BrianGarst.com

A 16-year-old boy in Maryland committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his step-father’s gun. The boy’s biological father demanded that the step-father take responsibility, and has launched a crusade – culminating in a $50,000 jury award – to prove that he is at fault. Underlying his efforts is a clear anti-gun subtext.

Does it really make sense to place responsibility for a teenager’s suicide (we’re talking about a deliberate act here, not an accident) on the availability of a gun? An individual determined to commit suicide will use whatever means is available. Guns are the easiest and are therefore used in a majority of suicides, but plenty of people find other methods.

If the step-father did not have a gun, surely he has knives that could have been used, or some prescription medications, or a rope.. The absence of the gun in question would not have made suicide impossible, or even significantly more difficult. It is therefore illogical to conclude that the step-father, simply by having an accessible gun, is responsible for the child’s act. We must not allow the need to assign blame for one tragic act compound the situation with an even more tragic assault on personal liberty.

frivolous lawsuits