Will Gun Control Prevent Suicides?

Anti-gun advocates cite the prevention of suicide as one of the reasons to further restrict gun ownership or as a reason for totally disarming the population eventually. But is disarmament effective in reducing the suicide rate of any given country?

The country with the highest suicide rate in the world is South Korea, where there are 24.7 suicides per 100,000 people. In 2007, there were estimated 510,000 firearms in civilian hands in South Korea. That number includes rifles and shotguns along with handguns. By 2017, that number had been reduced to just 79,000 firearms, with the number of handguns in civilian hands being just 1,758, the most popular firearm of choice for suicide. Yet, South Korea still has the highest suicide rate in the world.

Hungary ranks second with 21.0 suicides per 100,000 people. Only 22,963 handguns are in the hands of the citizenry and Hungary ranks 74^th out of 178 countries in firearm ownership. Yet it boasts a suicide rate second only to South Korea.

Japan has the third highest rate of suicide with 19.4 per 100,000 committing suicide. Japan has only a reported number of handguns in civilian hands totaling a mere 77. Yet, Japan has the third highest suicide rate in the world.

Japan’s suicide rate is 60% higher than the global average, according to the World Health Organization. In 2014, the year that statistic was compiled, 25,000 Japanese citizens killed themselves, about 70 a day. Among children ages 10-19 in Japan, suicide is the leading cause of death. And while the suicide rate among older adults is declining, the rate among this 10-19 age group seems to be increasing. The greatest number of deaths seems to coincide with the return to school after summer break, with bullying, family issues and stress being the greatest factors.

With the availability of guns obviously not being the greatest contributing factor, the Japanese government has decided to try another approach and is attempting to lower the suicide rate by 30% by 2026. Hiring counselors for school-age youth and creating 24-hour Help Lines to address mental challenges being the goal. Such efforts are overdue, as the suicide rate in Japan among the young is the highest it has been in 30 years.

Belgium has the fourth highest rate of suicides in the world with 18.4 per 100,000 people. Only 5.8% of households in Belgium have a firearm of any kind. Belgium has established the legality of assisted suicide and from 2002-2011 some 5,500 have chosen that option. Close to 1% of all total deaths in Belgium are from euthanasia.

Coming in fifth is Finland with a suicide rate of 16.5 per 100,000 people. Only 13% of households in Finland have guns of any kind and yet it boasts the fifth highest in suicides. Half of all suicides in Finland were committed by people who were under the influence of alcohol or dependent upon the substance, with males being more likely to commit suicide than females.  

A suicide occurs somewhere in the world every 40 seconds with about 800,000 people killing themselves annually. When factoring in all the violent deaths worldwide, including those from wars, suicide accounts for 15% or five times as many violent deaths each year than those occurring in war zones.

Compare that to the United States which has a suicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000. In America, the number of households with one or more guns stands at a whopping 42.0%, much higher that South Korea, Hungary, Japan, Belgium or Finland. In fact, the US has somewhere between 111,300,000 to 114,000,000 handguns in civilian hands. Note, that is millions, not thousands, and some estimates go as high as 350,000,000, enough for every man, woman and child in America to have a gun.

The United States, among the 178 countries studied, is ranked #1 in private gun ownership and yet we are #10 of the top 26 countries in suicide. We have more guns in private ownership than every other country in the world and if you believe the Liberal gun-haters, we should have the highest suicide rate. Guns don’t cause suicides, mental attitudes and the inability to cope with circumstances in life itself causes suicides.

In contrast to it all, Greece has 1,920,000 guns, counting legal and illegal ones, and amazingly it has the lowest suicide rate in the world, coming in at a small 2.9 of 100,000 people. The number of households with one or more firearms in Greece rests at 20.6%. Greece shows that although 1 in 5 homes has firearms in them, suicide is not a naturally occurring result of gun ownership.

As South Korea, Hungary, Japan, Belgium and Finland prove, if guns are not available, people who want to die will find another way. With a cultural stigma attached in many cultures in the world to suicide, it can be assumed that the number of reported suicides might be lower than the actual number, making it a bigger problem than anyone will admit to.

