Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
55% of all U.S Gun Deaths Are Actually Suicides
time.com — The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves. Suicides accounted for 55% of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year.
MakiMaki- 1458 diggs
- digg it
- Ingersoll23, on 06/30/2008, -23/+16I would like to see if deaths from gun violence rises in DC. This would be a telling number.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -7/+11It wont.
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -12/+35homicides went UP after the banning.
just like australia did when they banned handguns- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9[Citation Needed]
Gun related crimes?
How has it changed in 10 years since?
Please put it in context - speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Austr ...
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2no, homicides.
i'm sure gun crime has gone up also but i wasn't commenting on that since i can't figure out if they consider having a gun is now a gun crime, or are they only counting crimes that are committed using a gun.
i'm sure gun crimes go up like crazy when you slap a gun ban like that down. all the people "sticking to their guns" are now committing gun crimes by just having one. - speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Of course youre going to have an increase in a statistic if you change the scope =P
The point is that firearm related homicides have decreased.. whether this was following the established trend or not is up for debate. There is a decrease in handgun related crimes as they were targeted by home burgalaries and ended up on the black market to be used for illegal purposes.
Read the wiki article.. theres a lot of food for thought there - kjd84, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2In the UK they went up, in Aus it was determined that the death rate by firearms was not affected as can be seen here in this peer reviewed study:
McPhedran, S., & Baker, J. (2008). The Impact of Australia’s 1996 Firearms Legislation: A Research Review with Emphasis on Data Selection, Methodological Issues, and Statistical Outcomes. Justice Policy Journal, 5(1).
http://www.cjcj.org/pdf/the_impact.pdf - fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@gtluke, no. Gun ownership in NSW actually increased since the laws were tightened. There has abeen a solid line in bull**** from the gun lobby over what the stats mean, andthey ignore all the ones which show NO mass shootings since, depite there being a number in the years preceding and large drops in firearm related deaths.
The crime epidemic can pretty much be traced on the sudden rise of Ice (Cyrstal Meth) here. I heard a cop say that the ice heads made him realise the heroin junkies werent so bad. I live inner city and I see it first hand.
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9[Citation Needed]
- Nitesmoke, on 07/01/2008, -6/+17Is a firearm in your home "22 times more likely" to be used to kill or injure a family member than to be used for protection? Or "43 times more likely?" How about "18 times more likely?" Anti-gun groups and politicians say it is, citing research by Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D.
Dr. Kellermann's dubious conclusions provide anti-gunners propaganda they use to try to frighten Americans into voluntarily disposing of their guns—in essence, to do to themselves what the anti-gunners have been unable to do to them by legislative, regulatory, or judicial means.
Kellermann admits to the political goal of his work, saying "People should be strongly discouraged from keeping guns in their homes." ("Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home," New England Journal of Medicine, Oct. 1993.) Anti-gun groups have seized upon his most recent attempt in this regard, a "study" from which the bogus "22 times more likely" risk-benefit ratio is derived. ("Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home," Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, Aug. 1998.) The study suffers numerous flaws common to previous Kellermann efforts, including the fact that it is a very small-scale survey of sample jurisdictions that are not representative of the country or even of one another.
Most significant, though, Kellermann severely understates defensive uses of guns, by counting only those in which criminals are killed or injured. Dr. Edgar A. Suter, writing in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia, explains the error in the context of an earlier Kellermann study, which compared family member deaths to killings of criminals: "The true measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected—not the burglar or rapist body count. Since only 0.1% to 0.2% of defensive gun usage involves the death of the criminal, any study, such as this, that counts criminal deaths as the only measure of the protective benefits of guns will expectedly underestimate the benefits of firearms by a factor of 500 to 1,000." ("Guns in the Medical Literature—A Failure of Peer Review," March 1994, p. 134.)
Similarly, criminologist Gary Kleck notes, "More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps referred to or displayed, and this sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user." (Targeting Guns, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, p. 162.) Kleck's 1995 landmark survey of defensive gun uses found guns used for protection as many as 2.5 million times annually. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.)
Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses.- kmolleja, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Nitesmoke FTW
- CryRightardCry, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2We all KNOW the odds are higher of killing someone you love.
Whether or not the figures are completely accurate is not the point.
Whether it's 13 times more likely, 43 times, 81 times, or even just 4 times, the odds are you will kill someone you care about.
Personally I'm all for it. You gun nuts can just keep buying more guns until the odds catch up with you, that might make the world safer for the non-cowards.
I feel bad for your children and families, they will be the ones to suffer.
Personally I give up. The guntards win.
Now, rather than trying to resolve my issues with words I'll just shoot anyone who enters my yard.
That's the plan, right? Then you don't even have to try to be a man, you can just tear up and pull the trigger. - DreadPirate, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2CRC - You "know", but cannot provide any actual evidence of this? That sounds more like faith-based reasoning that anything in the realm of actual science or statistics.
I note that you really have given up, considering all you have are insults and complaining. You haven't even been able to answer a simple question I posted to you yesterday - too much of a coward?
- DavidBGie, on 07/01/2008, -6/+9If they didn't have a gun then there would be no way to commit suicide! Why don't pro-gun activist understand this?! I guess you have to be a liberal to see this truth.
- dave11980, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7I can think of several ways much easier than a gun.
- egoideal, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1*****
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9How many suicides are committed by hanging by rope, or slashing of wrists, or jumping off of bridges?
I'm sure if you were to do a study on what percentage of deaths are suicides caused by straight razors, compared to accidental deaths, it would be something like 95% of deaths by razor blades were suicide. Should we ban razor blades?
Should we ban tall bridges? Balconies on tall buildings?
Come on! Be logical!
If 55% of gun deaths are suicides (a voluntary act), that means the other 45% are murders! And I'm sure the overwhelming majority of those murders were committed by people who possess illegal guns, not legal gun owners. - mcquitty, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Statistics on Death for 2005, only the major causes:
30,964 Gun related deaths
17,002 of those were suicide
789 were unintentional deaths
13,173 were homicides.
Total number of deaths is 2005: 2,397,615
Leading causes:
Heart disease: 652,486
Cancer: 553,888
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Diabetes: 73,138
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Influenza/Pneumonia: 59,664
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Septicemia: 33,373
Guns killed 1.29% of the people who died. Take out the suicides, it is 0.58%. If you want to count just unintended deaths, 0.03%.
- Ingersoll23, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5A decrease in gun related deaths would be equally telling as an increase - after the DC ban lifting. The only way to really know is to wait and see - maybe 2 years?
On my opinion of guns in general: as long as no one points theirs at me I don't care if they own one.- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'll take your indifference one further. I don't own a gun, but I fee safer knowing that in Virginia, people can open carry and even concealed carry a gun.
It tells me that the criminal has to be cautious in who he targets. He never knows who might be carrying a gun. - dagnome1984, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2There might be a huge spike in gun deaths when the ban is lifted. After that it will fall into a sharp decline. It will take a little while for the thugs figure out that it's not a good idea to mess with law abiding people who pack heat.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'll take your indifference one further. I don't own a gun, but I fee safer knowing that in Virginia, people can open carry and even concealed carry a gun.
- brundlefly76, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3this is so timely - i have a friend who was totally anti-gun, but decided to take his own life and bought one. unfortunately there was only a 7 day waiting period, now hes dead.
i wish he would have had another 23 days to think about it at least.- Ingersoll23, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Proper background checks and waiting periods could be beneficial in certain cases. Proper training and locking of guns seems like a good thing as well. I have no interest in guns as a hobby or for self defense or to take down a tyrannical government but it seems to me that people who do have these interests know how to handle their guns - the people who use them incorrectly probably can't be stopped.
- Dimensio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Are you saying that, without access to a firearm, your friend would not have sought another means to end his life?
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Ingersoll23, that is about the way I feel.
I don't want a gun in my own home, but I have noticed that the people who own guns legally are very responsible and respect their guns for what they are.
Just look at that idiot who shot up VA Tech. I bet before he snapped, he was probably more anti-gun, and would comment on digg about how evil guns are and how nobody should own one.
Yet, he went out and bought two just weeks before he went on his killing spree.
Who knows what method he would have used to kill people in his rampage of anger and stupidity had he not had access to guns. I'm sure he would have still done something, and either injured or killed people in his psychopathic rampage, either way. - bruce86, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2@Dimensio
actually probably yes. Alot of sucide attempts are not really sucides at all, but crys for help. If this person tried to kill themselves by some other means that is less instantly lethal, it would have increased the chances someone would stop him or her. And that their problem could be addressed and treated. - brundlefly76, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Dimensio:
"Are you saying that, without access to a firearm, your friend would not have sought another means to end his life?"
