Political Crossfire Forums

Interesting read. I think a lot of it is spot on, but there are a couple of points that are not quite solid.

1.) Suicide. The early half of the 20th century in England was pretty terrible. Lots of poverty, two world wars, and a depression. Around the middle of the 20th century there was something much more likely to have brought about a decline in suicide. Money. Between the general increase in the quality of life and peace, it stands to reason that less people would look to check out early.

I think there is something to be said about the "split second decision" but I don't think it is as overwhelming as is portrayed in the article.

2.) Fantasy. I'm sure there are people who own guns for the fantasy that they'll have to use them, but there are also plenty of people who own them just to be prepared and would rather live their whole lives without using them to take a life.

A gun is an inanimate object, a tool. Stupid people are just stupid, and try to blame their stupidty on the tool, and other stupid people tend to agree.

You mean it is a tool for shooting people who threaten you, correct?

A car is used to drive around, but because of the potential for harming others, it is a heavily regulated tool. Have car regulations been effective at preventing harm to others? Are manufacturers required by law to have certain safety features built in?

Given the fact that the only purpose for a gun is to shoot other people, animals or perhaps targets, don't you think regulating them makes sense? If not, why? If so, to what extent?