Surprising fact: Half of gun deaths are suicides
July 1st, 2008 By MIKE STOBBE , AP Medical Writer
Semi-automatic handguns and revolvers are seen on top of a glass display case at John Jovino Co. on Thursday, June 26, 2008 in New York. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier in the day that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense - the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
(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, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.
Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Gun shows do not increase homicides or suicides
Oct 01, 2008 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
1
Firearms industry should bear financial liability for homicides involving handguns
Mar 18, 2008 |
2.5 / 5 (19) |
9
Guns in homes strongly associated with higher rates of suicide
Apr 10, 2007 |
5 / 5 (5) |
0
NYPD looking at futuristic weapons technology
Jun 06, 2009 |
5 / 5 (3) |
5
First study of gun shows California laws reduce illegal gun purchases
Jun 12, 2007 |
2.1 / 5 (20) |
0
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.
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.
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.
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.
How do you defend yourself from someone with a gun? Wonder bracelets not allowed.
I'm not a defense expert, but if knives were effective against guns, I'm guessing that guns wouldn't be so popular.
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.
I sincerely doubt that.
Enlarged, maybe. Ever read about prohibition? Might want to check on how effective that was.
No, if the market is enlarged (or "created" as you wrongly suggested) then it would actually be easier.
Have a citation for that? Which drugs?
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.