Gun owners use the weapons on themselves: More than half firearm deaths are suicides

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 1:53 PM GMT
    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

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 2:23 PM GMT
    I support gun ownership and the right to bear arms. However, I think training and registration should be required. Owning a weapon should equal being responsible for it.

    Meanwhile, beyond that idealism, growing up in Appalachia, I can tell you most folks there bought their guns at weekend tailgate flea markets. The 'aisle' in the back was always crowded with guys selling rifles, shot guns, handguns, semi- and automatics, etc. I once watched a guy buy a freakin elephant rifle. I asked him, What are you going to do with that? He said, Hunt deer. I said, More like disintegrate them.

    Anyway....

    I know more people killed by guns in suicides and accidents than I do murders...but I see that as indicative of where I grew up and where I live now. In different circumstance I might know differently.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 2:51 PM GMT
    Yes, people can't commit suicide without guns!
    (translation: the suicide argument is a dead end for the anti-gunners).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 3:10 PM GMT
    I don't understand the point. So what? If this is true, it's probably only because a gunshot is deemed "easier" and faster than swallowing a bottle of pills.

    Half the time when I read CNN these days, it is to amuse myself with the unabashed spin that they add to nearly every news story. "PAIN at the pump!" "BEAR scare!" They also seem to select the most sensationalized AP stories for the most prominent places on the CNN home page.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 3:16 PM GMT
    italmusclebkn saidI don't understand the point. So what? If this is true, it's probably only because a gunshot is deemed "easier" and faster than swallowing a bottle of pills.

    Half the time when I read CNN these days, it is to amuse myself with the unabashed spin that they add to nearly every news story. "PAIN at the pump!" "BEAR scare!" They also seem to select the most sensationalized AP stories for the most prominent places on the CNN home page.


    Welcome to the world of American media, where the motto is "If it bleeds, it leads". I don't think the whole gun issue would be what it is if the media wasn't sensationalizing the use of guns anyway. I know, I know, free speech... at any cost. I'm sure if people weren't seeing that someone obtained a gun and shot someone because they were pissed on the nightly news 3 times a day, Law & Order, or a host of other prime time TV shows, they just pick it up watching the History Channel or reading a book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 3:23 PM GMT
    eb925guy said[quote][cite]italmusclebkn said[/cite]I don't understand the point. So what? If this is true, it's probably only because a gunshot is deemed "easier" and faster than swallowing a bottle of pills.

    Half the time when I read CNN these days, it is to amuse myself with the unabashed spin that they add to nearly every news story. "PAIN at the pump!" "BEAR scare!" They also seem to select the most sensationalized AP stories for the most prominent places on the CNN home page.

    Welcome to the world of American media, where the motto is "If it bleeds, it leads". I don't think the whole gun issue would be what it is if the media wasn't sensationalizing the use of guns anyway. I know, I know, free speech... at any cost. I'm sure if people weren't seeing that someone obtained a gun and shot someone because they were pissed on the nightly news 3 times a day, Law & Order, or a host of other prime time TV shows, they just pick it up watching the History Channel or reading a book.


    ummmm....are you going to get that little hand growing out of your forearm removed? Looks kinda freaky!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 3:35 PM GMT
    Caslon4000 said
    ummmm....are you going to get that little hand growing out of your forearm removed? Looks kinda freaky!

    I thought you'd like the little hand! LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 01, 2008 9:13 PM GMT
    eb925guy said[quote][cite]Caslon4000 said[/cite]
    ummmm....are you going to get that little hand growing out of your forearm removed? Looks kinda freaky!

    I thought you'd like the little hand! LOL


    Is that the hand you use when you wank? ... icon_lol.gif ... oh, damn I crack me up!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2008 11:29 PM GMT
    Hand guns (or guns period) are a much more effective way of killing oneself then other methods such as pills. I am not surprised by the statistics, I bet the majority of the suicides were by males who are much more likely to kill themselves then females. Males do not reach out for help as often when suicidal, and are often under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

    Therefore, part of the problem is the pressure on guys to cope with emotional problems on their own as well as the prevalence of guns.

    BTW why is the US so hung up on its' constitution and what it says? Just because something was written over 200 years ago does that make it etched in stone forever? Perhaps it is time to revisit the "right to bear arms"? Or am I thinking to far outside the box?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 02, 2008 11:51 PM GMT
    Why is a monarchy still a viable facet of government as well? Is it God Save the Queen or is she on her own?

    Don’t dismiss my Constitution and I will pretend to not carry a disdain for archaic forms of lording over civilized nations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 12:06 AM GMT
    whitenoise saidWhy is a monarchy still a viable facet of government as well? Is it God Save the Queen or is she on her own?

    Don’t dismiss my Constitution and I will pretend to not carry a disdain for archaic forms of lording over civilized nations.


    The Queen is a figurehead, Canada has its' own constitution so she does not lord over civilized nations (the thought is laughable).

    I am not dismissing the Constitution, just questioning if parts of it can be changed, after all prohibition was repealed, if enough people wanted the right to bear arms repealed or modified could that not be done as well?

    The right to bear arms was created in a different time and in a very different society, with little resemblance to the USA of today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 12:43 AM GMT
    The only reason that the US is still here today is because of the fact that an armed society is still untenable to outside aggressors.

    Laughable as it may seem there hasn’t been an armed incursion by any organized military to date.

