Opinions.. SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment in DC gun ban.






SMART move on their part. Now maybe DC home owners can protect their own familes. An armed society is a polite society. Discuss.

Opinions.. SCOTUS rules in favor of the 2nd Amendment in DC gun ban.






SMART move on their part. Now maybe DC home owners can protect their own familes. An armed society is a polite society. Discuss.

Agreed... except I would change your conclusion.

An armed society is a secure society, in which its citizens have peace of mind in knowing they can protect themselves when the police are too busy arresting someone for smoking pot.

I wouldn't rush to judgment on this one. The opinion appears to be less straightforward than would be ideal.

Agreed... except I would change your conclusion.

An armed society is a secure society, in which its citizens have peace of mind in knowing they can protect themselves when the police are too busy arresting someone for smoking pot.


Yes because that's what the cops are actually doing.

Good lord, bitch about us removing support from the drug wars in Iran and then flip a bitch here and bitch because we're still waging that war.

Make up your mind, bitching just to bitch at the man is going to leave you in a tizzy once the man you helped get elected is in power.

What now ?

Ah and /applaud Supreme court for making this historic judgement!!

Marijuana = Stupid to arrest for... Meth... thats another story

There is no hypocrisy

I was applauding the ruling btw

Fandros, I think you misunderstood Jedd. Also, you need to read past the Fox News headline on this decision.

I'm waiting to see how those smarter than myself interpret it, but it looks like they may have reaffirmed the 2nd, while simultaneously giving blanket permission to heavily regulate firearms NY style.

Fandros, I think you misunderstood Jedd. Also, you need to read past the Fox News headline on this decision.

I'm waiting to see how those smarter than myself interpret it, but it looks like they may have reaffirmed the 2nd, while simultaneously giving blanket permission to heavily regulate firearms NY/DC style.


Listen just because they broke you down here and you're in a tizzy to find a point to stand on doesn't mean the rest of us are suffering tunnel vision. You want to hurl insinuations , fine, but you're offbase sooooo back up and pump the brakes.

I check Fox as much as I check about 20 other sites. A lil info from many different perspectives is better than nothing.

D.C's decline into barbarism since the gun ban spoke for itself. The ruling needed to happen, and while the Supreme Court's ruling is a bit vague I think it was trying to focus on the main issue at hand.

D.C. violated a basic right of the American people and needed to be saved from itself.

Fandros, are you new here? I've always been 100% against gun control, and still am.

That's why I'm worried.

A PDF of the decision is available here (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf), for those interested.

No San I was referring to your lil snipe at me in regards to Fox news.

I'm also 100% against gun control. But as with all Supreme Court rulings they try to stay very narrow on their rulings.

This is just a jumping point, you will see many more such rulings as the Dems come into power and want to further restrict your right to bear arms.

I read http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKN2630847620080626
this is the first time in our history the Supreme Court has made a ruling such as this. It speaks very well of the vision they have of the 2nd amendment.

5-4 isn't overwhelming, but what do you expect from Democrat picked justices? That type of judge is part of the problem with the Judges of this country trying to write laws instead of interpret them imho.

You're too defensive about the Fox News. I was calling the mainstream media echo chamber into question, not necessarily you.

Reading the opinion, it definitely seems to be a bit two-faced.

p. 64 (last page of the opinion), they make a point to reiterate the bit in pp. 54-55 about how this opinion doesn't in any way change the legality of licensing restrictions. If you look at the ordeal it takes to get a license in NY, NY, you can see how this leaves the door open for an actual reduction in gun rights.

I'll be interested to see how that's interpreted. If what NY does isn't infringing the 2nd amendment, nothing shy of a complete ban does.

Reading this


Scalia wrote that the majority was sympathetic to Washington's problems with guns and crime but that banning handguns was not a solution.
"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Scalia wrote. "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."


It certainly sounds like it definitely opens the door other gun control measures. I wouldn't be jumping up and down and cheering yet.

Aye, great decision.

Now you'll keep gunning eachother down in the streets.

Nothing like it!!

Yes Halo cuz that's an issue. Every legal handgun owner spends 3 hours min gunning down folks as per city and state statutes ;P

I was reading about how, after banning guns, knife crime is on the rise in England. To the point they're putting metal detectors out in public and queuing people through them at random.

LOL?

