I am reading a book by one of my favorite authors, Robert J. Sawyer.
He writes some excellent sci fi, but I have noticed a little anti gun rhetoric here and there in his writing.
In the book I'm reading, two characters are discussing suicide.
The short version is that strict gun laws prevent deaths by suicide because- get this- suicidal people who don't have access to a gun are forced to use other, less effective means!
The idea is that if you slit your wrists or eat a bottle of aspirin, you are more likely to survive, and people who survive a suicide attempt are often grateful to the people who saved them.
Had they used a gun, they would have simply died, so gun laws save lives!
I was so shocked at this bizarre feat of mental gymnastics that my respect for this author plummeted. I guess I'll still read his books, but I don't admire him as much as I did.
First Stephen King, now Robert J. Sawyer
My only consolation is that Mr. Sawyer has stated before that he doesn't necessarily believe the things that his characters believe, his example was a religious character of his.
Perhaps he read that this was someone's opinion, and used it for the character without actually sharing the opinion himself. I hope so, because it's one of the most dumb arguments about gun control I have ever read.
Even if this whole 'saving suicide victims' thing is in fact true, (which is feasible) and that a few people would survive an attempt to kill themselves if we restricted firearms ownership, is that a valid reason to infringe my rights?
He writes some excellent sci fi, but I have noticed a little anti gun rhetoric here and there in his writing.
In the book I'm reading, two characters are discussing suicide.
The short version is that strict gun laws prevent deaths by suicide because- get this- suicidal people who don't have access to a gun are forced to use other, less effective means!
The idea is that if you slit your wrists or eat a bottle of aspirin, you are more likely to survive, and people who survive a suicide attempt are often grateful to the people who saved them.
Had they used a gun, they would have simply died, so gun laws save lives!
I was so shocked at this bizarre feat of mental gymnastics that my respect for this author plummeted. I guess I'll still read his books, but I don't admire him as much as I did.
First Stephen King, now Robert J. Sawyer
My only consolation is that Mr. Sawyer has stated before that he doesn't necessarily believe the things that his characters believe, his example was a religious character of his.
Perhaps he read that this was someone's opinion, and used it for the character without actually sharing the opinion himself. I hope so, because it's one of the most dumb arguments about gun control I have ever read.
Even if this whole 'saving suicide victims' thing is in fact true, (which is feasible) and that a few people would survive an attempt to kill themselves if we restricted firearms ownership, is that a valid reason to infringe my rights?