You are far from correct. Misery was there and they used a gun to end it. Like murder, you ignore the underlying issue and blame the gun. The solution is getting people the help they need long before they see suicide as the only solution. Instead, we are just medicating these people with drugs that list "Suicidal thoughts or actions" as side effects.
They may not have a choice if it's too difficult to obtain a gun. Look at Australia. Look at the UK. Few violent criminals in those countries have guns.
And how many people live alone and rent, I'm thinking the young just getting started and the elderly just trying to get by. Both are targets for criminal activity.
Exactly zero people in those countries have a Constitutionally protected right to own or carry a gun.
Really, how uninformed you are. Gun-free UK: Almost 10,000 gun crimes in a year, with help from Muslim migrants Almost 10,000 gun crimes were committed in a year in the UK, despite the country being known as "gun free" due to its "strictest gun control laws in the world." Britain has seen gun crimes rise by "27 per cent in five years and the number of firearms seized has quadrupled." https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/...imes-in-a-year-with-help-from-muslim-migrants
I can post countries with more murder and suicide in spite of not being legally able to have a gun. The conclusion will always be that the underlying issue has nothing to do with guns. Focusing on the gun allows the underlying issue to fester. In fact, attacking the rights of good people diverts energy from the cause.
All claims with absolutely no basis in reality. Their firearm-related restrictions made absolutely no difference in the matter, as homicide rates were already decreasing even before their firearm-related restrictions were implemented. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-australias-gun-laws-reduced-gun-homicides/ "Exhibit A" is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia. There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates.
It is common to falsely assign blame because of preconceived notions. Thats why people blame guns for murder.
In the case of a spouse getting murdered by their partner, I think the spouse has to be seen to hold some responsibility. Very few domestic violence deaths are completely spontaneous, out of the blue without any warning. Usually there is a long history of red flags, and the spouse should have had some obvious foreknowledge that their life could be in danger in the future, if they continue to stay with this person. If a spouse chooses to continue living with their violence-prone partner despite knowing that this unstable person has a weapon at their home, then that is sort of on them. Let me repeat again: IT WAS THEIR CHOICE. They chose to be in a home with a violent unstable person and a weapon. But I would add, a lot of these domestic violence deaths occur with kitchen knives, or other household objects, so what are you going to do? Get rid of all kitchen knives from the home? Make sure there is absolutely nothing in the entire house space your partner could possibly use to severely harm you?
Sounds to me like there needs to be a series of "red flag" laws that allow people to report dangerous individuals to the authorities and have said individuals involuntarily committed until they can prove to a court they are not a danger to themselves and others. Put this in place and there's no need to further harass law-abiding gun owners with useless and ineffective laws.
Hey I never gave that any thought. You are right... people can't drive over people sleeping in bed with a car. ..and another thing....I am probably going to die of cancer and its not illegal.
Not sure why you'd want to carry your car to the bedroom instead of a kitchen knife, but let your imagination roam I guess.
In some ways, a gun assault might even be better. At least with a gun, it's basically a puncture wound, and you either bleed out or survive. With blows from heavy blunt objects, or knives, the domestic violence victim is more likely to suffer permanent life-long debilitating or disfiguring injury.
Such laws exist already. GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." This bill passed with almost unanimous support and represents Congress's recognition that "anyone who attempts or threatens violence against a loved one has demonstrated that he or she poses an unacceptable risk, and should be prohibited from possessing firearms." Congressional Record, p. S11878, September 30, 1996. This new provision affects law enforcement in three interrelated ways. First, it will assist in preventing those individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for domestic violence from obtaining a firearm. Second, it will assist law enforcement by providing a tool for the removal of firearms from certain explosive domestic situations thus decreasing the possibility of deadly violence. Finally, it will serve as a federal prosecution tool in certain situations where alternatives have failed. Qualifying Offenses: As enacted the statute defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" (MCDV) as any state or federal misdemeanor that -
I have to admit it's much much easier to use a firearm vs a random kitchen object, or preplanned poisoning, With that said I'm comfortable with the risk myself, I prefer that vs whacking an intruder with a tv remote, although I'll admit my comcast remote has some heft to it. Ideally the firearm itself will be deterrent enough that it won't be necessary to pull the trigger. Ps, I didnt have a major issue with Florida's red flag law. I believe it's been used but the media isnt broadcasting it.
I'm no fan of guns in the community, but this is 'bang' on. They really don't care. They just want the problem to shut up and go away.
Progressives aren't interested in solutions. They're interested in the appearance of care, and being left in peace to enjoy their soy lattes.
Some people are just *stuck* on their 2nd Amendment rights no matter what overall cost to society, as a whole. The reality is some people are going to get their hands on a gun if they are intent on doing so and nothing can stop it. The red flag law seems to be a way to remove the danger (if that's where things are headed) temporarily and, hopefully, get names in the system to be able to stop potential problems. I hope more states will adopt it. After that's resolved, we should probably consider new safety laws on Comcast remotes. ;-0
This is impossible because a person can kill another with their bare hands. Yes, it's a bit harder to do than using some kind of weapon but it is possible. It sounds like the red flag laws are helping (even if just a small amount) in some states that have enacted it. The reality is people intent on harming themselves or other(s) are going to find a way. A person has to have respect for the law for any of it to work. Sadly, some people don't and that's where it goes off the rails. And, sadly, the reason that some people become suicidal is because of their early childhood.
Whatever validity may have been had relating to the discussion of so-called "red flag" laws was lost the instant politicians voted against including the names of individuals who are included in gang databases maintained by law enforcement, on the basis that said individuals with known or suspected gang connections may not have actually done anything wrong to warrant being listed. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...n-targeting-gang-databases-with-red-flag-laws
The problem is that the names get put into the system prior to any risk being confirmed. Being suicidal is not a prohibiting condition, and given that the hanging/suicide rate has grown over five times as fast as the gun suicide rate since 1999, blocking access to a gun doesn't really stop suicides. Red flag laws do nothing to get counseling for said at-risk person. How hard do you think it is to get your name out of the NICS prohibited person list if you shouldn't be on it?