New Study Finds Firearms Laws Do Nothing to Prevent Homicides

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

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

Dropping science and spreading enlightenment wherever I go.

[wargunfan]

According to the Department of Justice ethnicity and prior felony convictions are, by far, the largest source of gun violence in the United States. The DOJ study (see link) finds that Blacks commit a large majority of murders in the US:

"Race and ethnicity
Forty-one percent of violent felons were black, non-
Hispanic , 30% were Hispanic, and 26% were white,
non-Hispanic. Blacks (46%) comprised a higher
percentage of murderers than Hispanics (27%) or
whites (23%).

Whites(37%)and blacks(35%)accounted for higher
percentages of rapists than Hispanics (23%). Blacks
accounted for 54% of robbers, twice the percentage
of Hispanics(27%)and about 3 times that of whites
(17%).

Blacks (39%) accounted for about two-fifths of those
convicted of felony assault, compared to about a third
who were Hispanic (32%), and a fourth who were white
(26%).

Blacks (55%) comprised a majority of the violent
felons who were under age 18. Blacks accounted for
about two-fifths of the total in each age category
from 21 through 34.

Whites accounted for 13% of the violent felons under
age 18. The percentage of whites rose in each successive
age category, and was about the same as for blacks in
the 35 to 39 age category, and slightly higher in the
40 or older category.

Hispanics accounted for 30% of violent felons under
age 18, and about a third in each age group from 18
to 29. The percentage of Hispanics was lower than
that for both blacks and whites in the 35 and older
age categories."

"Prior arrests
An estimated 70% of violent felons in the 75
largest counties had been arrested previously.
Seventy-three percent of those convicted of robbery
or assault had an arrest record, as did 67% of
murderers, and 53% of rapists.

Sixty percent of violent felons had multiple prior
arrest charges, including 40% with 5 or more, and
23% with 10 or more. About a fourth of those
convicted of robbery (26%) or assault (24%)had 10
or more prior arrest charges, as did about a fifth
of murderers (21%) and a tenth of rapists (10%).

A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested
previously for a felony. The percentage with a
felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to
63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those
convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of
murder had at least one prior felony arrest.

Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than
one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least
five.

About half of those convicted of robbery (51%)had
more than one prior felony arrest, as did nearly
half of those convicted of assault(46%)or murder
(44%)."

Gun control laws have a disproportionate impact on Whites who own the majority of the legal guns in the US and have the lowest violent crime rates. These laws will have little or no impact on the primary cause of violent crime: repeat felons who commit the vast majority of violent crimes in the country.

The full report:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/vfluc.txt

[mdgator05]

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.

I can certainly bear a shoulder-fired missile. In fact, it is right in the name.

[wargunfan]

It should be painfully obvious to any fair minded person that ILLEGAL guns are the problem as well as violent racial cultures who commit violent crimes out of all proportion to their numbers. Gun control laws will not impact these groups but will penalize law abiding, legal gun owners. The proposed ban is nothing more than pandering to a liberal voting base.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

It should be painfully obvious to any fair minded person that ILLEGAL guns are the problem as well as violent racial cultures who commit violent crimes out of all proportion to their numbers. Gun control laws will not impact these groups but will penalize law abiding, legal gun owners. The proposed ban is nothing more than pandering to a liberal voting base.

Where do "ILLEGAL guns" come from? They aren't illegal when they are produced. So when do the become "ILLEGAL?"

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I can certainly bear a shoulder-fired missile. In fact, it is right in the name.

So you want one to attack someone, or you are actually afraid of being attacked by one and therefore need one to defend yourself ?

[HudsonGator]

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.

So now the argument has evolved to whatever one can carry is what is constitutionally protected?

If we are going to be strict constructionists, then one really only has a right to bear a muzzle load rifle, musket or pistol, as that was all that existed in 1791.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

So you want one to attack someone, or you are actually afraid of being attacked by one and therefore need one to defend yourself ?

It is certainly more frightening to potential criminals than a hand gun. Plus, if the black helicopters come after me, I'll be prepared. What better way to defend myself against government tyranny?

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

It is certainly more frightening to potential criminals than a hand gun. Plus, if the black helicopters come after me, I'll be prepared. What better way to defend myself against government tyranny?

Yes, and if I believe my neighbors may try to use atomic weapons on me, then I should be able to own an atomic bomb of my own for deterrence.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Where do "ILLEGAL guns" come from? They aren't illegal when they are produced. So when do the become "ILLEGAL?"

A better question would be "How to we reduce the number of existing ILLEGAL guns which are involved in most violent crime?". That will not happen with the gun control legislation as proposed. We are facing 100 years of accumulated stolen weapons. Some of these pistols and shotguns have been around for generations, How do we take them out of circulation? Banning the legal purchase of guns by law abiding citizens will not affect the problem of ILLEGAL guns already in circulation.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I can certainly bear a shoulder-fired missile. In fact, it is right in the name.

That would be practical to carry around. Common sense apparently isnt so common.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

That would be practical to carry around. Common sense apparently isnt so common.

Yes, it is about as practical as an AK-47 is to carry around.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

A better question would be "How to we reduce the number of existing ILLEGAL guns which are involved in most violent crime?". That will not happen with the gun control legislation as proposed. We are facing 100 years of accumulated stolen weapons. Some of these pistols and shotguns have been around for generations, How do we take them out of circulation? Banning the legal purchase of guns by law abiding citizens will not affect the problem of ILLEGAL guns already in circulation.

Quite a few legal guns become "ILLEGAL" each year. In fact, ILLEGAL guns used in a crime and found as part of that crime are not typically recirculated. Therefore, a constant resupply of "ILLEGAL" guns are needed to maintain a similar level of violence.

[LittleBlueLW]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Yes, it is about as practical as an AK-47 is to carry around.

Agree but
Do you guys really not comprehend the difference between keep and bear?

[HudsonGator]

I understand the difference between the two words.

To me it makes no difference.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My view, which I have expressed on this board many times, is that the first half of this amendment puts it into context, and that one doesn't actually have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms at all.

Judge Posner does a better job than I can of explaining the inherent weakness of Scalia's opinion in Heller.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Quite a few legal guns become "ILLEGAL" each year. In fact, ILLEGAL guns used in a crime and found as part of that crime are not typically recirculated. Therefore, a constant resupply of "ILLEGAL" guns are needed to maintain a similar level of violence.

LINK?

[Minister_of_Information]

It's like the 9th Amendment doesn't exist. But what else is new.

BTW, when you appeal to authority it is supposed to represent either unanimity or an authority with superior standing.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

LINK?

From an article written on one of the exceptions:

http://insiderlouisville.com/news/20...o-the-streets/

In most states, weapons used in any crime from robberies to murders to drug-dealer shootouts are confiscated, used in evidence, then destroyed to keep them from being used in future crimes.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

It's like the 9th Amendment doesn't exist. But what else is new.

BTW, when you appeal to authority it is supposed to represent either unanimity or an authority with superior standing.

Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, we just need one more vote.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Heller was a 5 to 4 decision, we just need one more vote.

If.