It takes an extreme ignorance of history to think that you can legislate peace.

i have no beef with this, i am pro-gun control. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, no beef with, full auto, 50 caliber craziness is where i have a issue.

Full auto 50 caliber weapons have never been available to the general public. The last time fully automatic weapons were available was before the .50 round currently in circulation was developed.

It's fairly amusing that the famously available automatic rifle, the Thompson, which was chambered for pistol cartridges, was extensively used in gangster movies for effect but sales of it in Chicago were <1% of it's volume and it was owned peacefully by thousands of people. Thank god we saved those gangsters from the Federal agents.

As a person who loves guns there is no issue I have with registering firearms, it should be that way. It simply legitimizes the owners interest in the gun(s).

If people want to enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby there is nothing wrong with it, also automatic weapons are legal to own and should be, if you want a Browning .50 you can buy one very legally I assure you.

If people want to enjoy shooting as a sport or hobby there is nothing wrong with it, also automatic weapons are legal to own and should be, if you want a Browning .50 you can buy one very legally I assure you.

Provided you have a Class 3 FFL, yeah, but you can't just wander into a gun store and drop a few hundred dollars on one.

As a person who loves guns there is no issue I have with registering firearms, it should be that way. It simply legitimizes the owners interest in the gun(s).

Reasonably attainable licenses are fine and good. The licensing rigmarole in areas like NY and LA are clearly meant as deterrent though, not safety.

Well San, apparently that's working for them. Look at their crime rates!!!

errrr still NJ one of the places to avoid right?;P

The NY crime rates? What about them? :P

is there "proof" that looser gun restrictions lowers/raises crime, or is it all partisan spin ?

is there "proof" that looser gun restrictions lowers/raises crime, or is it all partisan spin ?

If I had a gun and was in a public building... and a thief with a gun came in to steal money and was waving his gun around... I would shoot him. There is one instance of what loose gun restrictions would do.

There may not be fewer crimes... but there will 100% be fewer innocent casualties due to civilians being armed.

And I'm a democrat

Kennesaw!

is there "proof" that looser gun restrictions lowers/raises crime, or is it all partisan spin ?

Yes, there have been numerous studies.

Try starting at The Great American Gun Debate (http://www.amazon.com/Great-American-Gun-Debate-Firearms/dp/0936488395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214593422&sr=8-1).

You don't have to listen to the NRA or the Violence Policy Center for Making Shit Up (you've repeated a number of their more absurb fear-mongering statements that have bene recirculated into memetic culture). You can look at actual peer-review crimonology.

Kleck in particular gets a lot of bad press but barely any of it is from anyone of qualified background. There are actual scientific critiques of his data and conclusions, as would be expected.

Can we get a summary of those findings without having to read that book? :)

I grew up around guns, I don't mind folks carrying them. But like everything I think there should be a degree of common sense in what types of guns should be allowed to be purchased/carried by the common public. Frankly I think if we all wore them on gunbelts like the old west things might different! ;)

Ah, here's one I was looking for - the CDC (bastion of religious hate mongering gun nuts) finds no link between gun control policies and reductions of deaths and injuries, intentional or otherwise:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

And sure Fild, the summary is that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, people developed dangerous tools thousands of years ago and keep doing it. We have saws, knives, guns, cars, explosives, household chemicals, power-tools of all varieties, swimming pools, and any number of other potentially dangerous things around us. You can't get rid of them, the only thing that ever reliably works to get people to use them safely is education.

Can we get a summary of those findings without having to read that book? :)

I grew up around guns, I don't mind folks carrying them. But like everything I think there should be a degree of common sense in what types of guns should be allowed to be purchased/carried by the common public. Frankly I think if we all wore them on gunbelts like the old west things might different! ;)


heh, I think there is such a law"visible gun belt" in Alaska or areas of it.

Those thar bears know not to mess with them then!!

Gun ownership cuts down crime, nothing breeds caution into a criminal more than knowing that house he's about to break into might be the future spot of his chalk outline.

Gun ownership cuts down crime, nothing breeds caution into a criminal more than knowing that house he's about to break into might be the future spot of his chalk outline.

Isnt that the same logic when used in having the death penalty in states? Hasn't those numbers proven it is neither a plus or a minus?

Not the same logic at all , sorry man.

Full auto 50 caliber weapons have never been available to the general public. The last time fully automatic weapons were available was before the .50 round currently in circulation was developed.