We will never know, but I was in a church last week with about 250 people who would have really liked him to have had another 23 days to think about it.
I believe some people will always find a way, but I certainly believe that most people just need to be in a situation where they 'lack appealing utility' for a period of time while a window of action passes.
- OwdenBowden, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1It will because the Law Abiding Citizens will finally be able to DEFEND THEMSELVES from the Criminal elements that have been allowed to fester and grow. Thus fulfilling our Founding Fathers dream of the 2nd Amendment and our Right of Self Preservation.
G-D Bless America.
- Stevanoski, on 06/30/2008, -57/+96I predict gun deaths decreast as they have through out the nation when gun bans are lifted.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/01/2008, -17/+34What?
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -24/+106More Guns = Less Crime. Digg me down, but it's true.
- EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -18/+61Australia bans firearms in 1996, look what happens:
"Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent;
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly."
No matter what side of the aisle you stand on, or how you feel about the NRA, statistically speaking, allowing law-abiding citizens to protect themselves with firearms decreases crime.
It's pretty simple if you ask me. Criminals, obviously, care nothing for breaking the law, making firearms illegal only prevents you from buying a piece if you follow the laws placed upon your community. - thecosmicpope, on 07/01/2008, -17/+9“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .” -- Chris Rock
- fatdefacto, on 07/01/2008, -12/+9Eddie can you state your source?
The Victoria one is understandable, but that's because we had a bit of a mafia war down their recently.
"In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily"
Is just a ridiculous statement.
Lastly, no-one was really affected by the gun law changes except farmers. - EmileVictor, on 07/01/2008, -15/+7As an Australian I'm happy that they got rid of the majority of guns (especially pistols). A close friend of mine committed suicide by pistol, the reason given that it was so easy because it was there. And that was *after* the laws came in, and the firearm was deemed legal. If I as an aussie want to go out and get my hands on a gun, I need to jump through a lot of hoops to get there. And I'm happy with that.
Americans need to learn to stop clinging to their guns. It's medieval, and the fact that your constitution allows it is irellevant (keeping in mind that this piece of paper was written in the 1700s when owning weapons might have been understandable).
I'm all for quite a lot of things that the constituition and its amendments brought about, such as free speech. But in my eyes, guns are the stupidest invention ever made. - FairDinkumMate, on 07/01/2008, -8/+14@EddieTheHated
People like you are the reason that it's virtually impossible to discuss gun ownership logically. Wildly distorting truth by using blatantly selective(& unsourced) statistics doesn't make for a discussion.
I just spent some time reviewing your "figures" & actually found a whole article debunking the EXACT passage that you took these figures from!
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
You MORON! Why LIE about things? As the link shows, these are BLATANTLY misleading & just plain WRONG figures from 1 year after one of 3 changes to Australia's gun ownership laws(1987, 1996 & 2002), NONE of which resulted in Australia BANNING firearms. I repeat, firearms are STILL LEGAL in Australia. You are just a flat out LIAR! - nick111, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7@FairDinkumMate - and as of this moment, the guy who's lieing has been upmodded 39 times while you've been downmodded once.
This whole debate isn't about the truth. - uptwolait, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Boys, boys...take it outside and settle this debate with a good old-fasioned duel.
- EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I would, but with enough time, flintlocks will have been banned. :(
Okay folks, first of all, I'm willing to have open debate about this sort of thing, as it's a topic I'm quite impassioned about. I'm not lying, nor am I trying to fudge numbers or statistics. If you think one of my sources is incorrect, let me know, and we can discuss it over, however you should be aware that calling me a "LIAR", or a "MORON" in all capital letters really isn't the best method for engaging in "logical" gun debates (This is solely directed at FairDinkumMate).
To clarify, I use the term banning rather broadly, in the future, I will stick to more accurate terms like "heavily restricting", or "buying back 641,381 firearms at an expense to taxpayers exceeding $500,000,000". (Those figures, I might add, I did double check)
In regards to FatDefacto's post requesting a source for my figures.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
Now, after checking facts of my own, it appears that those numbers in *part*, were taken out of context, and for the purpose of a fact based debate, I'll shelve them, as they're contested pieces of information.
If you don't see the fault in australia's firearms snatch, look at Great Britain since their firearms... ahem... "heavy restriction".
[Source: Kings College in London - Study Director: David Bredlin]
"The use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned."
"the U.S. has among the world's lowest "hot" burglary rates -- defined as burglaries committed while people are in the building -- at 13%. Compare that rate with gun-free Great Britain's rate, which is now up to 59%"
The number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.
Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.
And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/1440764.stm
[Source: BBC Archives]
Let me know what you think of that. - OwdenBowden, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2I hate to do this but the fact is that:
If you Outlaw Guns - Only Outlaws will have Guns! - RainForRent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Read "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott. As gun ownership increases, crime shifts from personal crime (rape, muggings, etc) to property crimes (grand theft auto, home robbery when the owners aren't home).
- makkaveli19, on 07/01/2008, -24/+10can i know the reason for your prediction? it seems that gun crimes per capita is lower in countries with gun prohibition.
- lead2thehead, on 07/01/2008, -6/+8false
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11Gun crime percapita maybe, however violent crime in general does not go down. The UK and Australia both have fairly high levels of violent crime which only went up after banning handguns.
- BBWolf, on 07/01/2008, -5/+6What 'seems' is often wrong. You may want to do some research.
- dave11980, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5They are lower per capita however they were lower than us before they instituted their bans too. Our violent crime rate averages like 3.5-4.0 per 100,000 people a year. European countries who banned guns was like 1.0 per year before an 2.0 per year afterwards (not exact numbers on either note, just a representation of how the numbers work.) Then they say look, these countries don't have guns and have a lower crime rate than the US, we should ban guns too and get our crime rate lower. It just doesn't work that way in real life. Remember, their are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -10/+83I can't believe you're being buried. I used to be pretty anti-gun myself - then I actually did the research. Allowing legal firearms and concealed carry permits actual DO wind up correlating to (I'll stop short of saying they cause) lower violent crime rates.
I find that people who used to support large gun control measures the way I used to just won't hear anything of it - they can't fathom how allowing responsible and otherwise law abiding citizens the means to defend themselves against violent attackers could actually lead to lower violent crime rates.
The simple fact is that when petty criminals know a population is unarmed they're going to be a lot more likely to use force or the threat of force to get what they want because they know that their targets aren't going to have the means to protect themselves. Determined criminals will get guns one way or another, the least we can do is allow law abiding citizens the same chance (intelligently and with strict standards of safety and usage of course).- str1fe, on 07/01/2008, -4/+21"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"
Law abiding citizens in a society that recently banned guns would have to resort to using a knife/crowbar/bat/etc to chase away someone breaking into their house with a gun. If that person is carrying an illegal firearm, he probably doesn't care that it's illegal and probably wouldn't mind using it. Good luck taking him out at (or just getting within) melee range when he has a gun.
Also, could you provide me with links to that research on that legal guns = less crime deal? I've been in debates recently with my Aussie friend (where guns are banned) about the topic, and I can't convince her that guns are necessary. She's convinced that crime rates there are lower because guns are banned, which can't be further from the truth. I can never seem to find solid statistics to back my stance up. - Gizza, on 07/01/2008, -11/+5No one had guns in Australia before the ban anyways. I don't think the ban here made the slightest bit of difference really.
- JackHarkness, on 07/01/2008, -13/+8@srt1fe
IMHO as an australian, Gun crimes have gone down since the bans. Before the bans the only people with guns were the hobyists, farmers and the criminals. There was often murders to take out busness competition, unfaithful lovers ect. Guns were often involved in bank holdups, although Australian bank robers were known to be the most curtious and I can't remembere any hostages even feeling threatend there are many infamous shootouts with the police, usualy with casualties on both sides.
Now, the farmers still have guns, the hobyists have tighter regulation and the only criminals with guns are the mafias(and they only shoot each other). Gas stations get held up with syringes, When someone breaks down now our version of a clocktower sniper is someone with a sword.
The NRA released some stats, taken completly out of context, that seemed to show that crime was up since the bans. Here is a thorough debunking though if you're still interested
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp - MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -5/+4MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Underst ... - fuse13, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@Murrabit - Hardly anyone had guns before the laws were tightened who cant still have them under current laws (and in fact in NSW, where I live legal gun ownership INCREASED) so I dont think criminals suddenyl felt safer. That argument might be logical in a USA context, where there are LOTS of guns, but not here.
@str1fe - http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp - even snopes is calling the stats bull, while leaving its options open at the end. Here are firearm deaths - http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi066.html - note they are dropping.
