Summations Only

Right, however removing the firearm will not remove the individual's desire to end their life. So, these are deaths that I do not feel that gun control will be able to effectively stop.I have some more of the states that were listed in that study that Panda posted, still having some trouble finding some:Michigan Department of Community Health:
Suicide: 570 - 53%
Homicide: 495 - 46%
Accidental: 12 - 1%Alaska Division of Public Health:
Suicide: 287 - 82%
Homicide: 57 - 16%
Accidental: 6 - 2%Nevada (From 2004, not 2009 could not find relevant '09 stats):
Suicide: 246 - 55%
Homicide: 192 - 43% (This includes all homicides, they did not separate information)
Accidental: 6 - 2%And to understand that even without easy access to firearms those with mental health problems may still try and commit suicide, let's look at the total number of suicides in the UK in 2009:
According to World Health Organization
There were 4245 suicides that occured in the UK in 2009. The total death count for the UK was 491,269This equals to about .8% of all UK Deaths were because of suicideIn Arizona there were 45,065 deaths in '09, suicides accounted for 1.3% of them. We are not too far away from one another in this regard even with some of the loosest gun laws in the United States. Mental Health Treatment is the biggest and most important step we need to take in the wake of this tragedy.

Yes, this is one of my points. Over half of the firearm-related deaths are quite difficult to avoid with gun control. Mental Health is what we must begin to look at right away! I found similar results. Every country seems to be equally affected by suicide, regardless of the gun control laws. So, should the US go for an all out ban, or could effective gun legislation (i.e. - registration, mandatory safe use, legal culpability, etc..) be an effective deterrent for the homicide aspect? Sure we have more homicides by gun, but would many of these homicides remain through another means if guns were fully banned?

Yes, there is definitely a possible link, however we must be careful to understand that correlation does not equal causation. If it for sure did, then we would expect the US to be the number 1 country for homicide because of the widespread availability of guns. As it stands, we are not even near the top of the list (yes, I am counting all countries, not only the richest nations) We are far and away the most gun-owning country in the world. Beating the next closest country by 30.6 guns per 100 people.This is why I am advocating for stricter regulations, but not for the complete removal of all firearms. I am also very against only removing Assault weapons because the largest majority of gun crime is actually committed with handguns. so we would be attacking the lower percentage of problems. Make gun registration mandatory, it is ridiculous that the people are afraid to let the government know they own a gun.Speaking of this, I was hoping for some intelligent moves to be made by the NRA today in their announcement. My hope is that they would have offered to look into weapon registration at least, and possibly offer private money to help fund mental health research. Instead, they called for the breach of medical confidentiality and forcing individuals with mental health problems to be reported to the government...
...
...
...
...Wait...we can break medical confidentiality, but you are still not required to tell the government that you own a gun. That is asinine!!The connection is not for sure, but we definitely need to take steps toward increasing gun regulations, I am just not sold that we need to completely remove them. List of Countries by intentional HomicidesNumber of guns per capita

These people do not register their weapons with the state and federal government. Maybe in a couple of states they do, but in the majority of states registration is not required for firearms. My manager owns multiple guns and does not have them registered, behind the reasoning of he does not want the government to watch him. It is ridiculous and stupid that this is the case!Fine, no registration, although I think that is the stupidest point being held onto by the Gun lobby. Well, the government taxes the hell out of cigarettes for the sake of public safety and there is nothing written in the Second Amendment that says they cannot do likewise for guns.

So, I was interested in this and could not really find a great site to get information from. For the US, I was able to find a list of the amount of homicides that took place with each type of weapon (including blunt force). As we wanted to look at knife crimes and determine if the US is at a higher percentage, let's do that.In 2008, in the United States, there were 14,180 homicides, compared with the UK's 651. Of the US murders 1,897 were committed with a knife and 270 of the UK's used a knife. This works out to 13.4% of homicides in the US utilize a knife, while 41.5% of UK homicides use a knife.Based solely upon population size, .00044% of UK residents can expect to be murdered with a knife, while .00062% of US residents can expect the same. So, while the difference is not a lot in precentage, it seems like it would add up to slightly more risk of death in the US even without guns.Also, I think it is an important point to notice how much more of a percentage of homicides utilize a knife in the UK. It seems that a lot of individuals, since most murders are done in the moment, not preplanned, simply find another means to kill someone. I think that there are a lot more variables that we are not considering when we simply think that removing guns will make things a safer society...banning guns does nothing to curb violence if the bad individuals can still obtain them and if the crimes of passion (in the moment) will simply move to another means. UK HomicidesUS Homicides

While I definitely agree with most of what you stated Percy, there is one line you wrote that I cannot agree with. Bear in mind that I am all for giving the ATF back its teeth and creating some effective legislation and regulation. However, you stated: Yes, when used toward another person, the most common result is that someone we know or love is hurt or killed. However, this is not the most common result of use of a firearm, otherwise there would be far more murders each day than we already see. It should be stated that during the most common use of firearms, the results are not death of a loved one, but rather entertainment (shooting range/woods), hunting, or practice.The problem we run into is that all this common usage does not negate the bad usage that you are speaking about. All the gun proponents want to think about is their own personal usage, which normally does result in the outcomes I stated. Therefore, because they have not experienced the outcome of less than 1 percent of gun owners, they refuse to acknowledge that it exists.It is a case of only using your own experience to judge that of the rest of the world and then refusing to accept any evidence that you have not personally experienced.

Well, I would need to see why these stats do not apply everywhere? Could the difference in rural gun deaths in Illinois be caused by the fact that Illinois, as a state, has implemented some form of regulation within the state? You guys have the FOID card to be able to purchase guns, which at least discourages a percentage of the population from attempting to aquire firearms.Whereas, Arizona, my state, is a free for all on who can purchase and own firearms. We are an almost completely deregulated state that has Castle Doctrine, Concealed Carry is relatively easy to get (simply must complete a course and pay a fee), It is legal in this state to utilize defensive posturing, and we are allowed pretty much any weapon that the Feds have not banned, including fully automatic, although you must also pay an extra fee on those weapons.I think you are right that it would be difficult for these states to be compared, but one comparison jumps out at me......In Illinois, where regulations are in place, the majority of gun crime and gun death takes place in the city where individuals who are already flaunting the law have their own rivalries and animosities. This means that law enforcement can focus on the actual troubled areas instead of being forced to worry in all jurisdictions what can occur....In Arizona, with almost zero regulation, there is really no place in the state that is immune to the effects of gun crime and gun death. The criminals have the guns, but so do the law abiding citizens. And you see the crime rate and death rate in this deregulated system climb, both in urban and rural areas.So, a comparison could be made that the regulation making it slightly more difficult to purchase weapons can have the effect of decreasing crime and death in outlying rural areas, and allowing law enforcement to centralize their efforts on urban areas where the regulations have less effect because of a larger percentage of criminals, who will own guns anyway, in one area.ABE - I think you are right that Percy is looking at it too black and white and that we need more data points. But it seems that regulations of a sort might have something to do with reducing the gun deaths in rural areas.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

This line of argument has been absolutely innane since you began giving it many, many pages ago. You effectively defeat your own argument here. As long as the Government allows the people to keep and bear arms, there is no explicit statement of what types of arms these must be. Firearms is obviously inferred, but the government can place restrictions on the types of weapons without removing that right to arms. Yes, yes it does, it says so directly in the constitution that the job of interpreting the words in the document fall under the purview of the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, you are trying to use one line to defend against another line from the exact same document. If you are going to quote the Constitution in defense of your argument, then you must include the entire Constitution, which does allow for the SCOTUS to determine which weapons are reasonable for citizens to maintain an effective self-defense...and guess what, they already agreed that banning certain weapons is not unconstitutional!As for your comments on changing the constitution, you are correct....However, without needing an amendment, the constitution already gives the SCOTUS power to tell you what you can and cannot own as far as firearms.

That was an incorrect way to word what I was attempting to say there. Lol.What I intended is that the Constitution sets forth that it is the job of the SCOTUS to determine if a law is constitutional. As the courts have ruled that bans on certain types of weapons are constitutional then according to the rules set forth in the constitution, bans on some types of weapons are perfectly okay to have and do not breach the second amendment. By denying that this is the case, ICANT is stating that he strongly believes in favor of one part of what the constitution says, but when it comes to who is to determine the constitutionality of laws he blatantly refuses to listen to the constitution.ICANT, if you want to use the Constitution to defend your position, stop quote mining the work of the Founding Fathers and realize that the entire document is important, not simply the one line that allows you to get your way. Banning specific weapons is constitutional as per the SCOTUS (who is granted the power to determine this by the Constitution) and Congress is allowed to enact laws that do so.Article III Section 2"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects." SourceBTW-I am not one of the people in favor of a ban on assault rifles. I am simply someone who wants to see deaths (homicide, accidental and suicide) from firearms decrease and I find that regulations, registration, and proper training/licensing would be the best route that we could take toward that end.

I get the idea of wanting to defend the home from invasion. However, as a defense of country I think that you are just making ridiculous points.Now, I do not want to read too much into your points, but I am assuming that you mean the citizenry should be armed in the case of another country invading or of our government threatening armed tyranny against the citizenry? If this is the case, all that I can ask is what on the planet Earth do you think that we can do with a 30 round magazine that we can't do with a 10 round magazine when the invading army or our government can simply employ this: Our citizen army will be dead where it stands without any knowledge that an attack was emminent. Stating defense against invasion or tyranny is ridiculous when we have allowed our government (and many other governments) to run rampant with newer and more efficient ways to kill extremely quickly. It is the citizens that sat back while the tools of war were moved far out of the reach of the everyman through R&D. Take for example this weapon as seen on Futureweapons: Sensor Fuzed WeaponLike I said, I can understand defense against home invasion (Although, I feel guns should be required to be locked up until use becomes necessary), but any idea that an invading force or a tyrannical government will be stopped by the armed citizens of the United States is simply a pipe dream. Governments have increased their ability to kill a thousandfold....citizens just cannot keep up with that technology.

Yes, this is true and the world has remained exactly the same, with zero differences in society, in the last 200+ years... I am hoping you caught that sarcasm, we no longer live in the world that existed when the Constitution was written. Times change and, if we would like to join the modern world, interpretations of statements must do so as well. Again, I must state that I am not for taking away all of your guns. However, if ten rounds in a magazine can help an individual mount just as effective of a defense as 30 rounds than the right to bear arms is not being "infringed"A 10 round magazine can help an individual mount an effective defense of his or her home from criminal activity just as much as a thirty round magazine. Also, a 10 round magazine will get an individual just as far against an invading army or the US government as a 30 round magazine(namely nowhere), so still the right is not being "infringed". Each individual is still capable of putting forth the same level of defense. I fully agree...however, what I do not agree with is the amount of firepower necessary to mount an effective home defense. If someone breaks into your home and you require 30 rounds of ammunition to effectively defend your home, then you have actually made your neighborhood a less safe location for every other homeowner. Why? Because not all of those 30 rounds are going to find their mark, meaning there will be collateral damage. 10 round magazines are more than enough for effective home defense. So, according to your argument, I will say that 30 round magazines should not be legal because they do not make sense when thinking of defending home and family.Now, about whether it makes sense to offer these items in the off chance that we are invaded or the government decides to run over its citizens...would the extra 20 rounds make any difference against the force of a government operated and supplied military? No, this group can simply destroy whomever it wants to from a distance away. Never even need to see the whites of their eyes. So, it does not make sense to allow 30 round magazines because they would not make an individual any more effective against an invading military.So, effectively, we have that it does not make sense in either home defense or country defense to allow individuals to load 30 rounds into single magazines. One is overkill, one is underkill. So, if we want to do something that makes sense, one thing would be to limit magazine capacity. This would not be infringement on the right to bear arms because each gun owner can still mount an equal defense to what they could were they allowed 30 rounds. The government has not removed their ability to effectively defend their home. Exactly my point... Not my argument to fully disarm the population, so I feel no need to even say anything about this.

I agree that we have definitely changed our viewpoint on the preciousness of life in recent years. Perhaps the mass killing ability of the new tools of war have made us slightly more aware of how quickly life can be extinguished. However, I do not think that an all out gun ban is the way to go to prevent death. I am absolutely sure that the number of gun deaths will be reduced with a ban, but I can see many of these crimes of passion, gang-related murders, mental health related murders and suicides still taking place. We will merely shift the cause from one method to another.Now, I am not saying that every single one of the murders that would have taken place with a gun available will still take place without a gun. It is simply that a large portion of these crimes will continue with different weapons as long as we continue to do nothing about individuals using violence as the first reaction.Instead of going with an all-out ban, I am for far more regulation of firearms. The magazine limit makes complete sense, as I explained earlier, closing the gun-show loophole, increasing the efforts made to help those with mental health issues, stronger support for suicide prevention efforts, requiring gun safes for gun owners, registration of all firearms, and a gun owner is held liable for crimes committed with his or her firearm. A gun owner is liable (whether this is civil or criminal can be decided at a legislative level) for a stolen firearm, unless it was reported to the police within a set amount of time.The biggest problem we have is that it will extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove all firearms, including those criminals have. The drug war has shown us that there are so many possible routes into this country that if we stopped manufacturing guns, another group in another country will and they will be smuggled in. Perhaps if we could slowly remove the gunslinger mentality that Americans have through regulation, some day in the future no guns may actually be a feasible option.

The only benefit to this limitation on magazine capacity is to force more reload moments in the case of a mass shooting. While this does not effect a large quantity of gun crime, it also does not effect the capacity of a responsible gun owner to provide sufficient defense of home and family. This means it only has the effect of limiting someone out to do maximum damage. So, is it your suggestion that limits should be placed on the amount of ammunition that any individual can purchase? This is another idea that I can definitely agree with. However, the problem is that all of the ammo is sold out because individuals are stockpiling it in fear of regulations or bans not because of people limiting themselves.

However, as a society our morality would exceed that of our ancestors. In many countries we no longer feel it allowable to own other human beings, people are not killed for differing beliefs nearly as often, individuals do what they can to help their fellow human beings...all in all, we care more for society as a whole now then we ever did in the past. The tribe of humans continues to expand and the borders are beginning to blur.Now, if you are referring to Biblical morality then yes, we have moved away from that because that morality forces individuals to treat others as if they are damned and to attempt to remove rights from specific classes of people. Hence, why there is such a moral problem in the theocracies in the Middle East.And, I agree with self defense...now, Faith, could you please point out one time when it could possibly be necessary for home/family defense for an individual to require 30 bullets otherwise they cannot stage an effective defense?

Any life saved is worth the time, effort and cost when it is feasible. While mass shootings only comprise a tenth of 1 percent of shooting deaths, these horrific tragedies do deserve to be addressed in some manner. In fact, the cost of these events (particularly Sandy Hook) will never be known. Who knows what problems a child who is now dead could have solved, because we cannot know this, the cost is really unknowable. Please explain how it affects your recreational shooting, other than making you reload a few more times. I have gone shooting many times (Arizona, remember. Lol) and have shot an AK47, a .22, a Riot Control Shotgun, an AR15, an HK97, a .45 Glock, and a .357 snubnose. We had multiple magazines loaded and ready, so reload time was extremely minimal and would not ruin your enjoyment of the day, even if you had to do it three times as often. It is still a great day of shooting targets and BSing with friends! How is your fun limited exactly? I would agree that all of these areas need to be worked on as well, but I do not think it is gun control we should sacrifice for them. Rather, we should find the places where the distribution of money is warped. 800 billion in military spending seems slightly excessive (Lol on the slightly), perhaps this money could be redistributed and we can work on both the social issues and the gun control issue. Gun control and regulation can have a large effect by limiting the access to guns for those who should not have them.Required safes=less guns stolen per year=less guns getting into criminal handsLimited magazines=less mass murdersClose gun-show loophole=Less guns making it into hands without checking background.Gun registration-Knowledge of owners of specific gun types in the event of crime.While they can help, I do agree that we must also hit the social issues as well, but I definitely cannot agree with your statement that gun control will not accomplish anything. Agreed and I would be for methods of controlling ammunition as well, even though this would (as it did) affect your ability to go target shooting more than the magazine capacity...