It's fairly amusing that the famously available automatic rifle, the Thompson, which was chambered for pistol cartridges, was extensively used in gangster movies for effect but sales of it in Chicago were <1% of it's volume and it was owned peacefully by thousands of people. Thank god we saved those gangsters from the Federal agents.


I used to own a Thompson .45 cal. I think the only reason I picked it up was because Vic Morrow had one on the "Combat" television program I watched when younger. It had the standard stick clip rather than the round one popularized in the "Untouchables" program.

Definitely a damage dealer.

Not the same logic at all , sorry man.


how is it not the same logic. its using "fear" as a deterant.

I remember finding this article inciteful last year. Luckily found it again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/14/usa.usgunviolence

'One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream.
An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack.'

I remember finding this article inciteful last year. Luckily found it again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/14/usa.usgunviolence

'One federal study estimated there were 215 million guns, with about half of all US households owning one. Such a staggering number makes America's gun culture thoroughly mainstream.
An average of almost eight people aged under 19 are shot dead in America every day. In 2005 there were more than 14,000 gun murders in the US - with 400 of the victims children. There are 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents in an average year. Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

Studies show that having a gun at home makes it six times more likely that an abused woman will be murdered. A gun in a US home is 22 times more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a murder or a suicide than in self-defence against an attack.'
I wonder how many people have been killed due to car accidents since Kennedy was shot... Maybe we should ban cars - they're deadly.

I'm curious how many people have been killed in alcohol related incidents... maybe we should bring back Prohibition! (It worked so well the first time)

I wonder how many people die due to heart disease, or obesity-related illnesses - let's ban fast food! And how about putting the money that we spend on gun control towards heart-disease research!

Is death by gun so much worse than any of the above? I'm pretty certain it's a hell of a lot less likely.

Numbers are great, but only when put into perspective.

more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century


That's a great sentence, because you know you're taking a number that is tiny and making it sound huge with scope. Why don't we play that game with the 19th century as well? oops, Civil War.

I wonder how many people have been killed due to car accidents since Kennedy was shot... Maybe we should ban cars - they're deadly.

I'm curious how many people have been killed in alcohol related incidents... maybe we should bring back Prohibition! (It worked so well the first time)

I wonder how many people die due to heart disease, or obesity-related illnesses - let's ban fast food! And how about putting the money that we spend on gun control towards heart-disease research!

Is death by gun so much worse than any of the above? I'm pretty certain it's a hell of a lot less likely.

Numbers are great, but only when put into perspective.

Im sorry that argument doesn't hold water for me. Guns are designed for death....further proof of that is police departments are trying to switch to LESS-lethal alternatives. Which means the odds are lower but you can still die. alcohol, fast food and cars are not designed for death...

Also, that argument used by Jen could then be used to say legalize all drugs, prostitution, assisted suicided and so on.

That's a great sentence, because you know you're taking a number that is tiny and making it sound huge with scope. Why don't we play that game with the 19th century as well? oops, Civil War.

am i reading this wrong, the combined deaths of WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam are small?

The number of people who died in foreign wars AND the number of people who died not during wars due to gun violence, is in fact tiny relative to the number of people that lived in America during the 20th century, yes. That's why you can't make that statement about the 19th -- gun violence rates were undoubtedly much higher, but the Civil War killed a much larger percentage of the population.

Do a little research and why don't you look up what the number 1 non-medical (heart disease, cancer, etc) cause of death is.

I'll give you a hint: Gravity.

Im sorry that argument doesn't hold water for me. Guns are designed for death....further proof of that is police departments are trying to switch to LESS-lethal alternatives. Which means the odds are lower but you can still die. alcohol, fast food and cars are not designed for death...

Also, that argument used by Jen could then be used to say legalize all drugs, prostitution, assisted suicided and so on.
1) What would be wrong with legalizing all drugs? I'm not for it personally (the "all" portion), but I dont see that it would cause any more harm than our current "drugs are illegal" setup; in fact it would likely help things. Making them illegal sure hasnt done a whole lot to curb usage. Just legalizing Marijuana would do wonders, but that's another argument. Extending this, why are all these drugs illegal, but not alcohol?

2) I still have no idea why prostitution is illegal. It's illegal to charge for something that you can give away for free? In any case, prostitution IS legal in areas of Nevada, and also in Holland, to name two places, and seems to work well for them.

