Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk....

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

For example, Brent and colleagues studied three groups of adolescents: 47 suicide decedents, 47 inpatient attempters, and 47 psychiatric inpatients who had never attempted suicide. Those who died by suicide were twice as likely to have a gun at home than either of the other two groups:


A later psychological autopsy study (Brent 1999) compared 140 adolescent suicide decedents with 131 demographically similar community controls. Informants (usually a parent) for both groups were interviewed to learn about the adolescents’ life circumstances, mental health, and treatment status. Firearm access was a risk factor for suicide for both older (>15 years) and younger adolescents and for both males and females.

More studies (See “Firearm Availability and Suicide Prevalance: Case Control Studies” for studies covering male and female adults, blacks and whites, youths, elders, and other groups...



Suicides in the 15 U.S. States with the Highest vs. the 6 U.S. States with the Lowest Average Household Gun Ownership (2000-2002)



High-Gun States Low-Gun States

Population 39 million 40 million

Household Gun Ownership 47% 15%

Firearm Suicide 9,749 2,606

Non-Firearm Suicide 5,060 5,446

Total Suicide 14,809 8,052




Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)
Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

It doesn't really matter which method someone chooses. If they choose to kill themselves, they will probably succeed.

Also, you don't die immediately from hanging, or from jumping off a bridge. There is a possibility of someone saving you with those methods, if the hanging is discovered in time, or if the person is seen jumping from the bridge. That's not true with a gunshot to the head--the damage is usually immediate and fatal.

On what basis do you consider the work of The Harvard School of Public Health "quack studies"?

What specific problems do you have with their methodology or conclusions?

You're wrong, oralloy

Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk....

Twelve or more U.S. case control studies have compared individuals who died by suicide with those who did not and found those dying by suicide were more likely to live in homes with guns.

So basically you're completely wrong about guns and suicide.

Ain't facts a bitch?

oralloy wrote:

It doesn't really matter which method someone chooses. If they choose to kill themselves, they will probably succeed.

No, not true. Some methods used in attempting suicide are not immediately fatal, and that allows for discovery of the person in time to save them, or even for the person to change their mind and call for help. That's not the case once you put a gun in your mouth, or hold it to your head, and pull the trigger. A gunshot to the head is more often fatal--and immediately fatal-- than other methods used in attempting suicide.

Do you have any interest, at all, in trying to prevent needless deaths due to gun violence?

If they were killed with a knife, would they still be alive?

Southampton Hantone / tune: The King has in lordship 76 men who pay £7 of land tribute; before 1066 they paid as much. 27 of them each pay 8d; 2
[of them]12d; and another 50 in number each pay 6d.
Before 1066 these had exempt land in the same Borough from the king himself; Odo of Winchester, Askell the priest, Ketel, Fugel, Tosti; the sons of Alric had 16 acres of land; Gerin

[had] 18 acres; Chipping had 3 exempt houses and now Ralph of Mortimer holds them; Godwin
[had] 3 houses that Bernard Pancevolt holds. Since King William came to England 65 Frenchmen and 31 Englishmen have been settled in Southampton. These all pay amongst themselves £4 6d for all customary dues.
These listed below have the customary dues of their houses in Southampton by grant of King William: Bishop G(eoffrey)

[dues] of one house; the Abbot of Cormeilles 1; the Abbot of Lyne 1; the Count of Evreux 2; Ralph of Mortimer 2; Gilbert de Breteuil 2; William son of Stur 2; Ralph of Tosny 1; Durand of Gloucester 2; Hugh of Port 1; Hugh de Grandmesnil 1; the Count of Mortain 5; Aiulf the Chamberlain 5; Humphrey his brother 1; Osbern Giffard 1; Nigel the Doctor 4; Richere of Les Andleys 4; Richard Poynant 1; Stephen the Steersman 2; Thurstan the Chamberlain 2; Thurstan the Engineer 2; Ansketel son of Osmund 3; Reginald
[son of] Croc 1.
The Abbess of Wherwell has 1 fishery and a littleland. Then it paid 100d; now 10s.

We live in different countries, with different histories and traditions, and, quite possibly, different cultural and social factors/problems operating as well.

What exactly are they afraid of? What threat are they preparing to counter?

ome of the deaths may not have happened. Do you think that accidental stabbings are less common than accidental shootings?

Accidental shootings are rare and with anyone who know firearms almost non existence.

What exactly are they afraid of? What threat are they preparing to counter?

ill, the only reasonable way to come to that conclusion is to simply define anyone who accidentally shoots someone...as being someone who "does not know firearms."

How is any of that remotely relevant to the 21st Century?

There's a big difference between recognising the historical significance of a medieval document and slavishly adhering to it.