Gun Control, “Cog Dis,” and the Need for Greater Faith


I’m counting the seconds until I the first outraged Facebook entry, blog comment, and/or email arrives.




Some people had better avert their eyes:


Thanks to John Walters for bringing this item to my attention.


Posted from Park City, Utah



Where to find what you need
New Testament 196
What's a poor progressive to do?
"How Islamist Extremists Warp the Fatwa"
  • Ray Agostini

    I wish I could say that gun control in Australia has “worked”. It has in some important areas, but not in others. We haven’t had a mass killing since 1996, when Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, which was followed by John Howard’s gun control laws. Murder rates by gun are down, but murder by other means keep it at about the same level. In spite of Howard’s gun laws, the possession of guns is now back at the same level pre-Port Arthur.

    Suicide by gun in Australia is significantly down from former levels, so the proliferation of guns is largely by people “in the know”, about where to buy guns. The average person does not know this, because they probably won’t go to the trouble of buying guns illegally, and that may account for the drop in suicide by gun.

    A 2004 survey on suicide methods in the USA revealed that suicide by hanging, strangulation and suffocation was 22.6%. Poisons: 17.9%. Firearms: 51.6%. All other methods: 7.9%

    Easy access to a gun, especially for depressed or disturbed males, is always an optional “final solution” to personal problems immediately at hand. While the male suicide rate is higher than the female rate, studies show that more females than males attempt suicide. “While females tend to show higher rates of reported nonfatal suicidal behavior, males have a much higher rate of completed suicide.” This is referred to as the “gender paradox”

    “The reported difference in suicide rates for males and females is
    partially a result of the methods used by each gender. Although females
    attempt suicide at a higher rate, they are more likely to use methods
    that are less immediately lethal. Males frequently complete suicide via
    high mortality actions such as hanging, carbon-monoxide poisoning, and
    gun violence. This is in contrast to females, who tend to rely on drug

    Personally, I’m very much in favour of gun control. While owning a gun may seem to make one “equal” with more powerful opponents, the net result is more suicide by gun, and a greater potential for mass murder by mentally unstable people because of easy accessibility.

    • Ryan

      In the 21st century alone, hundreds of millions of people were murdered by their own governments.

      The gun debate is about more important things than the suicide rate (but, for what it’s worth, the Harvard study summarized in Dr. Peterson link specifically states that there is no observed correlation between stringent gun control and a reduction in suicides or violent crime).

      • Lucy Mcgee

        No but there’s a high correlation between stringent gun control and reduction in people being murdered with guns or robbed at gunpoint.

        • RaymondSwenson

          You’re kidding, right? I lived for three years in the Washington, DC suburbs. The District had a law basically banning ownership of private firearms, but it still has had one of the highest gun crime rates in America. Someone who is going to commit armed robbery is reassured that their law abiding victims will be unarmed. It’s an elitist law, since government officials and the rich can have armed guards for themselves and the private schools attended by their children. I think the idea is really to sacrifice the middle class so the criminals will leave the rich and powerful alone.

          • Lucy Mcgee

            Using statistics by nation, I think the case could be made that strict gun laws and fewer guns means reduced death by firearm. The problem with gun laws in places like DC or Chicago, is that guns are everywhere, cheap and easily accessible. So of course if you’ve got a nation saturated with firearms, stringent gun laws in x,y,z city won’t work if not accomplished everywhere.

            And in places like DC or Chicago, of course I’d rather be armed than not. I can also say that we own several firearms and know several close neighbors with concealed carry permits, none of whom would have a problem having fewer guns in the hands of those who have no business having them in the first place.

  • RaymondSwenson

    Lucy is correct in pointing out that strict prohibitions on firearms can never work in a nation that is full of guns. That is the US, for sure, and it will always be true of the US, so therefore there is no rational basis for prohibitions on gun ownership because criminals just don’t care that they are committing one more felony. Guns for criminals are essential tools to accomplish their goals, which include using violence to increase their personal wealth and power. As long as there are people willing to defy the laws against murder, assault with a deadly weapon, extortion, home invasion, carjacking, rape, bank robbery, etc., there will be people who defy the laws against gun ownership and use.

    Piling up laws banning possession of firearms thus only affects law abiding people, not criminals. Indeed, such laws INCENTIVIZE criminals to use firearms, because it increases the value of a gun in threatening an innocent victim. And that is precisely what the gun bans in Washington, DC and Chicago accomplished. Gun use by criminals proliferated because their power over the innocent was endorsed by government.

    The only way you could even approach eliminating firearms in the US would be to disregard the 4th Amendment and conduct police raids against every home and business in the country, breaking down doors and invading bedrooms. But at that point, the police will have become the biggest criminals of all, and the corruption of many individual officers would protect professional criminals while leaving innocent citizens unarmed.

    We must remember that any law banning gun ownership carries with it the threat of government violence against the defiant. As government power is increased, the potential for government corruption grows, too.