    Not to seem disillusioned of the actual topic, yes I’ve experienced the suicide of someone close to me. Yes they used a firearm. It was extreme cowardice and left two children fatherless and a widow.

    Do I blame the weapon? No.
    Do I blame Budweiser for impairing his judgment? No.
    Should I blame his wife for not trying to calm the situation or his friend for not picking up the cell phone when he was trying to call for a friendly ear? No.

    I’m running out of people to blame. It just CAN’T be his fault, can it?
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jul 03, 2008 1:11 AM GMT
    Whether it's murder or suicides, guns are tools that make it all too easy for momentary violent impulses to have fatal consequenses.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 1:17 AM GMT
    Well, I hope they are at least considerate enough to put down a tarp or something. Someone has to clean that shit up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 1:43 AM GMT
    I don't take this finding at face value, not for a minute. It sounds like too much specious anti-gun sophistry I've heard that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

    But assuming it's true (and I really don't) it's very likely that those who are intent on committing suicide go and buy a gun to do the job.

    I've been a gun owner for 15 years. So far, it's only protected me and I haven't managed to kill myself yet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 1:43 AM GMT
    The only reason that the US is still here today is because of the fact that an armed society is still untenable to outside aggressors.

    Okay I gotta ask this question. Has any country since before the Civil War actually attacked the continental US? Pearl Harbour was an attack but it was never meant as an invasion, just a way of neutralizing the Pacific Fleet. Has any country actually threatened to attack the USA? I can't believe anyone has any desire to invade the USA. Certainly not Canada, Mexico, China or Russia.

    Terrorist attacks yes, invasions, no. And I am not sure what citizens owning handguns would do to prevent a terrorist attack.

    I would never suggest that Americans that want to hunt should not have weapons, but "right to bear arms" seems to feed into a paranoia that does not seem warranted in today's world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 1:48 AM GMT
    JBE60 said
    Okay I gotta ask this question. Has any country since before the Civil War actually attacked the continental US?

    See how well it's working?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 1:58 PM GMT
    Hehe, maybe I should have worded this way.

    Has any country since before the civil war actually threatened to invade the US? As far as I know no country has, except in the minds of a few Americans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 2:27 PM GMT
    JBE60 saidHehe, maybe I should have worded this way.

    Has any country since before the civil war actually threatened to invade the US? As far as I know no country has, except in the minds of a few Americans.


    Poncho Villa, mexican revolutionary, ordered an attack into New Mexico in 1916.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 2:30 PM GMT
    JBE, an invasion doesn't have to come like D-Day on Normandy.

    During the Cold War the Soviets couldn't get a submarine into the open Pacific or Atlantic without detection and shadowing by the American and allied navies. Had they done so, they could have been in a position to use nuclear blackmail to force capitulation.

    Terrorists with nuclear weapons could do the same thing.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 6:52 PM GMT
    John43620 saidJBE, an invasion doesn't have to come like D-Day on Normandy.

    During the Cold War the Soviets couldn't get a submarine into the open Pacific or Atlantic without detection and shadowing by the American and allied navies. Had they done so, they could have been in a position to use nuclear blackmail to force capitulation.

    Terrorists with nuclear weapons could do the same thing.



    I agree, I am not talking about military power, but about individual citizens and their right to own guns with few restrictions.

    I would not suggest that gun ownership be banned in the USA, that would be silly, just like it would be in a country like Canada with all the people that enjoy the outdoors. I do feel some sympathy for people that live in Washington DC that tried to do something about a terrible homicide rate by restricting the availability of handguns. It seemed to partially work, but now it has been overturned, and those people that live in the inner city are going to pay the price (and it won't just be drug dealers that die).

    Why can't the issue of gun controls be left up to the local or state governments depending on the local environment?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 10:04 PM GMT
    JBE60 saidWhy can't the issue of gun controls be left up to the local or state governments depending on the local environment?


    Because Americans were reacting to the tyranny of the former national government of Great Britain when writing the Constitution. So the restriction was placed in the national governing document.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 11:46 PM GMT
    Weapon ownership in America wasn't written into the Constitution as a protection for an outdoorsman's hunting implement.

    If people in this thread are under that assumption then they need to kindly step aside and evaluate the efficacy of their personal education in American Constitutional studies.

    I believe the ICS still coordinates a doctoral concentration in constitutional studies during some summer seminars.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2008 11:53 PM GMT
    Caslon4000 said[quote][cite]JBE60 said[/cite]Why can't the issue of gun controls be left up to the local or state governments depending on the local environment?


    Because Americans were reacting to the tyranny of the former national government of Great Britain when writing the Constitution. So the restriction was placed in the national governing document.[/quote]

    I think were is the operative word here. That event took place in 1776? Over 230 years has passed and that fear is still relevant? I guess I should pay attention to the American news even more than I have been, I must have missed the tyranny that the US citizens now fear.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Jul 04, 2008 12:06 AM GMT
    The tyranny that Americans fear today are the fascist right wing GOP politicians with their unconstitutional Patriot Act. They also fear control freak local politicians like the mayor in my hometown along with over zealous, corrupt law enforcement that prefers to harrass and intimidate the public rather than protect and serve the public. I guess that is a valid reason to preserve the second amendment to the constitution despite the grim reality that gun violence is still a serious problem in this country.icon_neutral.gif