Studies have borne out that suicide rates rise considerably when teens can access firearms in their home. In fact, nearly 60% of suicides committed in the United States that result in immediate death are accomplished with a gun. This is one crucial reason that any gun kept in a home with teens, even if that teen does not display any outward signs of depression, be stored in a locked compartment away from any ammunition. In fact, the ammunition should be stored in a locked compartment as well, and the keys to both the gun and ammunition compartments should be kept in a different area from where normal, everyday keys are kept. Remember to always keep firearms, ammunition, and the keys to the locks containing them, away from kids.
0
Studies have borne out that suicide rates rise considerably when teens can access firearms in their home. In fact, nearly 60% of suicides committed in the United States that result in immediate death are accomplished with a gun. This is one crucial reason that any gun kept in a home with teens, even if that teen does not display any outward signs of depression, be stored in a locked compartment away from any ammunition. In fact, the ammunition should be stored in a locked compartment as well, and the keys to both the gun and ammunition compartments should be kept in a different area from where normal, everyday keys are kept. Remember to always keep firearms, ammunition, and the keys to the locks containing them, away from kids.
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence. A subsequent Kellermann-led study identified both fatal and nonfatal injuries occurring in homes in 3 cities – Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX. It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August 1998. pp: 263-267). He then developed the now much criticized 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
0
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence. A subsequent Kellermann-led study identified both fatal and nonfatal injuries occurring in homes in 3 cities – Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX. It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August 1998. pp: 263-267). He then developed the now much criticized 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
this story is about a police officer shot accidentally by ANOTHER OFFICER - it is crazy. Just occured right here in my town.
My point again is. You cannot teach someone enough how to act with a gun in a violent situation. They cannot be counted on acting in a rational manner. You are safer without guns in your house as a form of protection than with them. Guns in the house lead to suicide, accidental shootings and death far more than any protection they provide.
Hunting and sports shooting is ok with me if the guns are not thought of as a way to ward off intruders.
Guns are ok with me and I do NOT advocate gun control.
I am just hoping some parents will look at the use and availability of guns in their house for their kids.
this story is about a police officer shot accidentally by ANOTHER OFFICER - it is crazy. Just occured right here in my town.
My point again is. You cannot teach someone enough how to act with a gun in a violent situation. They cannot be counted on acting in a rational manner. You are safer without guns in your house as a form of protection than with them. Guns in the house lead to suicide, accidental shootings and death far more than any protection they provide.
Hunting and sports shooting is ok with me if the guns are not thought of as a way to ward off intruders.
Guns are ok with me and I do NOT advocate gun control.
I am just hoping some parents will look at the use and availability of guns in their house for their kids.
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence. A subsequent Kellermann-led study identified both fatal and nonfatal injuries occurring in homes in 3 cities – Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX. It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August 1998. pp: 263-267). He then developed the now much criticized 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
And what % of all those shootings involved alcohol?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Crashdavis565:
In his first publication on the subject, in 1986, Kellermann studied all gunshot related deaths in Seattle over six years, and found that
54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.
He concluded that "the advisability of keeping firearms in the home for protection must be questioned". Critics of this study noted that it was restricted to firearm-related deaths, effectively excluding incidents in which gun owners used their firearm to injure and frighten away an intruder. But the study also excluded incidents in which individuals were non-fatally injured in a firearm accident, criminal assault or suicide attempt, as well as instances in which a homeowner used a gun to threaten or terrorize another member of the household, as sometimes occurs in the context of domestic violence. A subsequent Kellermann-led study identified both fatal and nonfatal injuries occurring in homes in 3 cities – Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX. It noted that for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. (J of Trauma, August 1998. pp: 263-267). He then developed the now much criticized 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting.
And what % of all those shootings involved alcohol?
1 - People who legally own guns will never, ever want to give them up because they feel they are responsible to own one. (which 98% are)
2 - People who would never want to own a gun only see the dangers associated with guns, and will never truly understand the other side of the argument.
My point being, it is the 2% that ruin it. Nothing can really be done about that, which again is why the argument is pointless. I don't own a gun, but understand why people would want one. I DON'T understand why all gun owners always seem to cop an attitude and become stubborn. You may be a responsible gun owner, but you can only speak for yourself and not everyone else.
0
To me this argument is pointless.
1 - People who legally own guns will never, ever want to give them up because they feel they are responsible to own one. (which 98% are)
2 - People who would never want to own a gun only see the dangers associated with guns, and will never truly understand the other side of the argument.
