mellow yellow wrote:Yes, a firearm such as an automatic shotgun would surely fill in the gap.
No, seriously, my point is that I pray those with firearms are of good mind and would not use them on themselves or others. A recent article in Metro noted that half (yes, half!
) of all firearm-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides, and one-fifth involved turning their guns on others. I find this regrettable and, of course, preventable.
I suppose that one's take on the statistic involving gun ownership and sucide depends upon one's take on suicide, and the degree to which it should be prevented, but that's a subject for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't believe that suicide should be a consideration in the question of whether or not to ban guns.
Following on brandon's point, did the Metro statistic that indicated one-fifth of all gun related deaths involved the owners using them on others include incidents of self-defense?
Whether one might end up using it in anger rather than self-defense is something one should consider before purchasing a firearm. The problem is that the sort of people most likely to use a gun in anger are probably not going to give the possibility much consideration, nor be easily recognized if they do not have a criminal background. So the question is should the State outlaw guns because some who own them will use them on family, friends, or neighbors in moments of extreme anger? I think not. If it could be shown that 90% or better of people who own guns eventually use them in anger on innocents, I might reconsider, but that's not the case.
In any case, since the government, obviously, cannot keep guns out of the hands of criminals and thugs, nor completely safeguard my family and I from acts of violence by criminals and thugs, I'm very much against it trying to keep guns out of my hands or the hands of my fellow law abiding citizens.
