What about the suicide rate?

Oh, you mean suicide by cop?
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-by-cop.html

Suicide by cop occurs more frequently than most people would imagine. In a study that was published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, researchers analyzed data from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The researchers concluded that suicide by cop was surprisingly common and the number of incidents was rising. Researchers studied data from 1987 through 1997 and found that 11 percent of officer-involved shootings were suicide by cop incidents.

Other findings from the study about those who were involved in suicide by cop incidents:

98 percent were male
39 percent had a history of domestic violence
Many individuals abused alcohol and/or drugs
Many individuals had a prior history of suicide attempts
About 50 percent of the weapons used were loaded
17 percent used a toy or replica gun

---

What about the suicide rate?

Oh, you mean suicide by cop?
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-by-cop.html

Suicide by cop occurs more frequently than most people would imagine. In a study that was published in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, researchers analyzed data from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The researchers concluded that suicide by cop was surprisingly common and the number of incidents was rising. Researchers studied data from 1987 through 1997 and found that 11 percent of officer-involved shootings were suicide by cop incidents.

Other findings from the study about those who were involved in suicide by cop incidents:

98 percent were male
39 percent had a history of domestic violence
Many individuals abused alcohol and/or drugs
Many individuals had a prior history of suicide attempts
About 50 percent of the weapons used were loaded
17 percent used a toy or replica gun

I meant the "normal" suicides, data from Australia says that their suicide rate halved after the 1996 law changes.

Similar figures for falling suicides rates occurred in the UK when we switched from town gas, made from coal, to natural gas. Before the change, feeling suicidal turn on gas and put your head in the oven.

Would have to Amend the US Constitution.

Good luck.

or just interpret it properly.

Es99...

It was "properly" interpreted, by the US Supreme Court in 2010.

Supreme Court affirms fundamental right to bear arms

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html

Any comment?

But 4 out of the 9 that voted disagreed, so not an overwhelming decision then.

If it had been 6 and 3, then I might have agreed it was a "properly" interpreted decision. And would the vote still be the same today?

And when you look at the ages of the members, then change might not be long in coming.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 82 (Bill Clinton, 1993)

Antonin Scalia, 79 (Ronald Reagan, 1986)

Anthony M. Kennedy, 78 (Ronald Reagan in 1988)

Stephen Breyer, 76 (Bill Clinton, 1994)

Clarence Thomas, 66 (George H. W. Bush, 1991)

Samuel Alito, 65 (George W. Bush, 2006)

John Roberts, 60 (George W. Bush, 2005)

Sonia Sotomayor, 60 (Barack Obama, 2009)

Elena Kagan, 55 (Barack Obama, 2010)

edit] Might also be looking at some of the other 5 to 4 decisions and see if you agree with them.

But since then, according to a gallup poll Jan 2014, 55% are dissatisfied with the present gun laws.

No. One mass shooting in a year would in most civilised countries be an unusual event. In the US ONLY one mass shooting per day would be an improvement.

There are lies, damn lies and gun control advocates ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=2

At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino,

---

Meaningless you say, but it is a shift in position of the general public from when SCOTUS last made their decision.

If the trend continues then, will not SCOTUS decide or be asked to reconsider the question, and by then it is very likely some of the present members will have moved on and been replaced. And as I pointed out the last time was by the smallest of possible margins, therefore it only needs one vote to move to the other side and the US will be facing a completely different scenario.

Negative. SCOTUS will not 'revisit' for decades. If ever.

Please justify this claim with evidence.

My evidence that SCOTUS does revisit decisions is backed up by Supreme Court seems divided over University of Texas race-conscious admissions

One of several cases looking at whether race can be used to consider college admissions since 2003.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again displayed its deep divide over when race can be considered in college admission decisions, in a contentious hour and a half of oral arguments about a limited race-conscious plan used by the University of Texas at Austin.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a divided court approved in 2003 a limited use of race by the University of Michigan Law School to achieve a “critical mass” of diversity that benefits all students.

But the court’s composition has changed considerably since that 2003 decision. Most significantly, the 5-to-4 Grutter decision was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who opposes race-specific government policies.

Negative. SCOTUS will not 'revisit' for decades. If ever.

Please justify this claim with evidence.