Personally, I am happy with the laws here. They work well in our situation. I dont think they would work in the USA, however. Its far too late now. There are guns everywhere. You guys need guns to defend yourselves. Pro/Anti lobbyists tend to think that they can apply their beliefs universally. You cant. - nick111, on 07/01/2008, -11/+2I come from countries where the police don't carry guns.
The idea that more guns means less crime seems absolutely stupid to me. All this theorising about "criminals are more likely to be armed if no one else is" is not born out by what actually happens. - thailand1972, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Might it just be possible that different countries have different kinds of culture, and that some laws that work in one country, wouldn't work in another?
Why do people think that one law will work exactly the same in all countries, despite the strong influence of behavioural differences in each country?
In my opinion, gun bans do *work* in some countries. The UK is a good example (despite the media hype about knife crime - let's compare 16 knife murders in London this year to 30,000 gun deaths in the US per year, every year, the per-capita difference is huge if you are bad at math).
Does that mean gun bans would work in all countries? No. It would depend on the culture and the current state of the society of that country. The US is a good example where it's simply too late to ban guns even if you wanted to - there's simply too many guns currently in circulation. - Oracle95, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Let's not forget what happened when Germany outlawed the ownership of guns.
- xkorbin, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@nick111: Your police are pussies. Here, our police carry firearms and tasers (USA) and are not afraid to use them.
- str1fe, on 07/01/2008, -4/+21"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns"
- wonderchemist, on 07/01/2008, -13/+7Gun deaths (due to suicide) may increase however, easier access to guns may prompt some suicidal person to buy a gun because it's a more reliable method.
- EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -1/+37If you're determined to kill yourself, you're going to find a way to do it Chemist... It's not exactly a crime of opportunity.
- wonderchemist, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2OP in thread said nothing about reducing crime which also will happen. He/she just said gun deaths will go down, which may not happen.
- diggduggjoe, on 07/01/2008, -2/+17Pharmaceuticals are used a lot for suicide, too. Maybe we should ban them. Let's not forget ropes, autos (CO poisoning) and gas ovens.
Suicides are awful, but the truth is they are hard to prevent without intervention. A suicidal person left alone will find a way. - wonderchemist, on 07/01/2008, -10/+1Pharmaceuticals and autos are more regulated than guns.
Do you need the permission of a board certified person to buy a gun? No.
Do you need to pass a test showing you know how to operate a gun to buy a gun? No. - Kirizan, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10Nope, but I can walk into Wal-mart and buy a bottle of Unis-om and kill myself with that. Just because it doesn't take a prescription, doesn't mean it's not deadly. I can also go out to the interstate and jump in front of a fast moving truck.
Just because they are more regulated doesn't mean that someone can't just as easily use them to kill themselves. Eddie was correct, if someone wants to kill themselves, the medium they use to do it is irrelevant, they need help far beyond what simple laws can do for them. - MikeSD34, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11You can purchase a vehicle without a license.
You can purchase a knife (depending on size) without certification or ID.
You can purchase rope without certification or ID.
You can jump off a bridge without certification or ID.
You can run into traffic without certification or ID.
You can stab yourself with a pencil without certification or ID.
You can cut yourself with a box cutter without certification or ID.
You can jump off a building without certification or ID.
You can put a bag over your head without certification or ID.
You can overdose on over the counter medications without certification or ID.
You can drink bleach without certification or ID.
You can slit your wrists with scissors without certification or ID.
There are more ways to off yourself in this world with common household objects then a person could ever hope to list completely. To try and ban all of those things because there is the possibility that you could do harm to yourself or someone else intentionally or unintentionally is just ridiculous. - thomash, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2a gun is a very quick and almost guaranteed way to commit suicide. the number of unsuccessful suicide attempts usually is greater than the number of suicides. with guns available the number of suicides increases and the number of unsuccessful suicide attempts decreases.
- thomash, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3just to back up my previous argument:
an estimated eight to 25 nonfatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death
so do you think a gun in the house will increase or decrease the number of non-fatal suicide attempts? - Scaryclouds, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2@MikeSD34
All true, however using a gun is far easier, quicker, more private (to jump off a high building you usually have to be in a public place), and generally believed to be less painful than most any method you described. So if you have a gun around you are more likely to off yourself than otherwise, that is you might not be as desperate to kill yourself as someone who will drink bleach.
All that said I agree with allowing private citizens to own guns. The higher the percentage of the population that has guns the less crime because a criminal has a greater fear of being injured/killed. However the crimes that are committed are generally more violent. - Armando57, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2When you come to the end of your rope, tie a noose in it and slip it over your head.
- JayKeaton, on 07/01/2008, -15/+355 percent gun suicides, people can't even trust THEMSELVES with guns, so why should I trust them with guns when it comes to my own families safety?
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3trust yourself with a gun?
or you can always beg for mercy.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3trust yourself with a gun?
- dave11980, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3Most suicides are probably related to what someone has said to them. Verbal attacks being a primary cause of low self esteem and all. Perhaps we should consider a ban on the 1st amendment to protect that. Maybe if we let the government monitor us they can stop people from committing suicide so lets restrict the 4th amendment. We can go on with this all day, the bottom line is freedom has costs and responsibilities associated with it. If you don't like it move to a communist nation, however you may find that it isn't that much better there either.
- MRCAB, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1can you rephrase that sentence?
- chuckhammm, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0I predict that you're a moron. Let's celebrate that only 15,000 US gun deaths were homicides.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/01/2008, -17/+34What?
- dha07030, on 07/01/2008, -24/+8Here we go again.
Edit 1st amendment supporter here, don't bury me into oblivion- ExperiMETAL, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10Wrong one.
- dha07030, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8***** THAT WAS STUPID!!!
- whatsupimphil, on 07/01/2008, -1/+62nd dude
- EddietheHated, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6Yes sir! You have the right to speak your mind...
...Which includes ***** up the order your amendments are in. ;) - Akaji, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Well, maybe he was saying that burying is a violation of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech...
... which it isn't. - gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I support most of the amendments, particullarly the original ones.
- dha07030, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Thank you for pointing that out and not being a dick about it, damn my face is red.
- JayKeaton, on 07/01/2008, -12/+3Lol, Americans don't even know which amendment is meant to protect which rights. Sort of funny.
- dha07030, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10Go ***** yourself "Americans" I am ONE ***** person.
- JayKeaton, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1One ***** American.
- FukUrCouch, on 07/01/2008, -12/+7I'm sure with this economy a lot of people will look into buying guns...
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+20I sell guns. Business has been great, and getting better thanks to the election coming up.
- RoboHobo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9How is the upcoming election improving gun sales?
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10@RoboHobo "How is the upcoming election improving gun sales?"
Good question if you're not into firearms. Basically if either McCain or Obama get elected, it's a pretty clear bet that more anti-gun legislation will be passed. - TJATL, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Great. Which AK-47 manufacturer is the best? Seems to be the best AR for the budget minded...
- Pixelante, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3If you really want an AK, get an East German, Hungarian or Czech-manufactured one. They're usually better quality.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I got a cheap Romanian AK-47 clone, it looks and sounds like a piece of crap, but it performs very nicely.
- 1timeuser, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2I have a decent sized penis so I dont need an AK-47. I have a pretty nice shotgun though.
- sodade, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1So maybe you can tell me: if I go and buy a gun legally with background checks, waiting period and all that, does my name end up on a list of registered gun owners? If so, that ruins the whole reason for having one in the first place.
- albinorhino101, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0@RoboHobo "How is the upcoming election improving gun sales?"
Basically many people are worried that there will be another Assault Weapons ban like the one that Clinton put in place in 1994 - 2004. All this ban did was prohibit the importation and production of weapons with certain "assault weapons" features like flash suppressors, folding stocks, hi capacity magazines, bayonet lugs etc... since weapons that were purchased prior to the ban were still legal, their value went way up in the 10 years the ban was in place and also accessories like magazines became really expensive. This year people are stocking up on items such as these either to have them prior to any new possible bans.
@TJATL - If you want the Best AK you should go with one that has a milled receiver not a stamped one, but in all honesty a basic cheap stamped AK from Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania etc.. will get the job done. They won't be extremely accurate, but for a cheap gun that can take a lot of abuse they're a good deal. If you have Dunhams Sporting goods near you you can pick up a cheap one for 400-500 depending on the model.
- albinorhino101, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Actually, the gun market is booming right now because of the upcoming election and fear/worries of stricter gun laws being enforced. Demand is up on a lot of guns and especially ammo.
- Frostek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1sodade (and anyone else) - I'm curious. Why do they have background checks if they then don't keep some sort of list of gun owners. You might get through the background check, give / sell the gun to to someone who wouldn't get through it in a million years, and there's no way to trace the movement of the gun.