3) Assisted suicide - again, what's wrong with this? Totally another thread for that discussion, but that's a debatable item as far as being "evil" and needing to be illegal.

So, sure, apply my argument to those items.

In any case, my point was more that you should put the numbers in context. Guns are a tool, which can be used or misused, same as drugs, knives, hammers, etc. Fact is, guns are a pandora's box - it's been opened, and trying to get rid of them is an exercise in futility. Same with alcohol, drugs, etc. It's too accessible, even if all these items were illegal. "Banning" them, or restricting them, just gives those with no regard for the law the upper hand over those that obey it.

Gun Owner Rights

Prostitution

Flag Burning

Gay Marriage

Drug Legalization

These are some of the many political diversions that are embraced by our politicians as a way of allowing ridiculous measures pass that actually do serious harm to our nation. They are diversions because they never really want these resolved.

There have been publicly televised hearings on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and Fox concerning flag burning yet measures that concern the Iraq war or the fleecing of our tax dollars by large corporations get almost no coverage let alone even a mention from these news outlets. There's more crap about offshore oil drilling and ANWR drilling than there are news stories about things that will actually solve quite a few of those issues in the very near future and will create jobs and damn good ones right here and probably in your area also.

So how do you fight it and how do you bypass the corporate influence in the news media? I did...I started this: The Citizen Journals (http://www.thecitizenjournals.com). Gonna localize this, site should be active and live within a week, anyone interested in contributing articles, photo's and essay's feel free to contact me.

Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.




Wouldn't Dickens have viewed this as a healthy form of population control? If those deaths had not occurred, how much sooner would we have faced food shortages, and high unemployment, and prison overcrowding, and so forth?

My only grievance with gun control is not allowing a convicted felon to possess a gun once he or she has completed the required prison term. If they learned their lesson and live a productive life following release from prison they should have the same right to protect themselves and their families; and, if they have not learned and return to crime they will likely be more prone to being shot down as a repeat offender. The thing is, the bad ones are going to get guns anyway, but the ones that are reformed are left more vulnerable than the average citizen, which is an added punishment on top of their prison sentence.

Since the killing of John F Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.

These statistics always include the following gunfire deaths, which makes it just another way of lying with statistics.

1)suicides (darwin in action)

2)Legal shootings of "bad guys" (like we're going to stop arming our authorities)

3)legit shootings by citizens (the whole point of keeping citizens armed)

4)Accidental shootings/suicides (ok, perhaps a point here, but honestly, also darwin in action)

The only major problem with legalizing prostitution is that it's a slippery slope from there to legalizing the right to sell yourself as a slave. It's more of a quality of life issue, where nobody wants to compete with that result. On the other hand, I don't think it should rate misdemeanor either, perhaps just a finable offense, similar to speeding.

Not always.

Fatalities in 2004:
http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx

These are all mutually exclusive categories, as far as I can tell:
* "Assault by firearm": 11,624
* "Firearms discharge" (accidental): 649
* "Firearms discharge" (undetermined intent): 235
* "Intentional self-harm by firearm": 16,750
* "Legal intervention involving firearm discharge": 311

There are a few rather specific categories in there. For example:
* "Ignition or melting of nightwear": 7

There ya go. 11.5k is the real number, but number that keeps getting used is 29k+. I love statistics. They're almost as fun as lies and damn lies.

These statistics always include the following gunfire deaths, which makes it just another way of lying with statistics.

1)suicides (darwin in action)

2)Legal shootings of "bad guys" (like we're going to stop arming our authorities)

3)legit shootings by citizens (the whole point of keeping citizens armed)

4)Accidental shootings/suicides (ok, perhaps a point here, but honestly, also darwin in action)

The only major problem with legalizing prostitution is that it's a slippery slope from there to legalizing the right to sell yourself as a slave. It's more of a quality of life issue, where nobody wants to compete with that result. On the other hand, I don't think it should rate misdemeanor either, perhaps just a finable offense, similar to speeding.

I fail to see that slippery slope. If you sell yourself as a slave, it's called getting a job. I work for the pay i'm selling myself for every day.

When I read one of these "guns" subject, it always reminds me of one Simpsons' special haloween episodes with the monkey's hand, when Lisa wishes all guns and weapons dissapear from Earth, opening the way to Alien Invasion (who were waiting for that, damn them!). Hopefully Moe (I think?) manages to make a stick and chases aliens from Earth.

All to say that I agree and disagree (the more I stayed here the more it tained my view on things, can't say discussions here are useless hey?) with pro "gun-owners".
I can see that, as a pandora box, it's almost impossible to ban or restrain gun usage, the best bet being to educate people to own and use safely available guns.
But I can't help feeling bitter that protecting your family, and your 90" flat screen, comes at a cost of not trusting your neightbors, your police and using tools PURPOSELY made to maim others.

Could be an interesting debate about vigilantism, against or for it? :)

Edit :
http://www.cracked.com/phpimages/craptions/8/798.jpg
"Guns don't kill people, Amy does."

But I can't help feeling bitter that protecting your family, and your 90" flat screen, comes at a cost of not trusting your neightbors, your police and using tools PURPOSELY made to maim others.

Could be an interesting debate about vigilantism, against or for it? :)

Edit :
http://www.cracked.com/phpimages/craptions/8/798.jpg
"Guns don't kill people, Amy does."

That's two interesting points, a) that there is a fundamental distrust endemic in many increasing socially insular Western societies totally orthagonal to any gun laws, and b) when people grow up thinking shooting people is the right way to solve problems because that's what they've seen the supposed "leader of the free world" and other such forgettable nations as Russia and Britain doing whenever they feel like for sixty years, and overly militarized societies that depend on military socialism like the US are constantly churning out both state propaganda about the awesomeness of grabbing a gun and shooting darkies "for freedom" along with the usual Hollywood blowing shit up fare, what exactly do we expect our citizens to pick up on?

You're awfully quick to place blame on George Bush, Stalin, Iraq, and Hollywood - why not throw video games and McDonalds in the mix there too. Yet there are millions who watch violent movies, watch the news, maybe even went to Iraq that don't shoot their friends, neighbors, enemies when they have problems. Why not place the blame on the stupid, fucked up people who resort to gun violence to solve their problems instead?

I can really see both sides of the arguments, and they're both pretty valid. Just the other day I saw a car with 8 bullet holes through its windshield and side door. The occupants of the car were driving one lane to the right of a car that was targeted in gang violence. A mother, father, and child were shot and the child died. If guns didn't exist, he wouldn't have died. If they were armed, it wouldn't have mattered - he would have died anyway.

But guns do exist, and in scenarios where a crazed gunman goes into a mall and opens fire it would benefit everyone if there were trained, armed citizens able to take him out.

So ultimately I can't even decide for myself whats the best way to go, let alone for the country. As Rover pointed out, its just one way to stir people into a tizzy and polarize them while slowly letting the important issues fade into the background. Its hardly worth these 5 pages of discussion, never mind the hours of debate all the networks will dedicate to it, as we sit back and smile as our economy goes to shit. People are gonna elect their next Representatives, Senators, and President because they won't take their guns away and won't let those gays marry, and that's just awful :(

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9812218?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

This article was in yesterday's St Paul Pioneer Press, and speaks to some of the comments made in this thread regarding suicide rates and gun control. It shows a 25% drop in the suicide rate in the Washington DC area following the 1976 handgun ban, using numbers from 1968 through 1987; no decline was found in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs not affected by the ban.

The article mainly speaks to the act of suicide being an impulsive one in most cases, and having a gun available usually results in a successful suicide attempt.

Just found it interesting, in light of this thread and debate, so thought I would share. For those that have trouble with the link, I am copying the text here, below.



With the right to bear arms comes a greater risk of suicide

Why? Gun owners rarely survive that lethal mad impulse
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post
Article Last Updated: 07/07/2008 11:10:59 PM CDT


Seventeen years ago, two criminologists published a paper about the 1976 handgun ban in Washington, D.C. — a ban that recently was overturned by the Supreme Court as inimical to the constitutional right to bear arms.
After tabulating all the suicides in the district from 1968 to 1987, researchers Colin Loftin and David McDowall of the University of Maryland found the ban correlated with an abrupt 25 percent decline in suicides.
The two, who now work at the University at Albany in New York, also tabulated suicide rates in Maryland and Virginia over the same period to see if suicide rates just happened to be declining across that region. No difference was found in the suicide rate in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs before and after the D.C. gun ban.