My point being, it is the 2% that ruin it. Nothing can really be done about that, which again is why the argument is pointless. I don't own a gun, but understand why people would want one. I DON'T understand why all gun owners always seem to cop an attitude and become stubborn. You may be a responsible gun owner, but you can only speak for yourself and not everyone else.
1 - People who legally own guns will never, ever want to give them up because they feel they are responsible to own one. (which 98% are)
2 - People who would never want to own a gun only see the dangers associated with guns, and will never truly understand the other side of the argument.
My point being, it is the 2% that ruin it. Nothing can really be done about that, which again is why the argument is pointless. I don't own a gun, but understand why people would want one. I DON'T understand why all gun owners always seem to cop an attitude and become stubborn. You may be a responsible gun owner, but you can only speak for yourself and not everyone else.
A lot of their "Cowboy attitiude" just amazes me. For the record, I am a consitiutionalist but i serioulsy doubt that the founding fathers had all those automatic weapons in mind.
0
Quote Originally Posted by earthWake:
To me this argument is pointless.
1 - People who legally own guns will never, ever want to give them up because they feel they are responsible to own one. (which 98% are)
2 - People who would never want to own a gun only see the dangers associated with guns, and will never truly understand the other side of the argument.
My point being, it is the 2% that ruin it. Nothing can really be done about that, which again is why the argument is pointless. I don't own a gun, but understand why people would want one. I DON'T understand why all gun owners always seem to cop an attitude and become stubborn. You may be a responsible gun owner, but you can only speak for yourself and not everyone else.
A lot of their "Cowboy attitiude" just amazes me. For the record, I am a consitiutionalist but i serioulsy doubt that the founding fathers had all those automatic weapons in mind.
Let's see. A piece of metal available to virtually anyone that can be held in the palm of the hand and is capable of firing a lead projectile 3/8" or larger faster than the speed of sound. Sure, you can use a knife or a club or your bear hands to kill somebody, but this is so much, uh, cleaner and easier. Who could possibly object?
0
Let's see. A piece of metal available to virtually anyone that can be held in the palm of the hand and is capable of firing a lead projectile 3/8" or larger faster than the speed of sound. Sure, you can use a knife or a club or your bear hands to kill somebody, but this is so much, uh, cleaner and easier. Who could possibly object?
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
0
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
I don't see your point? Have you tried to kill someone before?? Sounds like you have. OBVIOUSLY, to kill someone with your bare hands you gotta be up close and personal. Saying that if he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have killed her in this way (because you need to be up close and personal) doesn't make any sense.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JinnRikki:
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
I don't see your point? Have you tried to kill someone before?? Sounds like you have. OBVIOUSLY, to kill someone with your bare hands you gotta be up close and personal. Saying that if he didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have killed her in this way (because you need to be up close and personal) doesn't make any sense.
Well if Bob's point was that he killed her with a gun... is his solution banning ALL guns to citizens? Does he really think this government is totally good? garbage, we're just now finding out what they have done to their own citizens in the 60s.... so if we lose our gun rights the only ones who will have them are cops working for what could easily be construed as a corrupt government and the criminals. That is about the scariest picture possible in my mind.
It is just another way to take the right to revolt away. Gun control, the Internet Kill Switch.... they have us by the balls if we let the restriction on rights continue, not that they don't already.
"Out of my cold dead hands," said Heston and I agree: If you want my guns, you are asking for me to hand over my freedom itself, and that is not going to happen without a fight. If they want a real revolution in this country, amend the Constitution to nullify the 2nd Amendment because that would do it. - - Also, good point about how we did not blame the truck for OKC or the plane for 911, but the people.
0
Well if Bob's point was that he killed her with a gun... is his solution banning ALL guns to citizens? Does he really think this government is totally good? garbage, we're just now finding out what they have done to their own citizens in the 60s.... so if we lose our gun rights the only ones who will have them are cops working for what could easily be construed as a corrupt government and the criminals. That is about the scariest picture possible in my mind.
It is just another way to take the right to revolt away. Gun control, the Internet Kill Switch.... they have us by the balls if we let the restriction on rights continue, not that they don't already.
"Out of my cold dead hands," said Heston and I agree: If you want my guns, you are asking for me to hand over my freedom itself, and that is not going to happen without a fight. If they want a real revolution in this country, amend the Constitution to nullify the 2nd Amendment because that would do it. - - Also, good point about how we did not blame the truck for OKC or the plane for 911, but the people.
btw I think he is an fool for using SNF as the vehicle for his political opinion. People watch sports to escape from day to day drudgery, the nightmare side of life and politics, so why ruin it for them? We can talk about gun control everywhere else, but football is sacred turf escapism and he was a jerk not to respect the sanctity of that.
0
btw I think he is an fool for using SNF as the vehicle for his political opinion. People watch sports to escape from day to day drudgery, the nightmare side of life and politics, so why ruin it for them? We can talk about gun control everywhere else, but football is sacred turf escapism and he was a jerk not to respect the sanctity of that.
God some of the gun supporters arguments here are friggen ridiculous. I believe in the right to own a gun but to just say "Oh if he didnt have a gun he'd have found another way to kill her, and himself, no doubt" is just idiotic. Yes people are the problem here obviously but unfortunately people are becoming stupider and stupider by the day so we have to protect people from themselves, which unfortuntely takes away regular people who can own a gun without killing somones freedoms.
Such is life, remember all this next time you find an excuse for every dipshit that commits a crime
0
God some of the gun supporters arguments here are friggen ridiculous. I believe in the right to own a gun but to just say "Oh if he didnt have a gun he'd have found another way to kill her, and himself, no doubt" is just idiotic. Yes people are the problem here obviously but unfortunately people are becoming stupider and stupider by the day so we have to protect people from themselves, which unfortuntely takes away regular people who can own a gun without killing somones freedoms.
Such is life, remember all this next time you find an excuse for every dipshit that commits a crime
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
are you serious
He shot her FIVE times... how is that not close AND personal?
0
Quote Originally Posted by JinnRikki:
For everyone proposing if he hadn't shot her with a gun he could have killed her with a knife, shovel, bare hands etc. obviously have never tried to kill someone with those things. We don't die easily and to kill someone like that requires you do it up close and personal.
are you serious
He shot her FIVE times... how is that not close AND personal?
I also disagree with the theory that ''if there were no guns, he would kill her anyway."
People are cowards and tend to take the easy way out. A gun is easy. There would still be too many murders, but I truly believe no gun would prevent a lot of them.
0
I also disagree with the theory that ''if there were no guns, he would kill her anyway."
People are cowards and tend to take the easy way out. A gun is easy. There would still be too many murders, but I truly believe no gun would prevent a lot of them.
Respect to Tree and crash for keeping it respectful in a heated subject. Although Crash saying gun owners are idiots is a little off color. That said I just bought my first shotgun on Black Friday.
Got coyotes running around in my yard where my dog plays. Won't have coyotes back there anymore.
0
Respect to Tree and crash for keeping it respectful in a heated subject. Although Crash saying gun owners are idiots is a little off color. That said I just bought my first shotgun on Black Friday.
Got coyotes running around in my yard where my dog plays. Won't have coyotes back there anymore.
Respect to Tree and crash for keeping it respectful in a heated subject. Although Crash saying gun owners are idiots is a little off color. That said I just bought my first shotgun on Black Friday.
Got coyotes running around in my yard where my dog plays. Won't have coyotes back there anymore.
Congrats on getting your first shotgun. What kind did you get?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Fenway4:
Respect to Tree and crash for keeping it respectful in a heated subject. Although Crash saying gun owners are idiots is a little off color. That said I just bought my first shotgun on Black Friday.
Got coyotes running around in my yard where my dog plays. Won't have coyotes back there anymore.
Congrats on getting your first shotgun. What kind did you get?
I made a list below of all the things that need to be illegal, or, at the least, controlled.
Knives Baseball bats Metal pipes beer bottles Fire Rocks that can be thrown at the head Rope Large wrenches Hammers Drills Darts Large vases (those exceeding 5 lbs) Nail guns
Well that's a good start. If anyone else has any more deadly weapons that should be illegal please let me know. These things can kill people and we need to eliminate these things. They are a danger to society. When the list is complete I'll construct a letter to be sent to Congress.
Thank you for your cooperation.
0
On second thought, I'm changing my stance.
I made a list below of all the things that need to be illegal, or, at the least, controlled.
Knives Baseball bats Metal pipes beer bottles Fire Rocks that can be thrown at the head Rope Large wrenches Hammers Drills Darts Large vases (those exceeding 5 lbs) Nail guns
Well that's a good start. If anyone else has any more deadly weapons that should be illegal please let me know. These things can kill people and we need to eliminate these things. They are a danger to society. When the list is complete I'll construct a letter to be sent to Congress.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
