Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia.

washingtonpost.com ^ | Sunday, June 29, 2008 | Arthur Kellermann

[Malone LaVeigh]

The Supreme Court has spoken: Thanks to the court's blockbuster 5 to 4 decision Thursday, Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense. I leave the law to lawyers, but the public health lesson is crystal clear: The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

[Malone LaVeigh]

But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.

It didn't take long for Kellermann to crawl out from under his rock, did it?

[xcamel]

The risks involved with keeping your house connected to the power grid are an order of magnitude greater.... and driving that car... Oy Vey!

[1rudeboy]

Who was the Post writer who shot that guy breaking into his house? Was it William Raspberry? I can’t remember.

[Castigar]

“But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world’s most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.”

This is totally irrelevant to the question!

[johnny7]

Dream On, Scalia... Pi$$ Off Kellermann

[Tarpon]

The nut bags have said the same thing every time gun control was tossed for common sense, the streets will run with blood, yada yada yada. The last in Florida was when they said the castle doctrine would cause tourists to be shot at intersections, a particularly funny rendition of fable. Didn't happen, only a few criminals bit the dust. Then it was the guns stored in cars, the company parking lots will look like the OK corral, didn't happen. When do we get to just ignore these nut bags?

It's a good thing, now the ALCU has another right to defend. Right?

[MileHi]

Was it Carl Rowen?

[rellimpank]

-—Carl Rowan—

[1rudeboy]

Thanks. Someone should e-mail this guy with an old column.

[RoadKingSE]

Who was the Post writer who shot that guy breaking into his house? Was it William Raspberry? I can’t remember.

It was Carl Rowan and he shot a kid who had jumped the fence with some friends to take an unauthorized dip in his pool. Trespassing - a capital crime don't ya know.

[G.Mason]

Yes ...

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE

[Happy Rain]

Yes,the late Carl Rowan.
One of the most leftist,rascist (he was black),anti-2nd Amendment screeder and downright stupid columnists ever birthed.
In other words,the poster child of affirmitive action in journalism.

[digger48]

This is totally irrelevant to the question!

See? There it is. That silly Scalia wasn't allowing for "evolving standards of research" that the Constitution so clearly enumerates.

[Mr Rogers]

I’ve used a gun twice in my life to get out of a sticky situation. Didn’t shoot it. Didn’t report it. Just convinced a group of people to leave me alone while I was out in the desert.

I don’t think this guy’s study covered those uses, since no one but myself & the would-be thieves knew about them.

He also fails to distinguish between idiots who leave a gun in the drawer, and those of us who unlock them at night (or who do not have kids around any more).

When I lived in a high crime area, I had the FREEDOM to decide to keep a loaded gun handy all night long. Later, when I lived in a low-crime area, I had the FREEDOM to decide the risk wasn’t worth it. And now that I live 20+ minutes away from any cops, and the kids are grown up, I have the FREEDOM to keep a loaded rifle nearby.

Just like any other human activity, there are risks involved. People can judge those risks FOR THEMSELVES, without a Mayor with a 24/7 security team deciding the common people don’t need protection!

[MileHi]

Hmmm, that’s how I remeber him too.

[ken21]

i loved it when hollywood actresses got religion during

the los angeles riots and bought guns!

[Dutch Boy]

"The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should."

Of course he is correct. They should also consider rifles and shotguns. Several of all three would be good too.

[DuncanWaring]

...Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense.

They always had the right to own a gun for self-defense.

Now they will have the freedom to legally exercise the right to own a gun for self-defense.

[mountainlion]

So the year that they took away guns in Australia home invasion crimes increased 44%. Why do you suppose that happened? Florida issued 120,000 concealed carry permits and crime dropped like a rock. Odd? Criminals are cowards and gun control enables them.

[DugwayDuke]

“Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides.”

And with the same old sad story. He only includes incidents where the person breaking in was killed and does not include the incidents where that person fled the scene.

Other studies indicate that in 90% of the cases, the criminal departs the scene without a shot being fired once he sees a gun displayed.

Personally, the purpose of the firearm is to defend the family. Whether the criminal is killed is irrelevent.