Comments on: The Right to Bear Arms

By: Claire Renzetti

Claire Renzetti — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:19:25 +0000

Hi, Jamilia. Thanks for your query. I do not know the identities of the children in either of the photos that accompany this post. I chose the photos because of their poignancy and relevance to the post’s content. Sorry I can’t be more helpful.

By: jamilia stroye

jamilia stroye — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:29:19 +0000

i realy dont feel like reading but i rely wont to know what happend to this boy.#2009#&***

By: George Lyon

George Lyon — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:39:06 +0000

Thanks. The cite is helpful and I am enjoying our dialogue. However, what the study results do not show is the incidence of firearms being used for defensive purposes. There is a continuum of actions one can take with a firearm starting with saying “I have a gun,” and continuing with drawing down on the assailant, shooting at the assailant, etc. The CDC stats do not show this. Actual deaths to assailants in defensive situations do not happen very often and that actually is good. The purpose is not to kill the attacker but to stop the threat. Once the threat is stopped, use of deadly force is unlawful.

Use of firearms to commit suicide is extremely troubling to me. However, it does not appear correlated with gun ownership. For example, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US but virtually no private ownership of firearms. Canada’s suicide rate is approximately that of the US, but there is much less use of guns to commit suicide. I posit the hypothesis that easy availability of guns does increase the use of guns for suicide, but does not increase the overall incidence of suicide. In other words, someone who is suicidal will find a way to take his life. I think we would better fight suicide by dealing with the cause rather than the instrument.

By: Claire Renzetti

Claire Renzetti — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:53:42 +0000

Curious, I agree that reducing gun violence, particularly in urban, economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, requires far more than simply reducing the availability of guns, and building a real and strong social safety net encompasses all the areas you cite is an essential component.

By: Claire Renzetti

Claire Renzetti — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:50:28 +0000

George, the CDC compiles statistics on the number of firearm deaths in the US each year. Their most recent report indicates that about 55% of firearm deaths are suicides. Among white children and teens, firearm deaths are most likely to be suicides, but among black children and teens, firearm deaths are most likely homicides. You can access the CDC report at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc

By: George Lyon

George Lyon — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:10:58 +0000

The suggestion that handguns in the home are used more for suicide than self defense is just plain wrong and if it has any merit is based on actually killing the intruder. I’d love a cite to the study involved. In most of the cases, showing the weapon resolves the issue. As to kids and guns, kids and gun owners need to be educated on safe handling and storage of firearms, but the stats show the incidence of accidental shooting of young kids has declined steadily since the 50s even though the number of guns have increased.

By: curious

curious — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:14:40 +0000

In principle reducing the “wide availability of guns” is a desirable goal. However, as a practical matter it would be the current white racist capitalist police state that would enforce the reduction in availability of fire arms. The War on Guns would follow the exact same logic as the War on Drugs – a war on poor people of color, with ravaged communities and millions in prisons.

In response to Admin, even more important than the lack of firearms in Canada and Europe is the presence of an actually existing welfare state where people are as often driven to desperation by grinding poverty. The war on guns will work the same as the war on drugs. Building a social safety net of housing, health care and access to education for everyone would remove the conditions the generate the largest % of violence in the first place.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:45:29 +0000

Claire’s point is made stronger by the reality in places like Canada and numerous European countries where handguns are restricted. Relatively few people die from guns there, and you do not need a handgun in the cities to protect yourself even from criminals. We need to back up and start over on gun control.

By: Claire Renzetti

Claire Renzetti — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:56:56 +0000

Your points are well taken, George. Nevertheless, I remain concerned about the wide availability of guns in this country and the consequences of that. The CDC reports that handguns in homes are most often used for suicide, not self defense, and that children who live in homes where there are handguns are at high risk of accidental death. I guess in response to your question about my preferences, I would say that I prefer that no one has guns. Very pie-in-the-sky thinking, I know, but my preference nonetheless.

By: Claire Renzetti

Claire Renzetti — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:05:46 +0000

Thanks for your comment, Muriel Minnie Mae. When I raise objections to the widespread availability of guns in this country, I am often told that “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” The fact is, however, that people with guns kill people, often children. I share your concern that now more guns will be available and even jurisdictions that currently have gun restrictions may weaken or rescind them.