In the case of firearms, we are attempting to control the behavior of people that aren’t inclined to obey the law. Whatever benefits they hope to gain from their actions outweigh the threat of sanctions.
The vast majority of people who commit gun violence are in fact inclined to obey the law, until the very moment that they don’t. With the exception of mass shootings, most gun violence isn’t premeditated. Suicides and domestic violence involving firearms often result from impulsive actions, for example, and I believe it’s possible to find ways to reduce the risk of those actions, or their deadliness when they arise.
In my original post, I absolutely acknowledged that legislating behavior is damn near impossible. But you’re continuing to argue against me…despite the fact that we seem to be agreeing on certain things, such as non-legislative suicide prevention partnerships, which I specifically mentioned in the article. I also mentioned several other arenas where the rules governing firearm licensing and commerce could be changed without regulating the guns themselves, just like you did above.
Also like you, I have lost several friends to suicide, and I am active in the suicide prevention and mental health awareness fields as well, separately from my work relating to gun violence. But the fact remains that the two issues do intersect—which is why I pointed it out, as one factor of gun violence that deserves a separate conversation from the rest. Which is the whole point of the post in the first place.
I wrote this piece in hopes that it could be used as the beginning of a conversation. It’s certainly not a conclusive end to anything. You seem intent on stomping out that conversation before it even begins, and I don’t understand why.