The researchers also tabulated the types of suicides that declined in number in Washington, D.C., and found the 25 percent drop was entirely driven by a decline in firearm-related suicide.


There are many ways to read the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but all interpretations point to a core idea: Americans have the right to own guns to protect themselves against outside threats, whether the danger comes from a school shooter, a vicious mugger, a robber breaking into a house, a lawless neighborhood — even the government itself.
What the amendment authors did not foresee is the fact when people own a gun, they unwittingly raise their risk of getting hurt and killed. That's because the odds


they will one day use their gun to commit suicide are much greater than the odds they will use their gun to defend themselves against intruders or muggers.

States with high rates of gun ownership — Alabama, Idaho, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and New Mexico — have suicide rates that are more than double the suicide rate in states with low rates of gun ownership, such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and New York, said Matthew Miller, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health.


The difference is not because people in gun-owning states are more suicidal, it's that guns result in many more completed suicides.
"The evidence is overwhelming," said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard. "There are a dozen case-controlled studies, all of which show the gun in the home is a risk factor for suicide for the gun owner, for the spouse, for the gun owner's children."


If TV dramas about cops and violence were to depict the reality of how death and mayhem typically unfold in America, several different scenarios would be more likely to dominate plot lines: an elderly widower, lonely beyond words, shoots himself; a middle-aged executive, who has lost everything in an economic downturn, throws herself off a tall building; or two teenagers pull a Romeo-and-Juliet-style suicide as a protest against an uncaring world.


The reason we can be sure that suicide — and not assaults, break-ins, muggings, school shootings and other fatal attacks — would account for most of the stories is that suicide dwarfs homicide as a killer in the United States.


There were 32,637 suicides in the country in 2005, the latest year for which statistics are available. That year, the collective homicidal mayhem caused by domestic abusers, violent criminals, gang fights, drug wars, break-ins, shootouts with cops, accidental gun discharges and cold, premeditated murder produced 18,538 deaths.


Only a fraction of the 400,000 suicide attempts that bring Americans into emergency rooms each year involve guns. But because guns are so lethal, 17,002 of all suicides in 2005 — 52 percent — involved people shooting themselves.


Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide usually is an act of impulsive desperation — an impulse that passes. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not go on to kill themselves later.


Gun owners are no more likely to be suicidal. But within the window of a mad impulse, people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means.


"If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," said Miller. "There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold."

I just don't buy that.

Almost everyone in my family has a gun and to date the only person I know of committing suicide (a 3rd or 4th cousin) did so by not taking his insulin b/c his girlfriend wouldn't marry him.

I'm in agreement with Rover and Kelraz this crap is just a way to stir shit while letting important issues fall to the wayside.

A motivated person could and would make do with a spork from KFC if they really wanted to take the cheap road out.

Yeah. Take a look at how they commit suicide in Japan, lately. Just as effective as a gun, without pain or violence.

They have also had a few stories out of Japan of people ingesting toxic chemicals to commit suicide, and hospital workers being exposed to the chemicals while trying to save the person's life, or examining the corpse.
Let's ban "toxic chemicals" next, plskkthks.

at least people arent suggesting taking things to extremes....

If we remove all bridges from the US we can then prevent suicides of people who jump off of bridges. No bridges no bridge jumping suicides, we can also ban "lengths" which would be any type of wire, cloth, rope, blankets, jackets, shirts, pants etc that people could cut into a "length" to create something to hang themselves with. Then we need to look at banning matches and accelerants(sp) which can be used to commit suicide by lighting ones self on fire, then we need to take a serious look at automotive exhaust as this is also an effective way of commiting suicide and can and often will result in the deaths of innocents when people do it in attached garages. Also we need to ban Cops because I've heard of people who commit suicide by attacking a cop who then shoots them but this would probably be covered under the gun ban.

"If you bought a gun today, I could tell you the risk of suicide to you and your family members is going to be two- to tenfold higher over the next 20 years," said Miller. "There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold."

What a nice, caring person, who has no understanding of probability.

"There are not many things you can do to increase your risk of dying tenfold."

Really? I would bet taping yourself to a 747 wing on takeoff could increase the odds.

so much for Federalism!

Federalism doesn't seem to be in much danger as of late. Although we can increase its risk of demise tenfold by giving it a loaded bank account.

I think shouting Allah Akbar in an airport increases your chance of dieing at least ten fold