True to form, beginning in 2019, Democrats have already vowed to make gun control a top priority when they regain power in the House come January. It is their pet cause regardless of the facts. If they really cared about public safety, guns would not be the target of their Liberal agenda. Mental illness should be. But then, that would not be a very popular campaign slogan to run on, now would it?

Hypocrisy and Gun Control Go Hand in Hand

 

Few things bring out the Liberal ire than the mention of the Second Amendment and the Constitutional Right of Americans to own guns. Immediately after their mouth starts to water, the lies, misconceptions and myths start to fly.

An ad depicting the fact that the Obama children are protected by guns all day but that he does little to protect the rest of the nations kids, has been seen as both on-target and vile, depending upon your point of view. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman thought it was unfair to bring the president's kids into a political issue.

The hypocrisy of this administration not to be neglected, Obama himself signs his new gun control demands with four hand-picked children watching on. Maybe Carney failed to give President Obama the memo. Does our president even think of children when he is not pushing an agenda?

As Senator, Barack Obama was the only person with the callousness to actually take the floor and voice his opposition to a bill that would have demanded life support for babies born alive from a botched abortion. Let him use those kids as a backdrop for his disingenuous "protecting the most vulnerable among us" campaign.

No one argues that protecting the children of America must be a top priority but Obama saying it doesn't make it his priority.

During the 2008 campaign he was questioned by Pastor Rick Warrens about his stand on human trafficking, the third largest criminal industry in the world, which often targets young people for the sex trade. Then Senator Obama said, "This has to be a top priority". One solution of his was to be tougher with penalties on those caught.

This is an industry that brings in over 32 billion dollars annually, and enslaves 27 million people of all ages, thousands in the United States. However, when was the last time he stood behind his bully-pulpit and went after those who profit from their innocence? Who champions their cause? Not President Obama in spite of his saying the right words and expressing the right sentiment at public debates when seeking votes. Little has been done to expose the problem by Washington, much less address it.

But when it comes to gun control, an issue that he, both as a Senator and a President, holds close to his heart, President Obama doesn't mind using the bodies of children to make him stand a little taller to get his message heard. No, Jay Carney, that is abuse of children. I thought only Hamas used children as human shields.

Obama believes that to frame the gun control issue as a children's health or protection issue, he will keep opponents from attacking his efforts to negate the Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms. To stand upon your Second Amendment rights, and to demand its protection, he wants you to believe, is to not care about children. Those four students from Newtown, CT were on stage with Obama during his ceremonious signing of orders for one reason, to shield him from criticism.

School shootings are the most horrific events that take place in our world. There can be no mistake about that. But one of the reasons that schools, churches, and malls are chosen by mass murderers as killing fields is because they know they'll find more helpless victims there. Curiously, they never choose a gun show or a cop bar to target. Unarmed victims are the order of the day and what better place to find them than at "No-Gun Zones"?

The misrepresentation of gun violence is promoted by the media in their lack of reporting of incidents where guns were used to actually stop crimes. These cases do not fit their anti-gun agenda, especially in larger cities.

Jacob Tyler Roberts, who shot up the Clackamas Mall in Oregon, stopped his rampage only after he saw a man had him in his sights. His next shot took his own life. Another gun on the scene, even without being fired, put a stop to the killing. Guns do this every day but it isn't reported because it would strengthen the need for more guns, not less, in our culture. So the myths prevail, to our own detriment.

Reporters hiding the truth because it doesn't promote your own brand of facts used to be called "yellow journalism". Now it is business as usual.

While everyone remembers Columbine or Virginia Tech because of the shootings there, few have ever heard of Pearl High School in Mississippi or Edinboro, Pennsylvania. In these two shootings, armed citizens put an end to the rampage but that story didn't make it to the newspapers, much less the TV networks.

These two incidents had the lowest number of victims among mass shooting in recent history simply because the shooter was not the only one with a gun. In these cases armed citizens had the situation under control before the police arrived, which wasn't for 4 1/2 minutes at Pearl High School and a full 11 minutes in Edinboro.

Since 1995 people carrying a weapon have not been allowed within a 1,000 feet of a school but that hasn't prevent armed thugs from carrying out their mayhem. In fact, no law has and cannot stop someone with such evil on their minds. If they could, signs posted on doors would have stopped all such crimes. It isn't that criminals can't read. It is that they don't care.

There have been no studies that show laws deter gun crimes, but in more cases than we are told, other guns do. The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. A repeatedly proven fact.

Gun owners are being demonized in America today as if law-abiding gun owners are behind the terrible acts of violence even though gun and headline-grabbing politicians know that isn't true. Adam Lanza in his shooting of kids and teachers in Newtown, CT, broke 41 laws that day. Laws such as the theft of weapons, transporting them, carrying them into the school, as well as using them on others, existed on the books but did not deter him in committing his insane act.

Diane Feinsten, Senator from California, has proposed reinstating the "Assault Weapons Ban" President Bill Clinton imposed and George W. Bush reversed, though it has not been shown to stop their use in crimes. It was interestingly in effect during the time of the Columbine shooting and did not prevent it. Feinstein herself, not only at one time defended the right of a person to arm his/herself for protection, has for years had a concealed carry permit with "unrestricted pistol" provisions. Hypocrisy in Washington is appalling.

America may have a gun violence problem but it appears Obamaland certainly does. Sixty percent of all gun violence comes from major cities that voted for Obama's style of gun control. The cities with the strictest gun regulations seem to have the highest gun crime rates with Chicago and Washington DC being the worst in America.

Contrarily, cities like Kennesaw, Georgia, where in 1982 by city ordinance, every household was required to have a firearm, tell a different story. Since that bold move, which caused opponents to proclaim there would be gun fights in the streets, which never materialized, crime has fallen 89% while the rest of the state has seen a mere 10% drop.

This is the story all across the nation but since it doesn't fit the anti-gun narrative you won't hear of it. Why it is such a hard pill to swallow, is beyond me. But time and time again it has been proved that more guns equals less crime. Criminals don't want armed victims, they want unarmed, helpless ones and "Gun-Free Zones" offer an endless supply.

An armed citizenry makes for a unsafe working environment for criminals. They will get no apologies from me. It is supposed to.

Gun Control Began As A Racist Initiative

I never thought of gun control being a racist policy but considering the history of gun law reform dating all the way back to post slavery America, it seems that it is. Following the Civil War, twenty-one lashes was prescribed to any Negro who presumed to carry a weapon whether he/she was a slave or a freed slave. I am not trying to be politically incorrect here but am using the term of the day.) Gun ownership by Blacks was certainly frowned upon.

The actual gun act that allowed the Nazis in 1938 to restrict access to firearms for “certain undesirable members of the population”, was obtained by our own law-makers and used as a pattern, sometimes quoting it directly, to draft the 1968 Gun Control Act. Do you understand what that means? It means that the gun control agenda in this country was fashioned after Nazi policy. How can our legislators seek to enforce gun control over the American citizens with a straight face?

Even before 1968, Supreme Court Justice Buford stated in Florida in 1941 that the Act of 1893 was “passed for the purpose of disarming Negro laborers.” He added “the statue was NEVER intended to be applied to the White population”, basically making it a racist law. Read that sentence again. It was NEVER intended to be enforced in the ways it is being enforced today upon the majority of the American populace.

Even today, it is often believed that the issuing of gun carry permits is not completely balanced and leans toward the preference of Whites over Blacks as owners of handguns.

Gun control in this country, so it seems, has always been a means by which to keep a certain portion of the population in line and in the upcoming years it will be also be used in the same manner. This time it will be a tool of the anti-gun Obama Administration to keep EVERY law-abiding citizen in a place where we will be easy targets of gun-toting criminals and their likely victims because the means by which to defend ones self will be taken from us.

Gun-free zones have proven themselves to be breeding grounds for gun-related crimes because the criminals will be the only ones to have guns except for the police and we all know where they are when the crimes go down – no where to be seen. These zones are supposed to make the average citizen safer when in fact it only identifies areas for the criminal where they can find easy targets. This is proved time and time again, but politicians still don't get it.

Study after study has proved that where citizen have the opportunity to be armed, gun-related crimes go down. When citizens do not have the means of this form of self-defense, crime rates go up. These studies, some even by the government agency Center for Disease Control, tell a different story than the anti-gun politicians spout and these studies are ignored completely in favor of blindly heading down the dangerous course of gun bans.

When considering the real facts about gun owners, the bias against gun ownership makes no sense. What is the real agenda behind such a misuse of power? Is government merely continuing to follow the course set by racist in the past to restrict gun ownership only to expand it to include all members of the population? It is worthy of consideration.

Attack of Second Amendment Troublesome At Best, Criminal At Worst

Those who seek to take away our Constitutional rights whether it be during a robbery, mugging, car-jacking, home-invasion or any other means, or by taking control of a country, must be preceded by a removal of arms from the populace. It cannot happen any other way. Our Second Amendment right to bear arms keeps that from happening even if we never fire our weapons. Their very presence is a deterrent. Once they are taken, we are helpless victims.

The United Nations has long been a thorn in the side of America and rails consistently against our sovereignty, security, use of energy, position of power and laws which do not reflect the rest of the world’s views or privileges. Based in New York, the United Nations enjoys its prestigious location and takes advantage of the fact. We have nothing in common.

A statue, located outside the UN headquarters reflects their extreme anti-gun stance. It is a work of art depicting a revolver with the barrel twisted into a knot. Their stand on self-defense is appalling and is reflected in the United Nations Human Rights Council Subcommittee on Human Rights’ declaration that “no human has the right to self-defense”. (That should raise a few eyebrows!) It also states that there is however a “mandatory international human right to extremely restrictive gun control”.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment much to the United Nation’s dismay. I consider the statue of a pistol with the barrel twisted into a knot which stands in front of the UN offensive as it seeks to debase and reject one of the pillars of our Constitution upon which this country was built.

To make matters worse, Obama has appointed Harold Koh legal adviser to the Department of State. A legal adviser should be a strong defender of America rights and liberties and should stand against any foreign interference with those rights. Koh’s purpose as he sees it is exactly the opposing view.
In the climate where so many politicians are seeking out international opinion in establishing legal opinion for us here in America, it is troublesome that a man in his position leans towards the United Nations to determine his conscience.

Koh considers the honoring of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms a stand against a proposed “global ban on illicit transfer of small arms and light weapons”. He stated in a speech published in the “Fordham Law Review” in 2003 that, “If we really do care about human rights, we have to do something about the guns”. He obviously supports a global system of effective controls on small arms, thus allowing the global opinion to set the course for America.

He reinforced this belief when he stated, “too much work left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms”. He apparently isn't content in the regulation of guns here at home but wishes to regulate handguns across the entire globe.

The Second Amendment is under attack as never before by narrow-minded liberals who haven’t a clue as to its importance or necessity. They ignore study after study that reinforces the fact that communities and states with legal carry permits have few gun-related crimes, fewer gun-related suicides and even fewer children harmed in handgun accidents. The facts simply do not bear out their twisted paranoia.

According to the FBI during the first six months of 2008 nationwide violent crime fell 3.5%. In fact, since 1991, the violent crime rate fell more than 40% proving that in spite of alarmists and anti-gun advocates, the rise in gun sales has not increased gun-related or even violent crime over all.
While school shootings and gun-related violence is always a tragedy, it is far from the norm. With over 110 million households being the registered owners of at least one firearm and being law-abiding citizens, the few that use guns violently are by far the minority. In fact, most criminals who use guns in their “trade” are not registered gun owners anyway. New gun restrictions and laws will not affect them in the least but will only impair honest citizens in the exercise of their constitutional right to bear arms.

The number of instances of crimes being stopped and lives saved because a trained person with a legal carry permit was on the scene and acted appropriately is rarely reported by the basically anti-gun press. Of course every misuse of a firearm signals another chance for them to rally around the “Take the guns away” sentiment and those stories are reported over and over.

