Canis-Lupus
New member
For any EMT, cop, medic or person who has worked in an ER, or as a 1st responder this is something we knew about as normal, but now decades and million$ in research have proven that 1/2 of all deaths in the U.S. caused by GSW (guns) are self inflicted and 90% of each attempt works. Guns do kill people, and many times that is just what they want, or even beg for.
Don't bother moving to OR and waiting, a shooter puts an end to life by personal choice as much as any methed-out homicidal BG does to someone who has no desire to die and every reason to live. So much for all the blame on BG's, it's the way 50% of all deaths by guns are caused, and easily the fastest. But anti-2nd pundits are screaming: "SEE WE TOLD YOU!", real busy patting themselves on their backs claiming that if there were no privately owned firearms then suicides by gun-shot would go away, yet fail to realize that a determined person who seeks out death will find it maybe by the bullets shot from LEO's guns or so many other ways posted all over the net on E-Z to obtain or create non-gun end games. As a child in London it was common to read that the natural gas used for cooking in every home was a VERY common way for suicidal neighbors to end their lives, that is just a fact not ANY form of suggestion in a nation where pistols were not even available. In 10 years on my slummy street I counted 25 who chose that method, mostly old and very sick and very poor souls. Do you need to be a mentally deranged person to off yourself? Well that helps, but try: "That 2 packs of smokes U have been inhaling for the last 40 years is going to make the next 6 months of your life the most excruciatingly painful constant event you have ever dreamed of and each day it will hurt more and we can't do a damn thing about it, you will die of it Mr. F." (The words my uncle were told at age 59, but even though he was USAF retired and owned several pistols), BUT the life-insurance policy he had to help a wife and 5 kids who anguished with him hid his guns as the policy did not pay off on suicides and his estate was in 9-figures, so we watched him spiral down into a terrible failed radical chemo-ed out end in a hospital room bed. I think a person has the right to choose the moment of his or her death when there is no quality of life left, no hope of a cure and unbearable, protracted and worsening agony is the only other legal choice. There are as many reasons why those who have lost the will to live choose the fastest way I can think of to check out of not only their misery but the effects it has on those who love that person most and watch them suffer more each day. Does someone really love another that much they want to be part of every minute of that poor sods remaining life, then inevitable and agonizing death just to be around him/her when death comes? No and yet yes, I guess each case has it's own intricacies. I dilemma I faced at age 41 when I lost my own mother to lupus at age 69. Near the end weighing 80lbs she cried out for someone to end her pain, nothing the docs gave her even worked, it took a week of more pain than I had ever seen anyone endure before it finally took her, the hardest week of my life watching it get worse but too attached to her to facilitate her passing. The day she passed I was relieved she suffered no more, the misery of her loss came later, HARD. I was filled with the self-doubt that consumes so many others faced with that end-game situation. Do you have the will to end the pain of a loved one and then face the consequences if found guilty of causing that death, or go with it even if there were no consequences/evidence of foul play, and 'natural death' was on the death certificate? But a fact U had 2 live with all of your living days after the event. Rhetorical question only! DO NOT ANSWER THAT NOR POST INTENT ON THIS GROUP!!!! If that loved one is a dog we would act humanely, or be judged cruel. How dare I compare a human to a canine? For an old single person who has loved their only dog for 20+ years there are obvious similarities without legal ramifications. Had I owned a gun then, I am not sure if I would be posting this to USA-Carry or still be doing life in San Quintan. I acted the way the law said I must and cursed that law! So back when I did drink alcohol I just climbed into a bottle and pulled the cork in on top of me to numb the pain & helplessness that consumed me. Pro-lifers will probably send me e-mail bombs for that statement, but it is easy to sit around debating the ethics of life and death and a person's right to choose or suffer, it is a whole different ball-game when the Reaper comes for you and takes his time getting there. Enough of my take on the subject, what follows is a fact, 1/2 of all deaths caused by guns in the U.S. are suicides!
Canis-Lupus
ATLANTA - © 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. Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent. Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater. Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors. In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners. One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks. The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means. More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies. "Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore. The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban. "If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote. Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns. Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack. Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence. The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s. But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control. Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted. Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.
