Gun Suicides. Firearms are one of the most lethal methods of suicide, accounting for about 55 percent of all completed suicides. When talking about suicide, I often tell parents, “When a teenager puts a shotgun in their mouth and pulls the trigger, the outcome is pretty certain.” Given the lethality of guns, I don’t see how anyone could argue with a straight face that gun suicides would decrease if more individuals had access to firearms. Gun rights advocate’s often argue that if a suicidal person doesn’t have access to a gun, they will attempt suicide by other means (e.g., poisoning). Perhaps. But if they attempt suicide by other means, there is a greater probability that they will not succeed. And hopefully get the help that they need.

Unintentional Shootings. Unintentional shootings are generally caused by one of the following:

• Young children playing with guns who because of their age are not aware of the serious consequences of their actions.
• Minors and adults handling guns in a reckless manner.
• Defective gun design, e.g., handguns that lack basic safety features to prevent unintentional discharge, e.g., load indicators that indicate that the gun is loaded with ammunition and magazine disconnects that prevent the gun from discharging if the ammunition magazine is removed.

There is simply no rational basis to conclude that the number of deaths and injuries due to unintentional shootings would decrease if more individuals had access to guns.

Gun Homicides. The claim by gun rights advocates and the NRA that more guns would reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries is based on the argument that armed citizens would deter crimes and prevent mass shootings such as the recent shootings at a church in Brookfield, Wisconsin (seven killed and four wounded by a church member who then killed himself) and at a high school in Red Lake, Minnesota (seven killed and seven wounded by a 16-year-old who then killed himself).

However, this argument fails to recognize that most gun homicides are not crime related, i.e., a homicide in connection with a felony crime such as robbery, kidnapping, rape, drug related activity, or random shooting. Rather, approximately 75 percent of all gun homicides are the result of arguments or disputes between family members, friends, or acquaintances. Alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or mental illness are often factors in these non-crime related gun homicides. It stands to reason that if more individuals had access to guns, there would be more of these types of gun homicides; not fewer.

A typical example is a gun homicide that occurred in Scottsboro, Ariz. on March 26. Arizona State University running back Loren Wade (21) went to a nightclub to pick up his girlfriend. He found his girlfriend outside the club talking to Brandon Falkner (25), a former ASU football player, who was sitting in his car. Wade got out of his car and exchanged words with Falkner before shooting him in the head. Wade has been charged with first-degree murder. One young man dead and another who may spend the rest of his life in prison. All because Wade was armed with a gun at the time. [Note: Arizona is an “open carry” state. That is, anyone who can lawfully possess a firearm may go armed in public if the weapon is not concealed on the person.]

To understand how ridiculous gun rights advocate’s argument is, consider a graph of gun deaths versus the number of guns in the general population. We know two points on the curve. Currently, there are an estimated 200 million guns in the general population and about 30,000 gun deaths a year (Point B). We also know that if there were no guns in the general population, there would be no gun deaths (Point A).

The question is, how did we get from Point A to Point B. Line 1 assumes a linear relation. That is, an increase in the number of guns in the general population would result in an increase in the number of gun deaths.

However, gun rights advocates and the NRA claim that an increase in the number of guns in the general population would result in a decrease in the number of gun deaths. If this is true, then the graph must look something like Line 2. But for Line 2 to hold, at some point in time when the number of guns in the general population was much less that the number today, gun deaths would have had to be much greater than the number today. There is no basis in history for this. In fact, history tells us just the opposite.

Just as more dogs in the general population means more people will be bitten by dogs, more guns in the general population means more people will be killed or injured by guns. To believe otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.