Far from it.
I was quite specific in my comments, including offering a correction to a factual error in your article.
My comments on suicide concerned the use of a foreign comparison when a contradictory example already existed in the U.S. Australia is not like the United States, in law, in tradition, in the relationship of its citizens to their government. I believe the example of California, while it differs substantially from the Australian example, is far more germaine to the discussion.
I offered no comments about your other points, which to the best of my knowledge are fairly accurate.
I certainly don’t believe there is nothing we can do or that there is no value in discussion and exploration. But in order for such discussions to be fruitful, we must shed our current fixations and focus on core issues that might produce better results.
The theory the more laws will prevent anything has a fundamental problem. There have been laws against murder and inflicting violence on other people since time immemorial. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is a prohibition on murder from the highest authority. For most of human history, the crime of homicide has been punishable by the death of the killer.
Add to those proscriptions the myriad of existing regulations on the purchase, possession, transport and discharge of a firearm.
I am often reminded of the comments Mark Glaze made in a June 2014 interview in the Wall Street Journal. Glaze, the former executive director of Everytown for Gun Safety and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said, “Is it a messaging problem when a mass shooting happens and nothing we have to offer would have stopped that mass shooting? Sure, it’s a challenge in this issue.”
I personally think it’s far more than a messaging problem. It’s a failure to look into other possibilities and a disregard of what real-world experience tells us.
I certainly have no quarrel with your thesis. I just wished to point out a couple of issues I had with some of your statements.