LogFAQs > #977145927

adjl posted...

Another interesting stat from that article I linked is that among those that have committed DV, those that also own firearms tended to be more violent and more likely to use any weapon, even if their firearm wasn't actually involved in the incident(s). The article stops short of trying to draw any inferences from that statistic (as it should, since that's outside of its scope), but I'd interpret that as indicating that owning a firearm emboldens those that are inclined to do violence to go further than they otherwise would (which is also consistent with the statistical reality that firearm owners are more likely to be killed by gun violence).

Translated to the issue of DV homicide during a restraining order, it stands to reason that restricting the culprit's access to firearms reduces all homicide rates because the culprit generally feels less confident about enacting further violence. That's speculation, of course, but it seems consistent with the stats.

That's kinda been the common sense known, with the argument "violent people will be violent, with or without guns." It's simply not true. The ease to use/effectiveness ratio of guns means it allows crimes/moments of passion to result in violence very easily. The impersonal nature due to not having to be in close proximity of your target allows dissociation, too.

Compared trying to stab someone to death, and it's basically night and day. It's personal. It's messy. It's exhausting. It's very involved. And it's risky. This is why "mass stabbings", or murder by this method in general, is quite rare, even in countries or regions where access to guns make knives the next best option.

All that applies to suicide, too - momentary dark thoughts and easily translate into death with guns.