Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides

"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."

Which public health studies are you referencing? You mention that the Kleck study has critics who think the numbers are an over-estimation, but fail to mention the criticisms of the other studies by Health Agencies. Of course, this is an AP piece, so their bias shows.

As with most issues of violence, money and efforts would be better spent in tackling the underlying issues of suicide and domestic battery than just hoping that taking the gun away will reduce the problem.

Let's see, with Kleck's so called "over-estimated" study, that's a 30:1 ratio. I'm surprised the numbers are that good, yet they publish a story about a 3% down side? Correction, that's about a 1.5% down side for suicide probability. So what's the point of the story?

Also I am curious about Justice Breyer's quote in his dissenting opinion. Shouldn't he be concerned with constitutional law and the intent of the people who wrote and enacted the amendment? It seems as though he is just fishing for reasons to oppose and his logical approach is out of place for such a matter.

These 'studies' dont mention that in countries like Japan where ownership of firearms by citizens is illegal. There is a higher suicide rate than the west. If someone wants to kill themselves, theyll find a way.

So 2% of firearm killings were legal and intentional while the remaining 98% were accidental, illegal or intentional suicide. It seems to me that basing a constitutional decision like this on a fraction of the 2% part, assuming that the self-defence rationale applies to this category, is itself a contradiction of the Constitution in that 98% of the deaths associated with these tools so unceremoniously ignores that inconvenient First Right mentioned in the Constitution- the Right to Life, followed of course by Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

It seems that this decision holds that the Right to bear arms is apparently a superior Right, despite being only part of the Second Amendment. The other part of that Amendment, ie. something about a well regulated militia, is not addressed even though it probably remains key to finding an effective compromise.

Maybe someone can work the numbers to estimate how many hundreds of thousands of people are being condemned to needless premature death and how many millions to being terrorized and traumatized because of this decision over the next few decades. Independent (frontier) justice may be good for a number of things, but I do not think security in a civilized setting is one of them. Of course, in the 1770's civilized settings in North America were few and far between and that was not likely too much of a consideration.

well one more reason we need no tolerance gun control. damn idiots up in washington allowing more guns on the streets where most of the time they end up with unresponsible people. Even if these statistics arent right, people need to understand that this is no longer an age of war like back in the 1700s, but an age of laws. Citizens dont need guns.

"Citizens don't need guns"

Lets see what you think when its late at night and you hear glass break and the stairs are creaking up towards your bed room. Will you be happy waiting 15 minutes for the cops to show up?

Some of us WILL NOT leave ourselves unprepared for that or other similar situations. Just because some people can not handle the responsibility of gun ownership does not mean that the rest of us should be deprived of the right to defend our homes.

no because i know how to defend myself without being lethal. also there are knives to use if u had to. it would also be more likely that he wouldnt have a gun either because they would be banned. however im not naive, i know that a black market for guns will be created most likely. it will be much harder for criminals to get them though. think of how drugs were made illegal and usage dropped ALOT.

no because i know how to defend myself without being lethal.

How do you defend yourself from someone with a gun? Wonder bracelets not allowed.

also there are knives to use if u had to.

I'm not a defense expert, but if knives were effective against guns, I'm guessing that guns wouldn't be so popular.

it would also be more likely that he wouldnt have a gun either because they would be banned.

Someone not interested in respecting the law (breaking in), would, um, be not interested in respecting the law (gun ownership.)

I might note that making guns illegal will not, in fact, make them all disappear magically.

however im not naive [sic]

I sincerely doubt that.

i know that a black market for guns will be created most likely.

Enlarged, maybe. Ever read about prohibition? Might want to check on how effective that was.

it will be much harder for criminals to get them though.

No, if the market is enlarged (or "created" as you wrongly suggested) then it would actually be easier.

think of how drugs were made illegal and usage dropped ALOT. [sic]

Have a citation for that? Which drugs?

Knives? Real life is not like the movies. If you get in a knife fight, both of you are VERY likely to be severely injured, no matter how good you (think) you are.

It seems that this decision holds that the Right to bear arms is apparently a superior Right, despite being only part of the Second Amendment.

The second amendment ensures that all other amendments are acted on accordingly. The right to bear arms isn't for protection againt your neighbor, it's protection against tyranny. You cannot overtake an armed populous with force.

We are supposed to give up our rights so that we can be protected from ourselves? If that is the case then we are savages, and only the meanest and greediest savages lead.

Lets see what you think when its late at night and you hear glass break and the stairs are creaking up towards your bed room.

Paranoia will destroy ya- I betcha even a yappy little dog or two would spook most (99% ) of those guys. If that doesn't work for you- how about 40 lb Border Collie or a 60 lb Lab. Oh yeah - I forgot- dogs aren't suitable for city living, but I guess guns are. Guns let you play God, dogs generally don't.

Another quote- Some of us WILL NOT leave ourselves unprepared for that or other similar situations. Just because some people can not handle the responsibility of gun ownership does not mean that the rest of us should be deprived of the right to defend our homes.

I guess that includes your kids, and your kid's pals, and your kid's pal's cousins. Every time I hear of someone going postal I think "dang its a good thing guns are not restricted- otherwise no one would have any way to defend themselves". Too bad though about the massive increases in suicides and shooting accidents where people, often kids, kill themselves or their freinds. Of course- how many real people actually casually carry guns on their daily routines- in bear or cougar country- absolutely - but in town - no one I know or probably even want to know. And how many decent folk are not going to be totally nervous or hesitate as long as possible or longer when pulling the trigger. Give your head a shake- - there's a lot more to life than waiting for someone to shoot you so you can shoot first. Lose the guns- at least when you are in town.