New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

[T3goalie]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

If you have scientific evidence of the economic benefits to owning a gun that puts it anywhere along the lines of the economic benefits to owning a car, I would be interested in seeing that.

Economic benefit, as a test, is a false premise. However, please note that I do not have a constitutional right to own a car. Also, I only compared gun deaths to drunk drivers, I did not quote stats of total deaths per year in cars (fyi 32,367 in 2011 USA).

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

Economic benefit, as a test, is a false premise. However, please note that I do not have a constitutional right to own a car. Also, I only compared gun deaths to drunk drivers, I did not quote stats of total deaths per year in cars (fyi 32,367 in 2011 USA).

How exactly is it a false presence?

We decide all the time which arms we have a constitutional right to own. We certainly do not have a constitutional right to own any form of arm that we wish. That determination is often made based on some form of rudimentary cost/benefit analysis. For example, we could allow people to own surface to air missiles. However, the danger that this would cause to air travel, along with the limited economic benefits, have made it such that we have declared that you don't have a constitutional right to own that particular arm.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

How exactly is it a false presence?

We decide all the time which arms we have a constitutional right to own. We certainly do not have a constitutional right to own any form of arm that we wish. That determination is often made based on some form of rudimentary cost/benefit analysis. For example, we could allow people to own surface to air missiles. However, the danger that this would cause to air travel, along with the limited economic benefits, have made it such that we have declared that you don't have a constitutional right to own that particular arm.

Arms as referred to in the 2nd amendment at the time it was written generally referred to weapons that an individual could carry (guns, knives, swords, etc.), and excluded ordinance-type arms meant to cause mass destruction with a single discharge (cannons, artillery, etc). SAMs would obviously be on the ordinance side of things.

Also, the 2nd amendment has never been about economic benefit, no more than it is about hunting. It's about recognizing the inherent right of the people to defend themselves.

[Minister_of_Information]

... in collaboration and coordination against a massed threat. I.e., utilizing group tactics and relying on one another for support.

[brainstorm]

Why don't firearm laws lower the suicide rate?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Why don't firearm laws lower the suicide rate?

Why would they? I don't see the logic.

[Minister_of_Information]

Here's the libertarian coming out: why is suicide a public policy issue?

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Here's the libertarian coming out: why is suicide a public policy issue?

In a very broad sense, it would probably fall under promoting the general welfare of the citizenry. But of course policy can come in many different shapes and sizes so the quality and/or necessity of such a policy can obviously vary.

Specifically though, your question makes me think of the ethical and/or legal debate over assisted suicide.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Why would they? I don't see the logic.

Some think gun laws lower the murder rate. If that is true then why doesn't it lower the suicide rate as well? Both involve killing people.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Some think gun laws lower the murder rate. If that is true then why doesn't it lower the suicide rate as well? Both involve killing people.

While most gun control laws have not been effective (or haven't been systematically studied), some have been shown to lower murder rates (and/or violent crime rates), or they've had some other positive outcome. For example, Operation Ceasefire in Boston, Project Exile in Virginia, and the Kansas City Gun Experiment, have all found significant reductive effects.

But to get at your question, it's likely because to some degree, the primary underlying causes of homicide differ than those for suicide and because the situational characteristics of killing oneself vs killing someone else also differ.

Also, guns can make it more likely that someone seeking to kill themselves will actually succeed if they pull the trigger whereas if they took only pills or slit their wrists, there's a higher chance they survive, just as the availability of a gun to someone at risk for using it in a crime/to illegally kill another might make it more likely that such a crime actually occurs than if they didn't have access to such a weapon.

[Lawdog88]

Nothing should ever be permitted to interfere with the Government's right to act as your absent parent, whenever it thinks it needs to.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Excellent point, Burke.

I have seen no statistics differentiating between "excusable" homicides (i.e., by accident or misfortune doing something lawful with usual caution and without unlawful intent; or accident or misfortune in the heat of passion upon sudden and sufficient provocation), and "justifiable" homicides (usually reserved for police killings, but also include the reasonable use of deadly force by citizens), and those that are unlawful homicides (murder). There may be some such statistics out there, but I haven't seen them.

I went and pulled this study up by two friends of mine. Interestingly, they actually address justifiable homicides only.

I have a copy if you want to see it.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

I went and pulled this study up by two friends of mine. Interestingly, they actually address justifiable homicides only.

I have a copy if you want to see it.

You mission, if you choose to accept it, is to condense the study into ten pithy, message-board words or less.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Arms as referred to in the 2nd amendment at the time it was written generally referred to weapons that an individual could carry (guns, knives, swords, etc.), and excluded ordinance-type arms meant to cause mass destruction with a single discharge (cannons, artillery, etc). SAMs would obviously be on the ordinance side of things.

Also, the 2nd amendment has never been about economic benefit, no more than it is about hunting. It's about recognizing the inherent right of the people to defend themselves.

But that is an inherently economic calculation. I do not need another person to carry around a small SAM launcher. Even if I did, we have the Constitutional right to free association in most instances.

So the calculation is inherently economic even in your telling of the story. I am allowed to defend myself, but only in a way that limits economic costs to others. I am only allowed to do so much damage with each discharge to limit the amount of damage I inflict upon others. That recognizes both the inherent economic aspect of this decision as well as the ability of the government to declare that something does too much economic damage to allow the citizen to maintain it, even if we also consider the defensive benefits of the weapon (and a SAM would have defensive benefits).

[Lawdog88]

2nd A is predominately about the right to personal self defense. Heller.

From others who would be attacking with commonly-held weapons that could inflict personal injuries.

If terrorists, criminals, and thugs start attacking the citizenry with RPG's, grenades, and other similar types of weapons, perhaps a case could be made for personal possession of them for defensive purposes under the 2nd A.

But they aren't.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

Some think gun laws lower the murder rate. If that is true then why doesn't it lower the suicide rate as well? Both involve killing people.

While being careful with language due to the nature of the study referenced in the OP (and linked by myself a few posts later), it does appear that gun laws are related to the firearm suicide rate. Firearm suicide rates significantly decline through each level of firearm law stringency. Even if you control for the overall suicide rate in the analysis (along with a variety of other risk factors), the top group, those with the most firearm laws, do have a significantly smaller firearm suicide rate than the group with the least laws.

[brainstorm]

I'll refer you back to the graph I posted earlier. Major differences between suicide and murder rates even when looking at individual states. Just hard to think gun laws help here and it is more of a problem. The media isn't really interested.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Arms as referred to in the 2nd amendment at the time it was written generally referred to weapons that an individual could carry (guns, knives, swords, etc.), and excluded ordinance-type arms meant to cause mass destruction with a single discharge (cannons, artillery, etc). SAMs would obviously be on the ordinance side of things.

Where are getting this?

Was there a Federal law in 1791 that prohibited the private ownership of cannon?

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by brainstorm

I'll refer you back to the graph I posted earlier. Major differences between suicide and murder rates even when looking at individual states. Just hard to think gun laws help here and it is more of a problem. The media isn't really interested.

Yes there are major differences. Some of those are likely due to a variety of issues with other variables. Suicide and homicide rates tend to have very different characteristics. A previous correlational study actually found no significant correlation between stress levels and neuroticism and the homicide rate. I would be completely shocked if that was true of suicide.

However, as I said, the study being discussed in this thread did actually find a statistical correlation suggesting that the states with the most gun control laws had a significantly lower firearm suicide rate even when controlling for a variety of demographic variables and changes in the overall suicide rate.

[Lawdog88]

So suicide should be made more difficult ?