That's just crazy! - sodade, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I would own a gun for two reasons:
1. When things fall apart, I have zero faith in the government's ability to protect me and mine from looters, etc...
2. When things fall apart, I have zero faith that my government will go all out fascist so I want a gun to protect me from my government when it goes bad (well, worse than it already is)
In both of those cases, I don't trust my government to not pull the list and proactively relieve me of my 2nd amendment right. - albinorhino101, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Frostek - what you're describing is called a straw sale and it is a serious problem with guns these days and happens quite frequently. I'm not sure how the laws work in every state (MadOgre might be able to answer better) but I believe at least in PA (where i live) when you buy a gun the record of the sale is only stored at the shop where the gun was purchased and is not filed with the state or federal gov. If a crime is committed with the weapon though, then it can somehow be traced back to the shop that sold it and to the person that purchased it. Basically, if you are participating in a sale like this by buying a gun for somebody else you are putting yourself in a dangerous position because you are ultimately responsible for what happens with that gun.
- albinorhino101, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Sodade - Those are two excellent reasons to own guns and frankly why I think a lot of people that collect a lot of semi-auto rifles ( aside from just shooting for fun) own them. I myself am in the process of collecting a couple different rifles, just to have in case something like that were to happen. Unfortunately this idea is too hard for anti-gun people to realize and they would rather place their trust in gov. organizations to take care of them.
- Frostek, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1sodade (and anyone else) - I'm curious. Why do they have background checks if they then don't keep some sort of list of gun owners. You might get through the background check, give / sell the gun to to someone who wouldn't get through it in a million years, and there's no way to trace the movement of the gun.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+20I sell guns. Business has been great, and getting better thanks to the election coming up.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -25/+109An Open Letter to the Mayor of Washington, D.C., Adrian Fenty.
Mr. Mayor, you have put yourself on one side of the Gun Control argument, and I am on the other. I believe more guns will mean less crime. You happen to be the Mayor of one of the most violent cities in our Nation and this is our Nation's Capitol. Yet you believe that more guns on your streets will mean more crime. I do not believe you and neither do millions of law abiding, gun owning citizens. You have the opportunity to make your point. I humbly submit a challenge to you, Sir.
If the homicide rate in DC increases (as illustrated by public FBI crime statistics) and we see a bloodbath in the streets of DC, then your asinine opinion will be vindicated and you will be able to wag your finger at us... and you will win reelection easily.
However, if the homicide rate drops... if the crime recedes after the implementation of the Heller decision... then Mr. Mayor, I would ask you that you not seek reelection and the people of DC can hopefully get a competent leader that puts public safety ahead of political agenda.
With all due respect,
George Hill
The Ogre of MadOgre.com- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -15/+19More guns does not mean less crime - guns are not the end all and be all of violent crime. In most US states concealed carry is legal and handguns are cheap and plentiful yet we have rather high crime rates compared to much of the developed world - in England however the opposite is true - no guns and an even higher crime rate (though violence is usually performed with knives and bludgeons) and in Japan there are similarly no hand guns, but violent crime is extremely low. This shows us pretty clearly that guns alone are not the answer.
Your argument isn't completely off, though, guns properly used and in the right responsible hands can be used to effectively combat crime rates, and especially violent crime. But if a quantity of guns alone were what did it then places like Africa and the middle east would be some of the safest politest regions in the world.- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6@MurrabbitMurrabbit
I dug you since you made a very valid point without apparent bias. Although I do wonder if you compared to the US to the rest of the developed world would they have the same sort of personal liberties an average US citizen has? - makjaveli, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3For further reference, murder rate is twice as high in New York as in London:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505588/New ... - tony23, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I love the constant attempts to use England as an example. And yet, for some reason, I get buried when I suggest such things as:
google "gun control england", and read some of the results.
Then, take a look at the book "More Guns, Less Crime"
But, then, we wouldn't want to actually educate ourselves, would we?
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6@MurrabbitMurrabbit
- HPCELarry, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3I'd agree with you on all but the reelection. While Mayor Fenty is wrong on this topic, he has generally been very good for DC. As long has he isn't stubborn on this issue, I would support his reelection.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Really?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
http://washcp.com/display.php?id=8287
http://www.dcwatch.com/themail/2008/08-01-20.htm
The dude is like some drunk abusive dad in a bad movie.
- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Really?
- whatsupimphil, on 07/01/2008, -4/+42All of these arguments completely miss the point of the second amendment. Your constitutional right to bear arms does not exist for sport or self defense. The founding fathers included the second amendment as a last-resort defense against tyranny. When a government becomes too oppressive, the people have the right and responsibility to overthrow it, by force if necessary.
The majority opinion was ridiculous in this case, citing self defense and hunting. The justices base their rulings too much on their political views and too little on the founding documents of this country.- MadOgre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+14Amen.
- JohnJacob, on 07/01/2008, -12/+5So a tyrannical government is going to let you have weapons so that you can overthrow it?
- Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -1/+25"So a tyrannical government is going to let you have weapons so that you can overthrow it?"
That's the whole point of affirming the right BEFORE the government becomes tyrannical. That is why it was the second amendment. It is the most important freedom behind the freedom of speech for a reason, it protects all of the other freedoms. - bphicke, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6@johnjacob, We would already have them, they wouldn't need to let us do anything.
- WarSaw27, on 07/01/2008, -3/+11John Jacobs is a jackass. A good government already realized our inalienable right to own and use weapons. Today's runaway government is seeking to usurp that.
Public school educated I guess. - Grym11, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10It's pretty clear you didn't read the majority opinion at all. Here's a link so you can do so:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-29 ...
The majority opinion went to great lengths examining how a militia was defined and historically composed. There's entire pages on what the phrase "bear arms" means and might have meant when it was composed. What more are you wanting from the court? They can't exactly ignore the reality that the second amendment protects lawful activities like self-defense and hunting anymore than they could ignore that the first amendment protects websites and television broadcasts.
The bottom line is this: you can't sit here and claim that the constitution protects an unwritten right to privacy (a la Roe v. Wade) and simultaneously deny the very existence and modern applicability of the second amendment simply because you don't like it. - theaverageidiot, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Is that from memory or did you just copy that straight from National Treasure?
- opticwind, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Maybe if that was their intent they should have been pretty explicit about it. And the context of using a right should never be the basis for your ability to exercise it.
Example: When the authors of the Constitution included an amendment banning enemy soldiers from forcing citizens from using their homes, they were talking about how British soldiers used to use citizen's homes without requiring consent from the owner. Now, either remove this amendment or say that it only applies to British soldiers.
(Yeah, even I don't buy my own argument here to be honest. But to be honest, the founding fathers didn't say gun ownership for defense was necessarily bad, so...eh, whatever.) - shagmin, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Grym11 is right. The constitution gives some fundamental rights - such as the right to bear arms - but leaves a lot open for interpretation. You can read a lot of quotes from the founding fathers what they thought about the right to bear arms and it was more than just about a militia. I'm pretty sure regardless though, that when there's a choice of having a freedom or restricting it, they'd favor be in favor of freedom. Often people refer to Benjamin Franklin's quote "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" to attack things like the patriot act but don't apply it to the 2nd amendment. Why not freedom for the sake of freedom?
Also, like several people have said, there's no one solution that would cover all countries. Anything like outright banning of firearms in America would wake up a large number of people who have not been happy with the government yet content enough to be idle, who do like hunting and keep their homes safe with firearms and all and those aren't the peaceful liberal protesters you saw in DC when Bush was re-elected. Then maybe you'd have that armed civilian militia defending their rights against tyranny.
- dafragsta, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2Now everyone is Keith Olbermann
- Wugie, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Shameless plug
- ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -8/+2It's only asinine if it's wrong, Ogre. Otherwise, your letter's asinine.
- rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4While I agree with your interpretation and the thinking behind its implementation... I dont see how it would be implemented today. First off, about half the Americans in the Revolutionary War were actually reactionaries fighting on the side of England, so the notion that there will be a mass civilian uprising overwhelmingly on one side or another to overthrow the government - and that one would succeed given the rise of armored warfare and air power - is ridiculous. I would also like to add that most people by nature are amazingly docile and can be easily placated. Look at China, where the government is a despotism but has contented its citizenry with more wealth than they could have ever dreamed of since the Cultural Revolution; now all the university students are aspiring businessmen, not political activists. A situation one thousand times worse would be Zimbabwe, where there is 2 million percent inflation, mass starvation, and endemic poverty. But even there, a despotic leader like Robert Mugabe has maintained power through pure fear.
Don't think that the citizens of the US will react any differently when push comes to shove. The best we can do is be vigilant at this point when we still have the right to speak out - fantasies of violence and revolution in the current situation are little more than puerile self-delusions. - Scaryclouds, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1The guy is calling upon the mayor to put people's lives at risk to prove the writer's political agenda. What a moron. He should have and could have provided statistical evidence that shows areas with higher gun ownership experience lower crime.
It would be pretty much like me calling upon some to give that Nigerian man some money because his story just maybe true.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -15/+19More guns does not mean less crime - guns are not the end all and be all of violent crime. In most US states concealed carry is legal and handguns are cheap and plentiful yet we have rather high crime rates compared to much of the developed world - in England however the opposite is true - no guns and an even higher crime rate (though violence is usually performed with knives and bludgeons) and in Japan there are similarly no hand guns, but violent crime is extremely low. This shows us pretty clearly that guns alone are not the answer.
- ultraJesus, on 07/01/2008, -27/+13Take that you damn liberals.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16Hi there, pro-gun pro-2nd amendment pro-Concealed Carry liberal here. Don't get your political definitions from Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. I support the bill of rights and human rights in general - all of them - including the right to self defense. Best of all I'm no fluke, and if you look even at the democrats in the congress, especially the house of representatives (guys like Jim Webb especially) you'll see that we're a well represented breed these days.
- personalj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5I still think you guys are like the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus.
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I think most people are getting very sick of the Democrat / Republican political scam deep down inside.
Damn Liberals? Damn Conservatives? Pot calling the kettle black? - Mothrog, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7"I support the bill of rights and human rights in general - all of them - including the right to self defense."
Good. Now let your party know. - sodade, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I'm with him. What makes you think the democrats will listen to us Mothrog?
- oilcan, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1yet another liberal happy that the inviolable right of self protection was defended. :) you do know what the world liberal means, don't you?
- oilcan, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0le oops, double post, bury please
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16Hi there, pro-gun pro-2nd amendment pro-Concealed Carry liberal here. Don't get your political definitions from Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. I support the bill of rights and human rights in general - all of them - including the right to self defense. Best of all I'm no fluke, and if you look even at the democrats in the congress, especially the house of representatives (guys like Jim Webb especially) you'll see that we're a well represented breed these days.
- HPCELarry, on 07/01/2008, -15/+99If they didn't have a gun they would have found some other way. Let's not scape goat guns in what is a real problem.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -6/+15Just to play devil's advocate (and because I dislike this particular fallacious argument), do you think that Cho sung-hui could have killed 32 people and wounded many more if he were using anything other than a firearm?
It's fine and well to say that guns aren't the problem, but to deny that they exacerbate violent crime on some level is simply intellectually dishonest.
I agree with you that banning guns wouldn't be the answer to this problem, though.- ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Sure. After about 32 years of intense Ninja training.
- Professr, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6If he had a nice sharp katana, available from any scifi/fantasy convention, he probably would have been able to take out just as many people
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -5/+6Vladimir the Impaler killed thousands using wood poles... What's your stupid point again?
- bradleyland, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Just to play devil's advocate, do you not think that I could mow down 32 people and wound many more with an automobile?
- LOCK3D, on 07/01/2008, -4/+18and if guns weren't banned on that campus maybe one of those professors or a student would have taken him out before he could kill that many.
- Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -3/+14Cho Sung-hui could have carried two propane tanks into the building with a simple fuse and primer. He could have filled a super soaker with gasoline and used it as a flamethrower. He could have grabbed a sword and done it old school.
All of the classrooms had ONE exit point. I went to VT by the way, and know the building very well. He could have killed just as many with a stack of sharpened pencils if he was determined enough. - AsSubtleAsABrik, on 07/01/2008, -12/+5I would not feel comfortable if someone who lived in my hall had a gun no matter how responsible they claim to be. People get drunk. People steal things. Thefts occur all the time in college dorms. Say you were allowed to have guns on campus and one got stolen. Now someone who maybe shouldn't have a gun has one. Now what?
I don't trust anyone to be responsible with a gun. Get some non-lethal form of self defense if you are that scared of daily life.
And the boys who love their toys bury me because they need a gun to feel more important or manly or something. - Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -5/+6Now the person who stole the gun has committed a federal crime. Now you report the gun as stolen. Now you see that you were not a responsible gun owner, and did not have the gun properly locked up.
Frankly I don't care that you are afraid of a tool. You have never used one and would be clueless how to operate one. Guns are very safe if the person using one is safe. Since you don't trust yourself, you apply that to everyone else and believe everyone is as inept as you. Worst case scenario, one day something horrific happens to you, and you need a gun and don't have it. Worst case scenario for me, one day something horrific happens to me and I have to actually use one of my guns. Better judged by 12 than carried by 6. - opticwind, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9I hear what you're saying, but (and you'll have to take it on faith I'm telling the truth), my dad was a prosecutor and told me it's VERY rare for someone to kill more than one person. Extremely rare. With a 1:1 ratio like that, guns don't add much to the mix.
Also, if you recall a man in Tokyo stabbed 17 people with a knife in 5 minutes recently. He was stopped by a police officer with a gun. - gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7@AsSubtleAsABrik "I don't trust anyone to be responsible with a gun."
Fair enough, but does that also include police officers, the goverment, or citizens of other countries? - AsSubtleAsABrik, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2Some of you actually seem reasonable enough to have a decent conversation with, but sadly this is digg and you will probably never see this. Oh well, anyway..
@Muyoso:
So you're solution to someone stealing your gun and using it to hurt someone is "live and learn"? Someone's could be dead because of you. And I never said I was afraid of a gun. I'm afraid of people buying guns for wrong reasons. I'm afraid of someone will be irresponsible with it, will leave it lying around and will show it off to people. If I'm ever in a situation where I need a gun and don't have it, I'm assuming mose of those situations is one where a gun wouldn't necesarily help. If someone was pointing a gun at me, the last thing I want is you taking yours out.
Have to go or I would reply to the others too.
- jaxontyler, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Totally. The guns aren't the problem its the people.
The same can be said about the jail system and the politicians. The politicians aren't the problem, its the people that elect them. - whaught, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5While I agree with your point and am not going to scapegoat guns for people's actions. Some depressed people can be very impulsive and a gun makes suicide almost too easy.
- beezneez, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Getting a gun is still harder and more expensive than any other method. Someone who wants to do themselves in will find a way. Walking through Wal-Mart, I can find at least 50 things that could be used for suicide.
- Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3@ beezneez
Yea, but I highly doubt people are going to use a blender to slowly eviscerate themselves. - azimir, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2@Muyoso:
I think we have a fun game now. Can we find 50 ways from a common Wal-Mart to commit suicide cheaper and close to as easily as a with a firearm? Your example of a blender indicates to me that you enjoy a number of horror flicks. Seen any good ones lately?
I'll start:
Motor Oil - Pretty hard on you if swallowed. - garyi113, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0So does a bridge.
- rajkalex, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4The key here is they would have "tried" some other way. It is clear that the success rate with other methods is extremely lower. Every failed attempt at a suicide is another chance to seek help or for others to recognize that there is a problem. The problem is and always has been the easy access, ease of use, and high lethality of handguns.
Having said that, it is also been shown that having a gun in the house increases the odds of someone in the house being killed by a gun. So I say let evolution works its way through the issue.- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1if it will make suicide rates drop, I am against it.
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -11/+1By that logic, I guess nukes and other bombs should be legal for private ownership too, considering that it's the people that kill other people. You never know when a big bad country might threaten us, and we need those private nukes for self defense. I mean, if we didn't have a nuke, we'd still find some other way to kill those millions that would've died anyway, huh?
What a stupid argument.- shig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Paradox: All bombs are clean -- Their only pollution is the system of control and security they radiate when they are not detonated.
- elipabst, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Yeah I'd rather someone put a bullet in their head than do that stupid toilet bowl cleaner crap they do in Japan which releases a cloud of toxic hydrogen sulfide gas and kills have half the apartment complex, the EMTs, and firefighters.
- shig, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5What is the point of even mentioning guns as a tool for suicide except to bolster the argument of the anti-gun crowd?
The majority, roughly 50%, of suicides are by asphyxiation. Followed by exsanguination, I think.- azimir, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6@shig,
A quick search turned up the 2005 rates for the US, including a breakdown by methodology:
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html#200 ...
Firearms: 52.1%
Hanging, strangulation, suffocation: 22.2%
Poisons: 17.6%
All other methods: 8.1%
Of course, these are totals. Women and men differ greatly in methodology choice. Women generally prefer poison (39%), it's just that many more men commit suicide overall and drag the firearms up in the overall scoring.
- azimir, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6@shig,
- thomash, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5an estimated eight to 25 nonfatal suicide attempts occur per every suicide death. i would imagine a gun available in the house drastically increases the chance that a person wanting to commit suicide will be successful.
