|I am confused then why you are arguing it away like it does not matter with some of the statistics though. The likelihood of suicide attempt resulting in death is vastly increased using a gun. >|
I didn't say that suicide DOESN'T matter, I said that it's a personal choice and that it's NOT a crime! Yes, it's not a good thing, but you can't stop a person from making a legal transaction because of that (Just like you can't stop a person from buying alcohol if they plan to mix it with pills or drink themselves to death.) . Sometimes there are situations where people can be moved away from suicide and find other ways, and sometimes there are not. For what it's worth, the elderly have (Or had.) the highest rate of suicide.
Just because alot of people can handle them fine does not mean that they should be freely available either. I am sure most people could have a nuke in their backyard and never set it off. >
No, that's a silly comparison. Nuke's aren't legal (Or anywhere NEAR freely available.) and are much worse than guns. Should the GOVERNMENT not be allowed Nuke's because we nuked Japan and killed innocent people? And there's no legal right to a Nuke. Also, guns are not just freely available. You do have to undergo background checks and there is a waiting period (In some states, the waiting period is longer.).
Laws, in general, are set to the lowest common denominator. If it inconveniences the fellow just wanting to buy a gun than so be it. >
It's a LEGAL product and a protected right, so the problem is not about inconvenience.
I just do not buy in that much that because some people can use something responsibly means that it can always be used responsibly. A gun greatly enhances the ability to hurt other people. >
I don't buy into the first sentence either, because as cars and alcohol show us, it's clearly not true. But there's no need to prohibit those who DO handle something responsibly just because other people can't.
And it starts to become a matter of when would enough be enough. Do most people with a gun collection hurt anybody? No, they do not. But we know that guns make many situations worse. And increase bad outcomes.>
Great, so you just said that most people can handle guns responsibly, so why not just leave those people alone?
Somebody in an abusive relationship for instance is more likely to be killed if the abuser has a gun. Could they die other ways, sure, but whenever we are talking in reality it is about probability. >
This is true.
Is the fact that I act responsible with alcohol going to stop that drunk driver slamming into my car and doing general bad things? It was no decision of mine. >
But you yourself admit that you can handle it responsibly, so people should stop drinking just because other people drive drunk or commit violence under the influence? If someone wanted you to wait another week or two to get a beer, you don't think that anyone would have a problem with this?