The data are pretty clear that there's a correlation between guns in the household and increased risk of suicide and homicide affecting some member of that household. Not that guns make people suicidal or homicidal, but if your household includes crazy eyes up there, or a domestic abuser, or a depressed person with suicidal ideations, or some Adam Lanza mother****er, they know where those guns are and how to get them. There's a lot fewer households with all weapons and ammo stored in secured, locked safes than there are households with guns stashed in dresser drawers and top closet shelves. And guns are unbelievably effective at what they do.
So when crazy eyes or Ike Turner or depressed teenager or that quiet polite boy finally cross the line, it's pretty easy for them to act on their plans in an unbelievably effective and final way. Wish more people took gun ownership a little more seriously, and regarded them as much as a manageable risk as a treasured posession and piece of recreational equipment.
And if you've had the cops out to your place more than a few times because someone has a tendency to violently fly off the handle, consider not having those guns around, because you're many times more likely to get killed by a family member than you are to have to draw down on some rando home invader.
Last edited by Turbio!; 06-28-2016 at 11:53 AM.
Data does show that most homicides in a household occur in the kitchen...because A) people spend most time "together" in the kitchen setting, and B) Knives. Where is the data you're talking about? Just curious because I've never seen it mentioned...ever. There is a strong amount of evidence showing that the majority of shootings are a result of crazy ass people, most of the time with illegally obtained firearms. This seems to be the case here, as far as the crazy goes. Police responding to a residence fourteen times? That's a bad sign. However there is a very real possibility that the firearm was owned prior to the lady going bat_hit crazy.
I genuinely don't know the process for going after firearms after someone begins going crazy. I don't know who would even approach that angle. But as usual, you can't legislate to crazy.
Though that one doesn't really support my contention that gun safes should be mandatory.Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.
Objective: To examine international correlations between reported rates of household
gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide with a gun.
Population: People who responded to a telephone survey conducted by the 1989
International Crime Survey in 11 European countries, Australia, Canada and the United
Results: Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun
ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of
homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation
between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by
other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the
absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.
Conclusion: Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding
factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on
the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the
correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home
increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.
Now, I don't argue a causal link there, personally, and as Killias et al stated there's confounding variables to consider. But multiple well-conducted studies say that guns in a house make it easier for a suicide or homicide to be fatal, and obviously make accidents more common, all other things equal.
Yes, but crazy-ass is as crazy-ass does. And crazy-ass with a gun is just more effective.There is a strong amount of evidence showing that the majority of shootings are a result of crazy ass people, most of the time with illegally obtained firearms. This seems to be the case here, as far as the crazy goes.
Also, suicides attempted with firearms are more likely to be fatal:
Last edited by Turbio!; 06-28-2016 at 12:28 PM.
Regardless... if her mental health history was significant, and the family was aware of her history - then why the Hell did they keep weapons in the home? People need to understand that maybe a gun isn't right for their family, regardless of their political views. #victimblaming But seriously, if someone has access to a firearm, they are uniquely positioned to take action with devastating finality.
"We'll not risk another frontal assault... that rabbit's DYNAMITE!"
It's....oi, it's such a double edged sword. To Turbio's point there does need to be a lot more care and consideration, especially with mentally ill or violent people. My dad was a recovering addict, bi-polar and depressed and in an active phase of MS when he went out and bought a gun to kill himself with. This was a guy that was hospitalized more times than can be counted for suicide attempts, relapses or just straight up mania. He should not have had the ability to buy a gun in my opinion, setting aside the fact that he was my dad.
But he was an extreme case. Don't give the emotionally disturbed guy a gun, no problem. It's all the folks in the middle that are shades greyer and have functioned in society without being arrested, hospitalized, questioned by authorities, etc. that are one or two steps away from starring in their own version of Falling Down. Mental health is so murky and stigmatized even today that people may be in need of some serious help but don't even know that they need it, because that's their norm. And while I was vehemently opposed to gun ownership period after my dad blew his own heart out, my tune has changed a bit. Getting around a (deserved) right to privacy for health records is nearly impossible without creating a slippery slope. Even theoretically speaking, defense against government agents (bad-seed cops for example) and protecting one's own home is pretty essential.
I think there has to be massive cultural shift away from this aggro-gun ownership, "I'm a bad mother 'cause I got this gun" attitude. It's been ramped up in the last 20 years in my observation, coinciding with free 30-day AOL trials.
Last edited by damion16v; 06-28-2016 at 12:43 PM.
Okay, I read your statement as gun households make people more likely to commit suicide or murder someone (because they have a gun). I understand what you're saying. Yes, I'd imagine if someone wants to commit suicide and they own a gun that'd be the easy way (hell that's how I'd go, I think).
The increase in homicides by firearm is similar to the dangers of carrying a firearm if you're untrained with it. It's unfortunately true that a large number of police officers shot in the line of duty are shot with their own firearm (after a fight, or going hands on with a suspect). This is why the protective vests worn by officers are normally rated against the firearm they carry. Same thing I mention to people in CCW classes --- if you own or carry a firearm you're now introducing it to an incident if you get involved. Bringing out a firearm to defend yourself if you're unwilling to actually use it, or not trained to retain it ---- you're now upping the stakes and giving the bad guy an incentive to seize it and potentially use it.
Same with suicide. If you can get your hands on a gun when you have the impulse to do it, you're gonna be successful. Most first-time suicide attempts are the result of a suicidal impulse; they're usually badly planned and executed pretty poorly. The longer the delay or the greater the chance of failure, though, the better the chance that they won't follow through.
First off, so sorry to hear about your dad.
And I didn't, but there's a lot of folks who've wandered a lot further towards Falling Down than I have.
And that's what gives me grey hair when places like Ohio pass CCW laws, or when the George Zimmermans of the world think they're the Guardian Angels, or when a presidential candidate singles out a ethnic & religious minority under the guys of indirectly encouraging violence and "telling it like it is". You and I might want to destroy the dbag who has to be an ******* when they gun the engine but we can control that impulse but I don't trust the rest who can't, won't or who think they're doing the right thing.And who among us hasn't had that black urge to take that first step? I was walking with my kid a few days ago, crossing the road with him in his little wagon, and some impatient douche-canoe made a big show of gunning it past us, cutting it way too close to the wagon and shooting me some side-eye. And for a moment there, there was a little voice in the back of my skull going, "he has threatened your offspring, it is now time for you to grab a cudgel and count coup among his clan."
And I didn't, but there's a lot of folks who've wandered a lot further towards Falling Down than I have.
I think we should just go back to swords and arrows.
Last edited by damion16v; 06-28-2016 at 01:12 PM.
That's an excellent point. Banning only semi-autos won't stop the slaughter of innocent people by gun-owning d-bags. Don't stop there!
Actually, I believe in *regulating* gun ownership, not banning them. For example, those assault rifles should be regulated either as part of or akin to the NFA.
There should also be research into guns, research that is currently prohibited by an NRA-controlled Congress.
There should also be a revocation of the gun industry's immunity from lawsuit.
That should be just the beginning.
It's long time to take serious steps to stanch the slaughter.
According to Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (on my desk)
"Slaughter 1. To kill animals for food: butcher
2. To kill in a bloody or violent manner"
So gunshots are not bloody and/or violent? I would imagine they are bloody, but what about violent?
"Violent 1. Marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity"
Bullets are pretty forceful and intense aren't they? Yes this dictionary is from 1985 and perhaps there is a new definition of slaughter that I am not privy to. I am not saying in anyway I agree with Biturbo, but nothing really wrong with his choice of words.