- jbassfretless, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3I disagree with the entire implication of the article which is that the government should for some reason or another take on the responsibility of protecting people from themselves.
- smackjack, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Your comment is true but you must also remember that a handgun is the most effective way to end your life. Any other method has a much lower "success" rate
- ElectroBot, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2It is quite sad that in a country which was praised for freedom, liberty and the "American Dream", so many people CHOOSE to take their own life.
- Armando57, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Yeah, but they also said, "Give me LIBERTY or give me DEATH."
- diggalicus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Actually men have a higher suicide vs attempt rate then women that is because men use guns which usually when you attempt is lethal, and women use drugs which when you attempt can be reversed.
- BJLStorm, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Becoming an hero is easier with a gun.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -6/+15Just to play devil's advocate (and because I dislike this particular fallacious argument), do you think that Cho sung-hui could have killed 32 people and wounded many more if he were using anything other than a firearm?
- Zlorp, on 07/01/2008, -21/+135guns dont kill people, people kill people. and mostly people with ILLEGAL guns kill people. banning guns would be about as useful as a war on drugs or a war on terror.
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -8/+7Making it easier to obtain illegal guns or borrow from someone else means what exactly then?
- ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -17/+5Didn't you know? If we legalized rocket launchers, it would be that much harder for people to blow up from illegal rocket launchers. While we're at it, let's lower the age of consent to four. Get rid of all the pedophiles.
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4It means you're stupid. Why don't you go buy a gun and then borrow of illegally sell it to someone... I'll come visit you in jail when they track you down. /sarcasm That's if the police do their job of course.
There comes a point in legislation that you burden and restrict the rights of legal law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong. If you can't see how many problems the "war on drugs" has caused you'll never understand. - Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Are you serious? There are about 250 million guns in America which are owned by private citizens. This does not count those owned by police officers, military, etc. Who is arguing to make illegal guns more accessible? And how the ***** can it get easier to borrow a gun?
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Thats not nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Firearmsources. ...
Its obviously not stopping anyone. Im suggesting that accessibility could possibily be an input to gun related homocide/accidents/injuries? They have a waiting period at the moment dont they to help curb this?
I do understand that prohibition never works, there is a slight base level difference between gun ownership and smoking doobs. I havent been able to dig up the last time someone was stoned to death or stabbed by a reefer, but my stance is that there should be a need for everyone to think they have to own a gun. Fear breeds fear. - gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@speakafreaka
I'm not nice when you're making fallacious arguments... If you really want to get into facts you should read through the entire report that the graphic is based off of. You do know it's a possible felony to provide a firearm to someone that can not legally own it?
"Available data suggest that the majority (83%) of Federal inmates who reported possessing a firearm may have been disqualified from lawfully possessing or purchasing a firearm for at least one statutory reason: ù About half indicated that they had a prior sentence to incarceration; a third were on probation or parole at the time of their current offense; about half indicated illicit drug use within a month of the current offense. ù Some inmates reported being treated overnight in a mental health facility (7%), being dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces (1%), or being a noncitizen (7%)." - speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1I didnt know that qualified me as "Stupid" though?
Yes I read the article, and unless im confused, thats exactly what I was saying. These people aren't supposed to be allowed to own a firearm, but they still had one in thier possession.
Wouldn't reducing their ability to obtain a firearm (through other means - Borrowing from friend of family, stolen through home invasion, etc) mean that everyone else would have less of a reason to own one? - rdmaxx, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Then that proves your point wrong. Those people had the guns while the bans were in place showing the system is flawed and only works to the benefit of those that break the law.
Stupid, I wouldn't say that, ignorant of reality, possibly.
The fact is the moment would be hoodlums realize that its not easy pickings, they will either fine another way of getting by with milking the easy system or turn to integrate into the system. Option 3 is where they get to face my .40 S&W with a pretty red beam of love hovering over their thoracic cavity :). - gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@speakafreak "I didnt know that qualified me as "Stupid" though?...These people aren't supposed to be allowed to own a firearm, but they still had one in thier possession. Wouldn't reducing their ability to obtain a firearm (through other means - Borrowing from friend of family, stolen through home invasion, etc) mean that everyone else would have less of a reason to own one?"
You're not actually stupid for taking your anti-gun arguments and turning them into a feigned argument from ignorance... you're a slithering *****.
You want to reduce a criminals access to obtaining firearms by prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning them! I've already pointed out that providing a firearm to someone who can not legally posses it is a felony.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?s=8566712
IMPD officer arrested
Updated: June 27, 2008 05:08 PM
Marion County - An Indianapolis Metro Police is in jail, accused of selling a handgun to a felon. He is the fourth IMPD officer arrested in two weeks.
Police say Officer Jason Barber, an eight-year veteran of the department, was arrested at his home Friday afternoon. He is currently suspended without pay and facing two felonies - selling a handgun to a convicted felon and official misconduct. - speakafreaka, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Sorry guys.. we're just on either sides of the fence and I'm just trying to understand the issue. I didnt see my posts as condescending, but they obviously were for people to call me stupid and an *****.
I read those articles as: Its a felony to provide someone with a firearm that they are not licensed to own. Yes I get that, but its still happening. I suppose my argument could be read as: there's a few bad eggs so it should be ruined for everyone, but I think i'm not explaining myself correctly.
Ive said in other posts that I feel the core issue is that there is a paranoia that you need to be able to kill or be killed. I don't live in a society where I feel I need to walk around armed to deter people from shooting me without good reason so I dont think I'll ever understand.
Please continue with your torrent of abuse
- m00n1, on 07/01/2008, -12/+7And having ready access to legal guns makes getting illegal guns much much easier.
- Professr, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4Not for the people who really want them.
- Lockean, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Qualify your statement. That's not only counter-logical but without factual merit.
- sodade, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Actually, this does make sense. If more people have legal guns, those are more opportunities for criminals to steal them. Guns are a high value break-in item.
- Murrabbit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+22Sadly yes, prohibition rarely works. Those determined to use violence in a criminal way are going to get guns whether they are legal or not, even if they can't get guns then they'll still obtain the means to use force, be it knives, raw strength or numbers. Conversely what's the best way to keep a young woman safe from rape? Martial arts training sure could come in handy for getting out of a grab or strong armed hold, but frankly if it's someone I knew and loved I'd very much hope she was legally able to keep a concealed handgun in her purse.
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2Believe it or now, most rape cases occur by someone the woman already knows. Do you really think the woman is going to have the guts to shoot an acquaintance? Sure, it's easy to imagine this when you're just casually thinking about it, but in such a situation, if the woman were in any position to be raped, her assailant would just as likely be able to get her purse and use her own gun to rape her. Talk about convenient.
On the other hand, any woman can then shoot a guy and claim that he was trying to rape her. Do you really want to create this kind of mess? - bphicke, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Those poor defenseless women, obviously only men can defend themselves with guns.
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2Believe it or now, most rape cases occur by someone the woman already knows. Do you really think the woman is going to have the guts to shoot an acquaintance? Sure, it's easy to imagine this when you're just casually thinking about it, but in such a situation, if the woman were in any position to be raped, her assailant would just as likely be able to get her purse and use her own gun to rape her. Talk about convenient.
- rajkalex, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3Guns don't kill people, bullets traveling at a high velocity ripping through a person's vital organs kill people.
Guns may not kill people, but they allow cowards and children to do so easily. When's the last time you heard of a drive-by-knifing?- keyforce, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11There was something similar in Japan recently.
- whaught, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1ban bullets?
- Muyoso, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Someone doesnt watch the news. Keyforce hit it on the head, Japan, like a week ago.
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Its irrelevant because japan's culture is pretty much deviod of violent crime besides a handful of incidents per year
- blackanode, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5With the word "war" running around a lot more these days does, anyone feel like your in the book 1984 with the continuous wars always going on?
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Doublethink and you'll be safe
- Joepoag, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1We don't have continuous war. There was a brief period in time when the US wasn't fighting a foreign war back in the 1930s
- Jones82, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2A war on drugs, can you imagine such an absurdity!
- uptwolait, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people.
- lotuseater, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Bullets fired from guns held by people kill people.
- speakafreaka, on 07/01/2008, -8/+7Making it easier to obtain illegal guns or borrow from someone else means what exactly then?
- abran1984, on 07/01/2008, -13/+3Dammit these comments suck!
- HeyArnold, on 07/01/2008, -16/+37that just blew my mind... out of the back of my head!
oooh, too harsh?- Aaron_Einstein, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8That's hilarious, who the hell is digging you down?
- Jack8274, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Oh, that always makes me giggle thinking about suicide.
