http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html This last reference is very extensive it compares the various rates of suicide, accidental deaths, homicide etc as a function of firearms in the house across all sorts of conditions over a 10 to 30 year period - depending on the analysis. Its very consistent, in all these situations, the presence of firearms significantly increases the changes of death in the household. On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll have to dig up the source for this again, but I remember reading > recently that if there is a handgun in the house, suicide, accidental > deaths, and homicides increase by 2 or 3 times over those household > who do not have handguns. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:35 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Well let's look at that. Is the homicide rate by firearm exponentially >>> higher in Arizona as compared to the rest of the US? >>> >> >> Why do people always focus on homicide rate when it comes to guns? >> >> Hand guns do far more damage every single day in this country than can be >> reflected in attributable deaths. I'd like to see this stat: Number of >> times in a given day that an innocent American's day, week, month, year or >> possible life, is negatively affected by a hand gun. >> >> Doesn't have to be a homicide...could be as simple as a night time clerk >> who had a gun shoved in his face and now is afraid to even leave his house. >> Or the battered wife who's reminded of the glock King Asshole keeps in his >> closet should she ever think about leaving him. The gun flashed in the >> waistband of the punk on the street because someone else looked at him >> wrong. >> >> You are getting lost in statistics when all it takes is a little common >> sense: Why do we need easily concealable and portable weapons? Only two >> reasons: 1) to do bad things to people or 2) to protect ourselves from the >> people in 1. Your argument is the same tired one: we can never eliminate 1, >> so we should always have 2. In reality, 2 ensures 1 will always thrive, >> which feeds 2, which feeds 1, which.....on and on and on it goes. >> >> We should be better than this. >> >> -- >> Through the too many miles >> And the too little smiles >> I still remember you >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347440 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
