daniel brezenoff
Sep 27 · 2 min read

Thanks for your extended reply. I only wish its signal to noise ratio were a bit higher. I’m not sure where you got the idea that gun control won’t help reduce suicides; in fact, access to a gun is one of the single highest risk factors for completing a suicide. Lacking access to a gun, many people will get past their suicidal crisis and end up staying alive. Many people think that if they don’t have a gun they will simply use something else, but in fact research does not bear this out. Many suicides are made on impulse and a gun is a very effective way to carry out that impulse to its deadly conclusion. If people do not have an easy way to end their own life they will often end up staying alive and getting help.

And even when people do choose an alternate method to a firearm, there are very few methods nearly as reliable. Pills, car crashes, wrist slashing and most other methods you can think of are much less likely to succeed than a gunshot to the head. So your claim is simply wrong, and demonstrates that you did absolutely no research into the matter.

As for the cities with the highest incidences of gun violence: we would expect that these cities would have the highest incidence of gun violence and of all kinds of violence, not to mention other causes of death — because they are population centers.

However the fact that they have strict gun control does not keep people from obtaining guns. But that’s not because gun control doesn’t work. It’s because they are in states, or adjacent to states, that have very little gun control. Michigan, Indiana, Illinois for example all have pretty lax gun control. There is no wall around these cities, so people can simply bring in guns from elsewhere and evidence shows that that’s exactly what they are doing.

The existence of gun violence in cities with strict gun control is an argument for more gun control in surrounding areas, not an argument against gun control. I hope you can see that, but if you can’t I suggest reading up on logical fallacies.

Finally your listing of other causes of death is utterly and entirely meaningless. It’s like saying we shouldn’t fight cancer because heart disease kills more people, or we shouldn’t combat childhood drowning in swimming pools because cars kill more people. Those arguments are patently and obviously ridiculous. Raising these other causes of death is nothing but a red herring.

Nothing else you’ve written here has much interest for me. Thanks again for stopping by.

    daniel brezenoff

    Written by

    Social Worker, Educator