Even former President Jimmy Carter is getting into the act once again. Unsuccessful in passing his gun control legislation while president, he is pushing for it again. He recently said that anyone who owner a semi-automatic weapon was a “killer in waiting”. He says that the reason people own such weapons is because of their desire to shoot up schools or a workplace or to murder policemen seeing how many bodies we can pile up before ending the spree with our own suicide. His lack of knowledge is astounding, and his accusations insulting.

Speaking of the National Rifle Associations efforts to fight gun control legislation, Carter tried to side step the move to outlaw guns when he said, “The NRA would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case”. In all actually, his drive to ban “assault weapons” and the labeling which guns are to be considered such at the whim of politicians, is a real threat.
Although President Obama says he isn’t considering taking our guns, proposed legislation and restrictions by numerous politicians are making it difficult to find certain popular firearms, reloading materials and tools, and ammunition. As ammo becomes much more scarce owing a gun will be of little practical use. After all, what is the value of a handgun for self-defense if it cannot be loaded because bullets cannot be purchased or cost so much that no one can afford to buy them? Such efforts are simply back-door attempts to do what they say they aren’t doing, removing our right to defend ourselves.
Every country that has enacted gun bans against private ownership has experienced sky-rocketing gun-related crimes. And rightly so because the criminals who seek to use their guns illegally don’t register guns and don’t turn them in. Such bans only adversely affect law-abiding citizens who wish to be responsible for the safety of themselves and the ones they love.

The threat is being multiplied with Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as she has long been anti gun ownership. She believes that the Second Amendment does not entitle states to establish gun laws of their own but should rely upon the federal government to do as it wills on this issue.

I remember reading a Supreme Court decision in a case where the police of a town were being sued because they did not show up fast enough when called to stop a crime in which someone was killed. The Court ruled that we have no constitutional right to expect to be protected by the police department which is basically there to react to the crime and follow-up. Self-defense is actually on us.
The debate on this issue is far from over but every politician should be made aware of our belief that constitutional rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights must be defended vehemently by those who are swore to represent the people of the United States. If they don’t understand that, or refuse to act accordingly, the voting booth is a powerful persuader and we will use it to replace them with someone that understands our determination to have our rights protected by those we put into office.

This issue obviously means little to the elite but to common folks, especially in the South, it is very important. However, anytime a fundamental right such as given to us in the Second Amendment is threatened by misguided and ill-informed politicians, every American should stand up and take notice.

Even if you choose not to keep and bear arms, which is also your right, the liberties you personally hold dear may be next on the “Endangered Rights List”.

Inconvenient Gun Facts

The United Nations has long been a thorn in the side of America and rails consistently against our sovereignty, security, use of energy, position of power and laws which do not reflect the rest of the world’s views or privileges. Based in New York, the United Nations enjoys its prestigious location and takes advantage of the fact. We have nothing in common.

A statue, located outside the UN headquarters reflects their extreme anti-gun stance. It is a work of art depicting a revolver with the barrel twisted into a knot. Their stand on self-defense is appalling and is reflected in the United Nations Human Rights Council Subcommittee on Human Rights’ declaration that “no human has the right to self-defense”. (That should raise a few eyebrows!) It also states that there is however a “mandatory international human right to extremely restrictive gun control”.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment much to the United Nation’s dismay. I consider the statue of a pistol with the barrel twisted into a knot which stands in front of the UN offensive as it seeks to debase and reject one of the pillars of our Constitution upon which this country was built.

To make matters worse, Obama has appointed Harold Koh legal adviser to the Department of State. A legal adviser should be a strong defender of America rights and liberties and should stand against any foreign interference with those rights. Koh’s purpose as he sees it is exactly the opposing view.

In the climate where so many politicians are seeking to seek out international opinion in establishing legal opinion for us here in America, it is troublesome that a man in his position leans towards the United Nations to determine his conscience.

Koh considers the honoring of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms a stand against a proposed “global ban on illicit transfer of small arms and light weapons”. He stated in a speech published in the “Fordham Law Review” in 2003 that, “If we really do care about human rights, we have to do something about the guns”. He obviously supports a global system of effective controls on small arms, thus allowing the global opinion to set the course for America.