- leontes, on 07/01/2008, -32/+3Another reason to amend the constitution to take away the right to own guns for the average citizen. Suicidality is an error in processing that is a symptom of depression. A person who is suicidal needs to be hospitalized immediately, so they can be observed and helped. The problem with guns is that they are a very quick and accessible way to death.
I know that are other means of killing selves, like cars, knives, jumping, stepping in front of buses and whatnot, but guns have a special place in the pantheon, it's immediate satisfaction and our society would be a better place if more of those opportunities, specifically those of the gun kind were removed.
- styx31989, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18I stopped reading at
"Another reason to amend the constitution to take away the right" - lead2thehead, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7That's the same argument Stalin used.
- leontes, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1argumentum ad hominem
- styx31989, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1That must mean he's just like Stalin!
COMMY BASTARDS!
- Hananda, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Your desire to establish a nanny state in which personal responsibility is totally abolished disgusts me. I try to keep my comments civil, but in this case I find myself unwilling to do so. The reasoning of suicidal individuals may be impaired, but the rights of the individual must be maintained at all times or they will all be eligible for change by the government at a moments notice. That being said, from this post of yours I gather that you wouldn't much mind the slide into a society in which citizens have no rights, and where the "social contract" is perverted into an excuse to ration sections of the population into starvation along with various and sundry other crimes against the individual.
If you're just trolling, I applaud the fact that you managed to get me. If you aren't, I ask that you recognize that Brave New World wasn't meant to illustrate the author's vision of a perfect world.- leontes, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2The difference, I think, is whether these suicides are truly personal responsibilities. I'm a great believer in the rights of individuals. I do believe, based on some years of experience in the health care field, that the vast majority of suicides are not matters of personal freedom, but rather a symptom of affliction. If someone truly wishes to die, which is not a symptom of an error in processing, I support them personally. Otherwise, I wish to help free a person from their affliction, free to explore the passions and pains of reality. Unlike you, I do not see the right to own destructive weaponry as an inalienable right of human kind. How do I dare make that kind of judgment? I'm not sure, but I believe very strongly in other rights of man, I just can't see owning a technological device to kill as once of them. I understand the argument that all people should have the right to a defense but the potential of these items to kill, be used for self-harm or to otherwise disrupt society I think is too great. I want people to live lives of freedom while at the same time cut down on unnecessary deaths.
- Hananda, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1I suppose that that's clear enough. I happen to be of the opinion that the abolition of firearms (and in this context the requisite knowledge to construct them, as laws certainly won't stop their manufacture) will inevitably lead whatever society performs the abolition to either A. Be conquered and enslaved by more pragmatic peoples almost immediately or B. simply revert to a pre-gunpowder society in which a handful of rich families who have the time and money to provide arms and training dominate society. It could be argued, and rightly in my opinion, that B. is, has always been, and will always be the case in every human social group. I would also argue that it's not nearly so oppressive in a society in which a weapon with the efficacy and ease of training that firearms offer is present. At least in modern societies, large sections of any given military are loyal to the nation above politicians.
It is my opinion that virtually all social change in European and descendant societies from the mid-1300's on is rooted in the firearm. A gun is power, and the most equally distributed power in the history of the world, at that. It gave a peasant with an hour of training the power to kill a nobleman with a lifetime of training and equipment worth hundreds of times the cost of a firearm. In short, the advent and spread of firearms are largely responsible for the Renaissance, and directly responsible for the Enlightenment and all subsequent social changes.
If I understand your way of thinking, I think you give humanity too much credit. There is no universal brotherhood, no altruism. Every act ever taken by any human has been done purely out of self-interest, the society that lays down its arms invites its own destruction and the death and/or enslavement of its citizens, etc, etc.
- RoboHobo, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4So you seriously propose that we allow the severe mental disorder of a small segment of the population to infringe on everyone's right to own guns and to defend themselves? You're insane.
- johnmearns, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0If guns were some magic suicide tool that really draws people to suicide, why is the suicide rate in japan the highest in the world given the low number of guns there?
To me it seems like people really have no trouble killing themselves if they wish and they'll use whatever tools are handy.
- styx31989, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18I stopped reading at
- kenvsryu, on 07/01/2008, -12/+5Guns are good 55% of the time.
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -9/+104oh no, law abiding citizens with no felony records are going to get guns! whatever shall we do!
- LemonChicken, on 07/01/2008, -16/+2Most citizens are law-abiding before they commit a crime.
- personalj, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16Most criminals work their way up to serious crimes, they start small, they don't go from nothing to armed robbery, generally.
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Many deaths involving guns involve passion or fury of the moment or stupid drunkenness. The people who commit these spur-of-the-moment crimes will just as likely as not have no felony records.
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9@Most citizens are law-abiding before they commit a crime.
Most idiots are idiotic before they make a comment. - lotu, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6According to the darwin awards guns really aren't necessary for people to kill themselves while drunk or stupid.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3qxrt, that is a great gun-grabber political talking point, but it just isn't true.
Poorly trained gun owners, or poorly screened gun owners might shoot a spouse or friend in a moment of passion, but they can also just as easily stab them in the chest with a steak knife or a butcher knife, or whack them across the temple with a baseball bat.
Drunks can just as easily push a friend off a balcony, or jam an ice pick into the back of their friend's head, or whack someone with a tire iron.
They are all crimes. But that doesn't make the tool being used criminal, or the proper, lawful possession of such implements criminal.
Someone has killed another person with a ball point pen. Would you call everyone with a ball point pen a potential criminal because of that?? Really, would you? Would you then assume that just because a person has no criminal record doesn't mean they won't kill someone with a ball point pen?
You are arguing from the opposite side of rational thought. If there are 100 people who own a gun, and one of them snaps and kills someone, you cannot conclude that the other 99 people are potential criminals. You can only logically conclude that this one person is a criminal. - mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1PhiLesh69: I agree with your argument. However, we must admit that a ball point pen or even a kitchen knife are not the same class of object as a gun, in the sense that the only propose of a gun is to (ultimately) kill people (of course I'm excluding Olympic/hunting guns) , while all other objects are designed for other (non-lethal) proposes.
I think that's the same kind of simplification as qxrt's, and I think simplifications are potentially dangerous. - PhilLesh69, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1I disagree that a gun's only purpose is to kill people.
The majority of guns are bought for hunting, target shooting and even simply for the purpose of collecting them.
If a gun's only purpose is to kill people, that means that cops are armed in order to kill people. Ask any cop if it his job to kill people, and he would probably say, "only if I have to", not "yes, that's what they train me to do."
- gtluke, on 07/01/2008, -0/+34all people willing to use a gun for criminal activity don't give a ***** about your gun laws.
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -12/+1What a tired argument...you really think a high school kid or other formerly law-abiding citizen who has been picked on and wants revenge is going to have the ability to traverse the black market to obtain a gun? Some will, but the point is that most won't.
- sharp357, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11qxrt - not living in the real world are you?
- azimir, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4"traversing the black market" -- My personal, white bread, middle class experience did include the opportunity (on occasion) to note the ability for people on the street to saunter up to a back of a sedan and pick up a firearm for cash. The background check seemed to consist mostly of the automobile owner asking "You a cop?", followed by "You got [some amount in US denomination]?".
There was no waiting period.
- LemonChicken, on 07/01/2008, -16/+2Most citizens are law-abiding before they commit a crime.
- atact88, on 07/01/2008, -10/+29Something Michael Moore omitted to tell you...
- bphicke, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3You said the M word....
- EgaoNoGenki, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Instead of suicide, why didn't they commit passive suicide?
Passive suicide is purposefully putting your life at risk for the good of other people. (Example: Attempt to stop a bank robbery even though the robber has a more powerful weapon than you.)
If I become suicidal, I'll only attempt to kill myself to save other people and by defusing harmful situations.- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You're right, but you know, you never find a bank robbery in course when you need it.
by the way, trying to do that might most likely end up with more people killed than yourself and the robber. There are professional special ops for a reason. - cybrguy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Suicide is selfish, suicide is about self pity. Giving your life for a "greater" cause, may have a similar result, your death, but mentally it is on the other end of the spectrum.
- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2You're right, but you know, you never find a bank robbery in course when you need it.
- ahhell, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Sorry to burst your bubble but he said there were about 13000 gun related deaths. No correct me if I'm wrong but that last time I checked 31000 is not the same as 13000.
- atact88, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1No, Michael Moore claimed 30,000 gun related deaths (or thereabouts) in bowling for columbine.
- Konrad9, on 07/01/2008, -8/+3I'm a little surprised at this, since the last week almost every night on the news I've heard of shooting-related deaths in New Haven.