On the Net:
CDC gun injury statistics: Link Removed
Don't bother moving to OR and waiting, a shooter puts an end to life by personal choice as much as any methed-out homicidal BG does to someone who has no desire to die and every reason to live. So much for all the blame on BG's, it's the way 50% of all deaths by guns are caused, and easily the fastest. But anti-2nd pundits are screaming: "SEE WE TOLD YOU!", real busy patting themselves on their backs claiming that if there were no privately owned firearms then suicides by gun-shot would go away, yet fail to realize that a determined person who seeks out death will find it maybe by the bullets shot from LEO's guns or so many other ways posted all over the net on E-Z to obtain or create non-gun end games. As a child in London it was common to read that the natural gas used for cooking in every home was a VERY common way for suicidal neighbors to end their lives, that is just a fact not ANY form of suggestion in a nation where pistols were not even available. In 10 years on my slummy street I counted 25 who chose that method, mostly old and very sick and very poor souls. Do you need to be a mentally deranged person to off yourself? Well that helps, but try: "That 2 packs of smokes U have been inhaling for the last 40 years is going to make the next 6 months of your life the most excruciatingly painful constant event you have ever dreamed of and each day it will hurt more and we can't do a damn thing about it, you will die of it Mr. F." (The words my uncle were told at age 59, but even though he was USAF retired and owned several pistols), BUT the life-insurance policy he had to help a wife and 5 kids who anguished with him hid his guns as the policy did not pay off on suicides and his estate was in 9-figures, so we watched him spiral down into a terrible failed radical chemo-ed out end in a hospital room bed. I think a person has the right to choose the moment of his or her death when there is no quality of life left, no hope of a cure and unbearable, protracted and worsening agony is the only other legal choice. There are as many reasons why those who have lost the will to live choose the fastest way I can think of to check out of not only their misery but the effects it has on those who love that person most and watch them suffer more each day. Does someone really love another that much they want to be part of every minute of that poor sods remaining life, then inevitable and agonizing death just to be around him/her when death comes? No and yet yes, I guess each case has it's own intricacies. I dilemma I faced at age 41 when I lost my own mother to lupus at age 69. Near the end weighing 80lbs she cried out for someone to end her pain, nothing the docs gave her even worked, it took a week of more pain than I had ever seen anyone endure before it finally took her, the hardest week of my life watching it get worse but too attached to her to facilitate her passing. The day she passed I was relieved she suffered no more, the misery of her loss came later, HARD. I was filled with the self-doubt that consumes so many others faced with that end-game situation. Do you have the will to end the pain of a loved one and then face the consequences if found guilty of causing that death, or go with it even if there were no consequences/evidence of foul play, and 'natural death' was on the death certificate? But a fact U had 2 live with all of your living days after the event. Rhetorical question only! DO NOT ANSWER THAT NOR POST INTENT ON THIS GROUP!!!! If that loved one is a dog we would act humanely, or be judged cruel. How dare I compare a human to a canine? For an old single person who has loved their only dog for 20+ years there are obvious similarities without legal ramifications. Had I owned a gun then, I am not sure if I would be posting this to USA-Carry or still be doing life in San Quintan. I acted the way the law said I must and cursed that law! So back when I did drink alcohol I just climbed into a bottle and pulled the cork in on top of me to numb the pain & helplessness that consumed me. Pro-lifers will probably send me e-mail bombs for that statement, but it is easy to sit around debating the ethics of life and death and a person's right to choose or suffer, it is a whole different ball-game when the Reaper comes for you and takes his time getting there. Enough of my take on the subject, what follows is a fact, 1/2 of all deaths caused by guns in the U.S. are suicides!
Canis-Lupus
ATLANTA - © 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. Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent. Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater. Studies have also shown that homes in which a suicide occurred were three to five times more likely to have a gun present than households that did not experience a suicide, even after accounting for other risk factors. In a 5-4 decision, the high court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban enacted in the District of Columbia in 1976 and rejected requirements that firearms have trigger locks or be kept disassembled. The ruling left intact the district's licensing restrictions for gun owners. One public-health study found that suicide and homicide rates in the district dropped after the ban was adopted. The district has allowed shotguns and rifles to be kept in homes if they are registered, kept unloaded and taken apart or equipped with trigger locks. The American Public Health Association, the American Association of Suicidology and two other groups filed a legal brief supporting the district's ban. The brief challenged arguments that if a gun is not available, suicidal people will just kill themselves using other means. More than 90 percent of suicide attempts using guns are successful, while the success rate for jumping from high places was 34 percent. The success rate for drug overdose was 2 percent, the brief said, citing studies. "Other methods are not as lethal," said Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore. The high court's majority opinion made no mention of suicide. But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer used the word 14 times in voicing concern about the impact of striking down the handgun ban. "If a resident has a handgun in the home that he can use for self-defense, then he has a handgun in the home that he can use to commit suicide or engage in acts of domestic violence," Breyer wrote. Researchers in other fields have raised questions about the public-health findings on guns. Gary Kleck, a researcher at Florida State University's College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, estimates there are more than 1 million incidents each year in which firearms are used to prevent an actual or threatened criminal attack. Public-health experts have said the telephone survey methodology Kleck used likely resulted in an overestimate. Both sides agree there has been a significant decline in the last decade in public-health research into gun violence. The CDC traditionally was a primary funder of research on guns and gun-related injuries, allocating more than $2.1 million a year to such projects in the mid-1990s. But the agency cut back research on the subject after Congress in 1996 ordered that none of the CDC's appropriations be used to promote gun control. Vernick said the Supreme Court decision underscores the need for further study into what will happen to suicide and homicide rates in the district when the handgun ban is lifted. Today, the CDC budgets less than $900,000 for firearm-related projects, and most of it is spent to track statistics. The agency no longer funds gun-related policy analysis.
On the Net:
CDC gun injury statistics: Link Removed
Last edited:
