are much harder to steal.

As far as the suicide stuff goes 90% or so of people that attempt suicide and fail dont attempt again, so if you can make that first attempt less lethal or even more painful like a knife vs a gun you have a good chance of preventing the suicide. Thats why in the US while more women attempt suicide more men “succeed” men tend to use guns.

I agree this has been interesting, and with the exception of one poster we have all been polite and refrained from questioning each others willingness to submit to the teachings of the Church.