Gun Control: This speaks for itself

[aczlan]

Suicide is higher in homes with guns.

And yet, the suicide rates in the US and in Canada (suicides/100k people) are almost identical, they just differ in the method of suicide. So if someone wants to kill themselves, they will use a gun if one is available. If one is not available, they will use other methods.

Aaron Z

 

[MossRoad]

The argument that homeowners with guns in the house are more likely to be killed by gunfire with their own weapon is also true for hot dog eaters are more likely to choke on hot dogs.

 

[greasemonkeyok]

And yet, the suicide rates in the US and in Canada (suicides/100k people) are almost identical, they just differ in the method of suicide. So if someone wants to kill themselves, they will use a gun if one is available. If one is not available, they will use other methods.Aaron Z

No, it means people living in colder climates tend to commit suicide more than people living in warmer climates.

 

[TripleR]

That is a puff piece that doesn't seriously address most of the issues. For example, the point most relevant in your linked article to the point I made regarding guns in homes resulting in more deaths of homeowners than criminals is the following headline "MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime." That headline and the rambling text that follows simply doesn't address the issue. I never said guns in homes do or don't deter crime, I said simply that the home dwellers are more likely to be killed by gunfire with their own weapon than by that of a criminal. We have fewer firearm and total homicide victims per 100,000 population in MA than in almost any other state except Hawaii and we have fewer guns in homes than any other state except Hawaii. It is not just the lower homicide rate at the hands of armed criminals. Suicide is higher in homes with guns. Murder of domestic partners is more common in homes with guns. Accidental deaths via firearm are also obviously higher. What the gun enthusiasts need to show is that there would be even more deaths if there were not guns in the home. They cannot do that because 1) there is no such data as far as I know, 2) one reason that there is not data on that subject is that the NRA works very hard to prevent the government (CDC in particular) from studying the issue, 3) NRA does not itself fund any studies on the matter. I wonder why NRA works so hard to prevent careful epidemiologic studies on this topic from being done? This is not an "anti gun" argument. It is a simple "does it work?" argument. If the main reason you have a gun in the house is to protect your family, wouldn't you like to know the data on whether your family is more likely to benefit or be harmed by having a firearm in the house? Simple question. We can show the data on seat belts. We can show the data on air bags. Why can't we allow the public to have access to equivalent unbiased data on firearms in the home????

Like I said before this has all been discussed before and you can believe what you believe and I will do the same, I just am not buying your "facts".

 

[IslandTractor]

Like I said before this has all been discussed before and you can believe what you believe and I will do the same, I just am not buying your "facts".

My "facts" are from the FBI. Your "facts" are from the NRA. The FBI actually collects data. The NRA just puts out defensive statements and doesn't bother to collect or analyze any data. Indeed, the NRA works overtime to make it difficult for epidemiologists to even begin to study these problems. The issue is not my facts vs your facts. You don't have any facts to lean on.

 

[redlevel]

Look up the FBI data on murder rates and gun ownership by state. Clear as day. Sure there are some states like ND where guns are high and murder is relatively low but the highest murder and death by firearm rates are virtually all in Southern states with high gun ownership rates. It is hardly shocking that the last couple of reported accidental deaths caused by young boys were in the south.

Chicago is a red herring as are Newark and Detroit etc. Those are drug dealers and punks willingly engaged in turf battles and retribution from which innocent bystanders occasionally become sad victims. Those innocents were not threatened with guns and if they had guns would not have been able to protect themselves from stray shots.

You want to throw out Chicago, Detroit, and Newark as "red herrings" because they don't fit your little self-constructed paradigm. Handy. Do you suppose there might be cultural or demographic factors that make Chicago, Detroit, Newark, and the Southern states high gun violence states? Are Chicago, Newark, Detroit, considered high gun ownership areas? I bet the average thug in Chicago, Detroit, Newark, Atlanta, wherever, doesn't own as many guns as the average sport shooter in Georgia. I have a circle of friends who probably own an average of 50 or more guns each. Some of them, several times that. So far as I know, none of them has ever murdered anyone. I probably own a couple of dozen guns, and I have never shot anyone or committed a violent crime, far as that goes.

 

[deathtoblackberries]

Alcohol kills far more kids and adults than guns, where are the calls for alcohol control? Limits on the amount of alcohol one can purchase, limits on the size, registering alcohol purchasers, background checks to make sure drunks are not purchasing alcohol? How did the human race even survive before big government started protecting us from ourselves.

 

[houstonscott]

All the statists and arguments about how other people or just people think about your guns or how to control them don't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. We all have a right to guns and it can't be infringed upon in anyway. Don't like it there are procedures to change constitution, don't hear any of that right now.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

The argument that homeowners with guns in the house are more likely to be killed by gunfire with their own weapon is also true for hot dog eaters are more likely to choke on hot dogs.

That is a fallacy but at least you acknowledge that gun owners can be killed with their own weapon. And, you probably listened to your pediatrician who quoted real data showing that young children can choke on hot dogs so you avoided them until it was safe. The trouble with your rather absurd argument is that you are saying that even though the pediatrician says my child might choke on a hot dog, I'm going to feed the young infants hot dogs anyway. IF there is data that says your risk of death is higher if you have a gun in the home than if you do not have a gun, then how exactly is the gun protecting you? Gun defenders immediately jump to the hypothetical bad guy trying to break in to my home and create mayhem but the reality is that 1) armed home invasion is remarkably rare (just very well publicized) and 2) firearms kill people in their home quite regularly (murder, accident, suicide). If gun ownership is protective, then why do we not have as many gun deaths in Massachusetts as in Arkansas? The citizens of Arkansas are MUCH better armed but the risk of firearm death is MUCH lower in Massachusetts. Just how are all those guns protecting the citizens of Arkansas?

 

[IslandTractor]

All the statists and arguments about how other people or just people think about your guns or how to control them don't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. We all have a right to guns and it can't be infringed upon in anyway. Don't like it there are procedures to change constitution, don't hear any of that right now.

HS

You don't have an unlimited right to firearms. Firearms are regulated. We are not talking about taking away your guns, we are talking about fine tuning the regulations so guns are less likely to end up the hands of deranged people who will take away our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.