He reinforced this belief when he stated, “too much work left undone. After a few sleepless nights, I wrote myself a list of issues on which I needed to do more in the years ahead. One of those issues was global regulation of small arms”. He apparently isn’t content in the regulation of guns here at home but wishes to regulate handguns across the entire globe.

The Second Amendment is under attack as never before by narrow-minded liberals who haven’t a clue as to its importance or necessity. They ignore study after study that reinforces the fact that communities and states with legal carry permits have few gun-related crimes, fewer gun-related suicides and even fewer children harmed in handgun accidents. The facts simply do not bear out their twisted paranoia.

According to the FBI during the first six months of 2008 nationwide violent crime fell 3.5%. In fact, since 1991, the violent crime rate fell more than 40% proving that in spite of alarmists and anti-gun advocates, the rise in gun sales has not increased gun-related or even violent crime over all.

While school shootings and gun-related violence is always a tragedy, it is far from the norm. With over 110 million households being the registered owners of at least one firearm and being law-abiding citizens, the few that use guns violently are by far the minority. In fact, most criminals who use guns in their “trade” are not registered gun owners anyway. New gun restrictions and laws will not affect them in the least but will only impair honest citizens in the exercise of their constitutional right to bear arms.

The number of instances of crimes being stopped and lives saved because a trained person with a legal carry permit was on the scene and acted appropriately is rarely reported by the basically anti-gun press. Of course every misuse of a firearm signals another chance for them to rally around the “Take the guns away” sentiment and those stories are reported over and over.

Even former President Jimmy Carter is getting into the act once again. Unsuccessful in passing his gun control legislation while president, he is pushing for it again. He recently said that anyone who owner a semi-automatic weapon was a “killer in waiting”. He says that the reason people own such weapons is because of their desire to shoot up schools or a workplace or to murder policemen seeing how many bodies we can pile up before ending the spree with our own suicide. His lack of knowledge is astounding, and his accusations insulting.

Speaking of the National Rifle Associations efforts to fight gun control legislation, Carter tried to side step the move to outlaw guns when he said, “The NRA would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case”. In all actually, his drive to ban “assault weapons” and the labeling which guns are to be considered such at the whim of politicians, is a real threat.

Although President Obama says he isn’t considering taking our guns, proposed legislation and restrictions by numerous politicians are making it difficult to find certain popular firearms, reloading materials and tools, and ammunition. As ammo becomes much more scarce, owing a gun will be of little practical use. After all, what is the value of a handgun for self-defense if it cannot be loaded because bullets cannot be purchased or cost so much that no one can afford to buy them? Such efforts are simply backdoor attempts to do what they say they aren’t doing, removing our right to defend ourselves.

Every country that has enacted gun bans against private ownership has experienced sky-rocketing gun-related crimes. And rightly so because the criminals who seek to use their guns illegally don’t register guns and don’t turn them in. Such bans only adversely affect law-abiding citizens who wish to be responsible for the safety of themselves and the ones they love.

The threat is being multiplied with Obama’s nomination and later confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as she has long been anti gun ownership. She believes that the Second Amendment does not entitle states to establish gun laws of their own but should rely upon the federal government to do as it wills on this issue. This shows a severe lack of understanding of the Constitution or an outright desire to disregard it.

I recall reading of a Supreme Court decision in a case where the police of a town were being sued because they did not show up fast enough when called to stop a crime and as a result someone was killed. The Court ruled that we in the United States have no constitutional right to expect to be protected by the police who are basically there to react to the crime and follow-up with an investigation. Self-defense is actually on us.

The debate on this issue is far from over but every politician should be made aware of our belief that constitutional rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights must be defended vehemently by those who are swore to represent the people of the United States. If they don’t under that, or refuse to act accordingly, the voting booth is a powerful persuader and we will use it to replace them with someone that understands our determination to have our rights protected by those we put into office.

This issue obviously means little to the elite but to common folks, especially in the South, it is very important. However, anytime a fundamental right such as given to us in the Second Amendment is threatened by misguided and ill-informed politicians, every American should stand up and take notice.

Even if you choose not to keep and bear arms, which is also your right, the liberties you personally hold dear may be next on the “Endangered Rights List”.