My evidence that SCOTUS does revisit decisions is backed up by Supreme Court seems divided over University of Texas race-conscious admissions

One of several cases looking at whether race can be used to consider college admissions since 2003.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday once again displayed its deep divide over when race can be considered in college admission decisions, in a contentious hour and a half of oral arguments about a limited race-conscious plan used by the University of Texas at Austin.

In Grutter v. Bollinger, a divided court approved in 2003 a limited use of race by the University of Michigan Law School to achieve a “critical mass” of diversity that benefits all students.

But the court’s composition has changed considerably since that 2003 decision. Most significantly, the 5-to-4 Grutter decision was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who opposes race-specific government policies.

Your statement in BOLD proves my point.

They are now revisiting a Landmark 1978 Decision. Almost FOUR Decades later.

Yes, they have 'tweaked' that decision since then. But not the Foundation.

As I said regarding The 2nd Amendment. They may allow some 'limited' limitations to the Foundation of their Decision.

Sorry for your misunderstanding of how SCOTUS operates.

That wasn't a statement by me. If only you had the sense you were born with you would see it was a link, which if you are questioning my posting, you would have clicked on and read.

It is no wonder that most of your statements with comments on the posts of others make very little sense is because you don't follow the links.

First rule of documentation, don't rework, give referenced links.

A German NRA?
http://www.dw.com/en/german-shooting-clubs-lobby-against-eu-gun-control/a-18933020

---

Since 2011 registered firearm ownership in the U.S. (who knows what the real number is) has gone up 4 fold, but these shootings have also gone up 3 fold in that time and not a week has gone past since 2011 where 1 of these hasn't happened there and not 1 "good guy with a gun" has been present at any of them.

Again, wrong conclusions drawn from available information.

The reason there has not been a 'good guy with a gun' at any of these 'mass shootings' is that they occur in the fictional 'Gun Free Zones'. Only LAW ABIDING CITIZENS respect gun free zones. Criminals and crazies pick 'Gun Free Zones' to perpetrate their evil because they can be reasonably certain there won't be armed opposition.

You will never see a mass shooting in a 'Guns Welcome Zone' because cowards avoid them, the same way legal gun owners avoid 'Gun Free Target Zones'.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

JaundicedEye...

'They' neither care, nor will acknowledge the following:

Criminals and terrorists do not follow any law.

Disarming ONLY the Law Abiding. Is an attempt to fulfill their dream of Controlling You.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Jeb Bush admitted at a debate to having smoked pot as a teen.
At the time he did it, in the place he did it, it was against the law.
That makes Jeb Bush a criminal.
Criminals do not follow any law?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Criminals do not follow any law?

Clyde has said it, it must be true. Therefore a criminal will never stop at a red light, because that would be following the law!

---

Guy I really enjoy the insight your deductive reasoning gives me. Please keep it up, your logic train is off the map, I find it more entertaining than any reality TV show. OBTW Gary is not a liberal, he's a libertarian. He was just pointing out the absurdity of the Clyde's absolute statement.

---

Guy I really enjoy the insight your deductive reasoning gives me. Please keep it up, your logic train is off the map, I find it more entertaining than any reality TV show. OBTW Gary is not a liberal, he's a libertarian. He was just pointing out the absurdity of the Clyde's absolute statement.

Seems some self styled right wing types like demonstrably false absolute statements, especially when they can say them about "liberals" used in a pejorative sense. They know they are false but they hope if they repeat them ad infinitum that somehow that will change the laws of physics. Is that prayer? Either that or it is a defense mechanism to protect their false belief system. Something like that must be necessary to build a house of cards on a shake table.

@Guy, the Second was adopted after the commerce clause. Like betreger I'd be fascinated as to your deductive insight on that point.

---

The second amendment's original purpose is as valid today as it was a couple of centuries ago.

There are still Americans that believe there's a threat of a British military invasion?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The second amendment's original purpose is as valid today as it was a couple of centuries ago.

There are still Americans that believe there's a threat of a British military invasion?

W.T.F are you serious with that statement p.m.s.l !!!!

I'm more afraid of the government than getting shot in a mass shooting. If you want to stop mass shootings stop creating gun free slaughter houses. I live in a town were most people are packing and own guns and we have no crime. Last break in was 3 years ago.

Of course I was brought up owning guns and I never seen one shoot someone without a person holding the gun. All criminals who do these things really don't care about any gun laws.