Justice Scalia Wants You to Have Every Opportunity to Off Yourself

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Michelle Cottle notes some statistics on gun deaths that I am genuinely surprised by. This probably isn’t what the Supreme Court had in mind when it struck down DC’s handgun ban:

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation’s nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year — gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

Public-health researchers have concluded that in homes where guns are present, the likelihood that someone in the home will die from suicide or homicide is much greater.

Update: Some further thinking and research on this. Scalia argued in the ruling overturning the DC handgun ban that individuals essentially have a right to keep a gun by their beds, which they can use to scare away assailants in the middle of the night. As Arthur Kellermann wrote in the Post over the weekend, “Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies.” Kellermann pointed to a study that found guns in the home were 12 times as likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the fending off of a masked intruder.

And one need only consult the Brady Campaign to find further horrifying statistics. The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns. Due to firearm suicides, there are more than twice as many suicide victims in states with high household firearm ownership. See more here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest