New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So suicide should be made more difficult ?

I'm not sure it should be easy, as people sometimes make suboptimal and irrational decisions based on short-term considerations (setting aside the issue of mental health for now). However, while it should be a consideration in these discussions, I don't think it should be the overwhelming focus.

[wgbgator]

Do murder laws do anything to prevent homicides? I'd argue that many laws WRT to death and bodily injury exist to prevent retribution and retaliation (i.e. an escalation of violence) rather than to prevent the actual crime from happening.

[Matthanuf06]

Even if you found gun control to actually deter crime, would that be a good idea? You'd be punishing law abiding citizens as well as the "criminals".

To limit collateral damage wouldn't it make sense to up the prison sentences on gun crimes? Therefore you'd be punishing the actual criminal.

[Minister_of_Information]

I think suicide is a personal matter for the most part.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

Even if you found gun control to actually deter crime, would that be a good idea? You'd be punishing law abiding citizens as well as the "criminals".

To limit collateral damage wouldn't it make sense to up the prison sentences on gun crimes? Therefore you'd be punishing the actual criminal.

You would be punishing non-criminals as well in this case as you would need to collect more in taxes from them in order to lengthen sentences for gun crimes. In a lot of cases, prevention is a more economical way of dealing with an issue compared with reaction after the event.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Where are getting this?

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

Technically you can still own a cannon as long as it is muzzle loaded.

As far as what arms were, I've seen it articulated in several places and thought it was generally well understood, but I guess not. I'm sure google can point you in the right direction there. Ordinance or cannons were definitely their own separate thing in 1787.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So suicide should be made more difficult ?

For some, suicide should be encouraged.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Technically you can still own a cannon as long as it is muzzle loaded.

As far as what arms were, I've seen it articulated in several places and thought it was generally well understood, but I guess not. I'm sure google can point you in the right direction there. Ordinance or cannons were definitely their own separate thing in 1787.

You must not understand.

You made the following statement:

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).

I want to know upon what do you base your claimed legal historic differentiation between personal weapons and ordinance-type arms.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You must not understand.

You made the following statement:



I want to know upon what do you base your claimed legal historic differentiation between personal weapons and ordinance-type arms.

I do understand, and like I said I thought the distinction was well understood and common knowledge, but apparently not by you. In any case, that distinction can be found easily with a couple of minutes of googling. It wasn't a "legal" definition at the time. It was just a common english, as was the constitution in 1787.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

I do understand, and like I said I thought the distinction was well understood and common knowledge, but apparently not by you. In any case, that distinction can be found easily with a couple of minutes of googling. It wasn't a "legal" definition at the time. It was just a common english, as was the constitution in 1787.

So, you have nothing to base your statement on other than your own belief that it was well understood.

Got it.

[brainstorm]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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.

One argument is that grouping all gun related homicides into one "cause" bucket makes as much sense as lumping gun related homicides and suicides together. There are some homicides with root causes that have more in common with suicide. Others are related to gang violence.

Why does it matter? Any with desire to reduce gun related homicides should understand it's target audience.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

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

Justifiable homicides distinguished from other homicide types; structural factors identified

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

So, you have nothing to base your statement on other than your own belief that it was well understood.

Got it.

Like I said...google it. I couldn't tell you the first place I saw or heard about the distinction between arms and ordnance but my statement is pretty widely accepted historical fact. Look it up and you'll see for yourself, or feel free to prove me wrong.

Or don't, and continue to be willfully ignorant. Either way, no skin off my back.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Like I said...google it. I couldn't tell you the first place I saw or heard about the distinction between arms and ordnance but my statement is pretty widely accepted historical fact. Look it up and you'll see for yourself, or feel free to prove me wrong.

Or don't, and continue to be willfully ignorant. Either way, no skin off my back.

But you still can't answer the question of why they would be different in any manner other than recognizing the varying economic costs of the use of both items.

And I would be glad to read this source. I just googled it and found nothing that looked like it discussed this distinction. If you can provide it, since you made the claim and it is bad form to make a claim and then make other people back up your claim, that would be appreciated.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Like I said...google it. I couldn't tell you the first place I saw or heard about the distinction between arms and ordnance but my statement is pretty widely accepted historical fact. Look it up and you'll see for yourself, or feel free to prove me wrong.

Or don't, and continue to be willfully ignorant. Either way, no skin off my back.

Just be a big boy and admit you have no support for the statement.

It is fine to have an opinion, just don't try to pass it off as fact when it is not.

Originally Posted by mdgator05

But you still can't answer the question of why they would be different in any manner other than recognizing the varying economic costs of the use of both items.

And I would be glad to read this source. I just googled it and found nothing that looked like it discussed this distinction. If you can provide it, since you made the claim and it is bad form to make a claim and then make other people back up your claim, that would be appreciated.

Exactly, "widely accepted historical facts" are easy to prove.

He has no proof for this alleged "historic fact" because it is neither widely accepted, nor is it a fact.

[Minister_of_Information]

Drink deeply and be refreshed.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Drink deeply and be refreshed.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Still trying to get traffic for this gun-lover's website?

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

For some, suicide should be encouraged.

Well, if you did that, you could expect to be charged as a principal in the first degree . . . or assisting . . . either of which is a crime.

782.08. Assisting self-murder

Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

[LittleBlueLW]

I dont know anyone who can 'bear' a cannon or other artillery ordinance. So yes, the differentiation in the 2nd Amendment is common knowledge and understood unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

I dont know anyone who can 'bear' a cannon or other artillery ordinance. So yes, the differentiation in the 2nd Amendment is common knowledge and understood unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

Perish the thought.