- reboare, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5call your county morgue
- wexmajor, on 07/01/2008, -15/+46It boggles the mind how this will be used as a pro gun-control argument.
GUNS MOSTLY KILL PEOPLE THAT WANT TO DIE WE BETTER BAN THEM- prometheanspark, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4Actually, the democrats should be wholeheartedly behind this. They dig assisted suicide and abortion because it reduces one whole person's worth of carbon emissions, suicide is even better because it slashes emissions immediately!
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3While they forget to recognize that if 55% of gun deaths are voluntary, the other 45% are MURDERS, committed by criminals who could care less if it is legal to own a gun or not.
- one2gamble, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4neg
The other 45% are either accidents or murders. - sturmgiest, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4accidents=3%, RTFA
so the other 42% are MURDERS. - PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Thanks sturmgiest.
Does sturmgiest mean storm times? Or war times? Or do you just like the metal band from Berlin?
BTW, it is sturmgeist. - dagnome1984, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I bet that a nice chunk of that 45% is related to this stupid war on drugs.
- richardtallent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Homicides, not murders.
If I shoot a thief or rapist in my home, it's a homicide, part of that 45%, and it's likely justifiable.
- one2gamble, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4neg
- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1typing uppercase makes you feel special?
WELL YOU ARE NOT
- aguynamedjoe36, on 07/01/2008, -13/+62we should put a ban on tall buildings too. people are using them to kill themselves. and it turns out that it is the second leading cause of suicide with a success rate of 34%.
- LittleDas, on 07/01/2008, -12/+3When tall buildings are used to commit over 10,000 homicides each year, maybe we'll consider it.
- gyrfalcon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Buildings easily cause over 10,000 homicides each year. Ever heard of fires, carbon monoxide poisoning, structural failures or any of the many other acts inanimate buildings commit each year?
- CatsAreGods, on 07/01/2008, -2/+21The Golden Gate Bridge should be closed immediately. It's the most popular bridge for jumping in the country and it's virtually 100% fatal. If it saves only one life, it's worth it, right? So let's cut down on pollution, which people from San Francisco should appreciate, and if folks from Marin County really must get there, they can swim or row, which are more green than driving anyway.
- prometheanspark, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Indeed, the GGB is one of the most deadly pieces of public infrastructure there is.
Meanwhile the government passes mileage mandates on cars that directly kill folks too... - theNazz, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8They've already installed the fugly fence along the Golden Gate Bridge to help keep people from jumping. It won't stop any suicides, but it does ***** your view while crossing.
Personally, I voted for diving boards with webcams so that we can keep score. - PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Good one, Nazz.
I hate eugenics, but I trust in passive eugenics. I especially love self-selecting eugenics.
- prometheanspark, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Indeed, the GGB is one of the most deadly pieces of public infrastructure there is.
- reddoggie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Working for the "American Association of Suicidology" certainly has to be up there too.
Just thinking that people actually do is depressing enough. - chuckhammm, on 07/01/2008, -0/+055% of guns are supposedly used for suicides.
.0003% of buildings are used for suicides.
You're a moron.
- LittleDas, on 07/01/2008, -12/+3When tall buildings are used to commit over 10,000 homicides each year, maybe we'll consider it.
- MortVent, on 07/01/2008, -6/+71Most anti-gun statistics don't mention that the US is one of the few that includes suicide in the gun crimes category... many other nations do not.
- ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Of course, that still makes the gun death rate 15,000...which is a hell of a lot higher than other countries. Now it's a little less ridiculous.
- Grym11, on 07/01/2008, -0/+10Compare the population of the U.S. to the population of an average Western European country and you'll see why using absolute numbers as a way to try and prove your point is a rather silly argument.
- MortVent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Break that down by gun crime rates per 100000 citizens.
- avidlinuxuser, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1@mortvent, Gyrm11 The U.S. has one of the gun crime rates per 100000 citizens.
- sturmgiest, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1@avid, your post makes no sense
- natenovs, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1@avidlinuxuser, well, i would hope they would have atleast one of the gun crime rates...
- Gav0510, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4The U.S. has more gun related deaths per capita then Palestine. That says a lot.
- MortVent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1subtract the suicides from the gun crimes, and give me the adjusted rates. And give me like comparisons from the other nations.
- jonnyboy88, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ ...
It's interesting to note Finland's gun related homicide rate to its suicide rate. My thinking is it's a more homogenous country than the US, and everyone gets along. - BigManOnCampus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Citation please. I want to believe you, and I want to see the statistics myself.
- ZenMojo, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Of course, that still makes the gun death rate 15,000...which is a hell of a lot higher than other countries. Now it's a little less ridiculous.
- reboare, on 07/01/2008, -9/+6You know, if this is true, they should use the death penalty for anyone who commits suicide. oh wait...
- blorc, on 07/01/2008, -20/+90"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."
BREAKING NEWS: HOMES WITH POOLS 100% MORE LIKELY TO BE AT RISK FOR DEATH BY DROWNING.
Give me a ***** break.- ithejosh, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10lol @ truth
- Namesbond, on 07/01/2008, -5/+1How is that the same? The didn't say the chances of getting shot are greater. There are other ways to kill yourself in a home without a gun.
- Professr, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6But a gun has a higher fatality rate, so all they're really saying is: People who have guns in their house AND try to commit suicide succeed more often than people who DON'T have guns in their house.
They're basically re-stating their previous argument, and trying to make it sound scarier :
- Professr, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6But a gun has a higher fatality rate, so all they're really saying is: People who have guns in their house AND try to commit suicide succeed more often than people who DON'T have guns in their house.
- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2The point would be how likely they are to be drowned, not to drown themselves. The same applies to guns.
- personalj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Death is death, you're just as dead if you get hit by a semi-truck or shot in the face by a 12 gage shotgun.
- mijelh, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1That's not the point. We are discussing how potentially dangerous a gun is. You cannot say a gun is dangerous because you decided to blow your head off with it.
- elister, on 07/01/2008, -7/+6Yes and if you get rid of the pool, you eliminate the risk of drowning in it. Pretty simple eh? As a parent, its your job to keep your kids safe until their 18 (for liability purposes).
When you keep an item in the house, who's #1 purpose is to kill, yeah your odds of you or someone else dying from said item pretty much goes up. Get rid of the item, odds go down. Sure you could always have a burgular break in your house and injur or murder you with an similar item, but those odds are much lower than just having it in the house.
So please don't be a dick, just lock up your ***** firearm ok, put a trigger lock or keep it in a safe, jesus ***** stick are you guys retarded or something! .... lower the overall risk.- azimir, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I agree that keeping a firearm in the home increases the overall risk of living. That's why I have a sturdy and well-anchored safe to keep them in.
Additionally, I will take the other action that actually will keep my children safer than even a gun lock: education.
Children taught what a gun is, how to behave properly around them, the impact of their use and what to do if you run into an uncontrolled gun saves more lives than trying to keep the gun away from them in the first place.
I grew up shooting. Never was I given a firearm without training. Both of my parents grew up shooting, so did their parents and so did theirs. Saying that all of a sudden firearms are "just too dangerous" seems to ignore the many generations of humans who managed just fine with them. - CrazyZ, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3and how the ***** does a locked up gun protect my family? No, education is the key. Guns are no more dangerous than the bottle of bleach under your counter with proper education.
- azimir, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I agree that keeping a firearm in the home increases the overall risk of living. That's why I have a sturdy and well-anchored safe to keep them in.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1elister, people are not saying that they should leave guns laying around.
But this story is an attempt to further the overall drive to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
Yes. Keep your gun away from children. Don't take it out every time you've had 17 beers and are arguing with your neighbor. Don't pull it out anytime you just don't feel like living anymore.
BUT, like you said, you could always have a burglar break into your house and injur or murder you with a similar item. In that case, wouldn't you feel like maybe that gun could have changed the outcome in your favor?
- rockon4life45, on 07/01/2008, -3/+21"Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater."
Apparently when guns aren't inolved your less likely to die from killing yourself or being killed- CatsAreGods, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Well, when guns aren't involved you're less likely to be SHOT.
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, but when only one gun is involved, you are more likely to be shot (unless you are the one with the gun.)
So let's pass a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. Until then, perhaps our odds are better when there are TWO guns involved!
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yes, but when only one gun is involved, you are more likely to be shot (unless you are the one with the gun.)
- qxrt, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Apparently you've never heard of failed suicides.
- Laughsatyou, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3imagine you are a loser and you fail at everything in life and you want to die, then you fail at death. :(
- PhilLesh69, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Laughsatyou, wouldn't that just make you want to try harder?
- dholley, on 07/01/2008</
- CatsAreGods, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Well, when guns aren't involved you're less likely to be SHOT.
