Guns Used More For Suicide Than Murder

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
Guns Used More For Suicide Than Murder, In 2005, 55 Percent Of Handgun Deaths Were Self-Inflicted; 40 Percent Were Homicides - CBS News

AP) 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, U.S. gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year - gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years.

In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

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.

Studies also have shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners.

The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks.

The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means.

More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies.

"Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.

The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban.

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns.

Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack.

Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate.

I wonder if this actually surprises any one.....

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2

"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

So is it this guys argument that attempting to deny the few suicidal and domestically violent (who if they have any record of said can't legally have guns anyway) access to guns trumps the rights of all others to own firearms?
 
#3
#3
"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

So is it this guys argument that attempting to deny the few suicidal and domestically violent (who if they have any record of said can't legally have guns anyway) access to guns trumps the rights of all others to own firearms?

You are correct and Obama praises Breyer!
 
#4
#4
I think people underestimate the effect easy access to a gun has on the suicide rate. sure people can kill themselves in a number of ways, but few of those ways are merle a drawer away, have such a low survival rate, and require no planning. that's not to say i don't think people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, just that I wouldn't have em around if i had kids. each to their own though.
 
#5
#5
I do not understand how the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution, could be a bad thing to do.
 
#7
#7
I think people underestimate the effect easy access to a gun has on the suicide rate. sure people can kill themselves in a number of ways, but few of those ways are merle a drawer away, have such a low survival rate, and require no planning. that's not to say i don't think people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, just that I wouldn't have em around if i had kids. each to their own though.

I see where you're coming from but you are missing the larger picture. Outlawing peanut butter might save a few lives, as could banning snow skiing. (We might still have Sonny Bono you know) The list is endless. What a TINY fraction of people do, I don't care what it is, should have little or no business in what the vast majority are allowed to do. That kid being decapitated by the roller coaster was stupid and tragic but, what are you gonna do? Tear down all the roller coasters? Not to mention that the item at hand is specifically protected by the Constitution as a right, something very few things are. It's a harsh mantra but it's the truth...you can't save everybody.

As to your other point, anyone with children that doesn't have their weapons sufficiently protected from those children is being outright neglectful. I think some states actually have laws in place saying exactly that.
 
#10
#10
I think people underestimate the effect easy access to a gun has on the suicide rate. sure people can kill themselves in a number of ways, but few of those ways are merle a drawer away, have such a low survival rate, and require no planning. that's not to say i don't think people shouldn't be allowed to have guns, just that I wouldn't have em around if i had kids. each to their own though.

People survive self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head more often than you'd think.
 
#12
#12
People are going to kill themselves with something. If you take way guns, we'll just have to read about rope on down the road.
 
#16
#16
I do not understand how the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution, could be a bad thing to do.

Well...the Supreme Court's job is to do that...it's all about how the court interprets it at the time. They decide if a certain law is constitutional .... so unless I'm missing something, by definition they always uphold the constitution. I know it may not seem that way...but it is their job to interpret it (whether it be in gun control or Bush v. Gore).
 
#17
#17
Then the 4 that voted against did not read the same document that the other 5 did?
 
#18
#18
Well...the Supreme Court's job is to do that...it's all about how the court interprets it at the time. They decide if a certain law is constitutional .... so unless I'm missing something, by definition they always uphold the constitution. I know it may not seem that way...but it is their job to interpret it (whether it be in gun control or Bush v. Gore).

yep. that's the whole nomination bugaboo
 
#19
#19
Well...the Supreme Court's job is to do that...it's all about how the court interprets it at the time. They decide if a certain law is constitutional .... so unless I'm missing something, by definition they always uphold the constitution. I know it may not seem that way...but it is their job to interpret it (whether it be in gun control or Bush v. Gore).

its not there job to interpret the constitution. it is there job to uphold the constitution. there is a difference. read the personal writings of the founding fathers on this subject. there is no interpretation needed.
 
#20
#20
"If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote.

We can even bypass guilty until proven innocent.

We're all straight up guilty! Every one of us is a crime waiting to happen.
 
#21
#21
its not there job to interpret the constitution. it is there job to uphold the constitution. there is a difference. read the personal writings of the founding fathers on this subject. there is no interpretation needed.

BINGO
 
#22
#22
its not there job to interpret the constitution. it is there job to uphold the constitution. there is a difference. read the personal writings of the founding fathers on this subject. there is no interpretation needed.

:eek:lol: How do you suggest they uphold the constitution without first deciding what the constitution legally means? In that process, they must interpret because the constitution does not enumerate every single possibility that a clause may pertain to...it can't.
 
#25
#25
Then the 4 that voted against did not read the same document that the other 5 did?

No they did read it but they got hung up on the reference to militias. They don't seem to see the militia's as I do, a group of citizens who band together in arms to defend their city, town, state etc. Kind of like the minute men were. It all depends on what you interpret from the document which is why picking justices is such a hot topic.
 

VN Store



Back
Top