Study takes new look at gun access and risk of homicide, suicide


What you say is true, but it does not strike at the heart of the issue. The danger of the gun is not the gun itself; it is the person holding it. The person holding the gun kills someone, not the gun itself.

Thus, to argue (as the gun control extremists do) that we should ban guns in order to make the world safer is a false solution. The world is not safer (the criminals still have guns) and the situation has been made significantly more dangerous by the fact that no law-abiding citizens are still carrying.

The solution is not to get rid of the guns, or the ropes, or the chemicals, or the needles, or the knives, razors, strings, electrical outlets, water, fire, or mechanical instruments of any kind. The solution is to cultivate a society that is based on commonsense, basic principles of self-defense and careful handling of dangerous things.


It isn’t.

Japan has a much higher suicide rate, but very restrictive gun laws.

So there would be no causality


Are you referring to a self-inflicted wound due to the accidental firing of the gun? Or do you mean that if a gun is kept in the house, it may be used by a family member either intentionally, as in a family dispute or suicide attempt, or due to mistaking a family member for a thief in the dark? All of these instances? I think especially when a lot of guns are kept at home with children around and one is lax when it comes to locking them up safely, there is also trouble waiting to happen. Conservatives frequently talk about the “culture of death,” usually with regard to abortion, euthanasia, and SSM. I believe the gun culture may be considered a part of the culture of death as well.


What would happen to the suicide rate in Japan if guns were less restrictive? Would it skyrocket?


I guess all instances. Just the basic fact of being in the vicinity of a deadly weapon increases your chances that you will be killed by the deadly weapon. Even if the chances are very small (i.e. guns locked in a cabinet), the increased chance is still there. I don’t have any guns in my home so unless someone brings one in, my odds of getting shot in my home are very small.

I agree with your final sentence. I think we need to cultivate non-violence in order to help combat the culture of death.


There have been 68,000 people killed so far this year (Jan 1-21, 2014) in the US, 2.3 million worldwide in the same period. By abortion. Your signature reflects your care of children (3.5 million die by starvation-in agony). May I suggest the greatest help to humanity would be to work on the active murders of these children and banning the instruments used in such?

Thanks for your time.


Please explain how mentioning someone’s repetitiveness is “an attack” of any kind. Thank you.


Correct. That is why the percentage of women killed by their partners is so much higher in gun-owning households, as shown by the study in the OP. There is a case for removing guns from households where the husband/boyfriend has previously assaulted his wife/girlfriend.

Another thing that worries me is headines like, “Six year old kills his brother with family gun.” Who on earth leaves a loaded gun where a young child can get at it? Stupid. Don’t people get training, gun locks or whatever? Something to stop a family tragedy like that. Such incidents are obviously much rarer in households without guns. People who are that stupid should have their guns removed until their children are grown, IMHO.



Is this the second time he posted a thread on this news article? Or is it the issue of guns that you find repetitive? Or social justice? What aspect of his post is repetitive? If someone posts from time to time about abortion, do you tire of it and call it repetitive?


This is one of many times that this poster has posted, citing some study that shows the correlation between gun ownership and suicides/murders/accidents/whatever, and then made the claim that this means we must get rid of guns because “Having access to a gun makes suicides/murders/accidents/whatever too easy.”

This has been refuted. Many times.


And murder. It certainly makes an angry impulse turn into murder much too easily. But why bother talking about such silly things…murder shmurder!


And how, may I ask, have studies such as the one at hand been refuted?


I did not say the study needed to be refuted. I said that the fallacious conclusions made from the said study were refuted.


It makes logical sense that if a gun is nearby, there is a higher chance of violence with that gun.
People use weapons that are nearby. A gun is made to be pointed at something or someone and if you pull the trigger, it propels a small bullet speeding at/toward/through that thing…faster than a speeding bullet, as they say.
This is what a gun is made for; this is the gun’s purpose.
People don’t usually buy guns to shoot at tin cans, they buy them to hurt.
Unless you like to pretend you’re Farrah Fawcett playing at Charlie’s Angels and you just point them unloaded and say: “Hold it! Freeze!”

Guns hurt people so it makes the simplest, logical sense that you or someone you know has a higher chance of getting hurt buy a gun if a gun is near.
This is like one plus one equals two.

If this study was done scrupulously and the facts are correct–which I have not looked into as of yet but will-- why the heck would anybody in their right mind have any reason to deny it?

Knowing these facts might mean someone may choose not to buy a gun…and one less person–maybe someone you yourself know and love–will be saved from being harmed or killed. Or somebody you don’t know.

Either way, is that not worth it?

It’s amazing the kind of ideas or beliefs some people think are true that are not provable by* any *stretch of the imagination…and yet, a simple study like this, that makes perfect sense if indeed correct, is so adamantly immediately rejected by some people without further investigation.



^Perfect example. Correct facts, but fallacious analysis and conclusions made from the facts.


It also sounds like common sense that if a criminal knows I have a gun and my neighbor does not have a gun, my house is less likely to be broken into than my neighbors.

Criminals typically like to keep their odds of dying on the low side


Speaking as one who has been depressed enough to consider it in the past (thanks be to God, my faith saved me!), I can tell you that if someone is THAT desperate to end their life, it doesn’t matter what means they use. They WILL do it. As someone said earlier, Japan has a higher rate but has strict gun control. In America, guns HAPPEN to be both available and a particularly effective (and violent) way of ending a life. If we didn’t have such easy access to guns, these people would go for whatever happens to be the easiest/most effective method anyways. And this same logic extends to gun-related homicides. People will use whatever method they have available. :shrug:


I’m not sure there is such a thing as a “gun culture”. There might be a “hunting culture”, or a “gang culture”, but the where does the divorce lawyer who owns a pistol for his personal protection fit in? Or the farmer that has a .22 rifle to ward off coyotes or foxes? Are there any cultural links at all between irresponsible or unsafe owners?


Good point. I was speaking generically. However, since guns pervade all of these diverse groups, including the visual media, I think what we have is an American culture of guns, aggression, and violence. That is not to say we are the only ones; but it is deep-rooted and ingrained in much of our country’s culture.


Me and my gun are probably why my neighbor wasn’t beaten to death by her ex-boyfriend.

So are we part of the culture of death because I was one movement and 5 lbs of force from killing him if he continued his attack, or part of the culture of life because she’s still alive?

Catechism is pretty clear about self defense

ETA: just for reference, he was unarmed but was an E-7 Marine with 4 inches and probably 60 lbs on me easy plus a combat tour. She had three broken ribs already when I came upon the scene. Cops didn’t show up for 30 minutes more and I called them.

Very easy to talk platitudes when you’re not trapped in a stairwell with a bad person. I’m thrilled I had my P225 that day.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit