Does any law reduce rates of firearms related homicide?

Status
Not open for further replies.

hso

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 3, 2003
Messages
65,882
Location
0 hrs east of TN
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04922-x


Main Measures
The outcome measures were the annual age-adjusted rates of homicide and suicide in each state during the period 1991–2016. We controlled for a wide range of state-level factors.

Key Results
Universal background checks were associated with a 14.9% (95% CI, 5.2–23.6%) reduction in overall homicide rates, violent misdemeanor laws were associated with a 18.1% (95% CI, 8.1–27.1%) reduction in homicide, and “shall issue” laws were associated with a 9.0% (95% CI, 1.1–17.4%) increase in homicide. These laws were significantly associated only with firearm-related homicide rates, not non-firearm-related homicide rates. None of the other laws examined were consistently related to overall homicide or suicide rates.

Conclusions
We found a relationship between the enactment of two types of state firearm laws and reductions in homicide over time. However, further research is necessary to determine whether these associations are causal ones.
 
Oh yes, if you get rid of guns then there is few gun related homicides.
The young men that run around can overpower and get most things done with a baseball bat, tire iron, or other common item. (Which of course begins an endless path of banning every item which is a purpose made weapon, and then many items which can be too readily misused as weapons too, just refer to England.)
Intimidation works a lot better too, and the young and strong especially in numbers win when they target someone else.
Home invasions work much better and you don't even need a gun to commit one. Like in England, you just push your way in the front door with a fellow thug and have your way with the family.

In fact the more people you take guns away from or prevent from having them in the first place the fewer will be used. It's not linear because the bad guys will still go out of their way to acquire them and they tend to be the ones that misuse them the most. But yes you certainly can prevent random firearm violence involving regular citizens if regular citizens don't have firearms.
Or any that stand up for themselves have no firearms. Or any that fall on hard times and might be tempted to do something criminal dont have them. Can get that done with some lengthy and costly processes to acquire firearms requiring police review, maybe some government discretion, and make sure it costs enough that only certain classes of citizen will go through with the process.
Maybe even start using titles of nobility so we know who should have more rights and who shouldn't.
And then when far fewer people have them, and you only have a greatly reduced number of armed fellow citizens it will be easy to convince the masses to just take yours away too. Which is ultimately what government wants, and what the governments can all come together and agree on in the UN.
 
Last edited:
Does any law reduce rates of firearms related homicide?

Yes. The laws that don't permit violent criminals a subsequent chance at murder work pretty well. Remember that most murders aren't freshman criminals, they're veterans.

If we executed everyone convicted of premeditated use of the threat of deadly force in a crime (doing to them as they'd threatened to do), we'd about solve it overnight.
 
Yes. The laws that don't permit violent criminals a subsequent chance at murder work pretty well. Remember that most murders aren't freshman criminals, they're veterans.

If we executed everyone convicted of premeditated use of the threat of deadly force in a crime (doing to them as they'd threatened to do), we'd about solve it overnight.

Did I read that correctly, that you advocate execution for making a threat???

Seems a tad extreme, most people get ticked off and make threats in the heat of anger ( though the reality is, very very few follow through
 
Did I read that correctly, that you advocate execution for making a threat?
I was significantly more specific than that, so I wouldn't call the two statements similar.

. . .most people get ticked off and make threats in the heat of anger. . .
Several points:
1. That's not premeditated.
2. No, most people don't do that, it being a crime and all. . .

Consider the asymmetry of armed robbery: the perp gains compliance by making his victims believe that he will kill them if they resist, all the while knowing that his worst-likely outcome is a few years of hot meals. That is outrageous; the punishment is entirety unfit to the crime.

Capital punishment for armed robbery (or rape) is actually quite common in civilized legal systems historically. It works well, greatly reduces armed crime, and tremendously reduced recidivism.
 
Too lax punishments can be a problem, but harsh punishments can be as well.
We all know how bad California is on firearms rights, and It also takes away firearm rights for much pettier things than in most of the nation. But:
California has a three strikes law that was one of the toughest in the nation, and still is pretty bad.
You can get multiple strikes in a single crime, a 2nd strike results in double the punishment, and a third strike is 25 to life, with violent offenders having to serve most of their time without good time (ie they have much less to lose in prison and so can be particularly vicious.) As I said you can get 2-3 strikes all at once and get life in prison easier than most other states, and that enhancement only even matters if the crime itself doesn't already carry a huge sentence that puts them away for most of their life and many do.
A totaly seperate law gives huge enhancements for firearm offenses, known as the 10,20, life use a gun and your done enhancement.
You get 10 years for having a gun or pretending to have a gun, 20 for firing a gun, and life if it hurts someone.
Yet how has this impacted the rights or freedoms of the average citizen?
Did it solve things and create the Utopia?
Or did it just empower the police state while insuring any criminal that does those things better flee and fight to the death like their life depends on it, because well it does. All while occasionally ensaring some poor non predatory citizen, you thought what you did was legal with that gun and you were defending yourself or your property and it wasnt, oh wait for the enhancements.
When you start dishing out life sentences and death penalties easily, you just encourage people to take their crimes to the next level, because it's all or nothing. They won't get a reasonable sentence if they stop what they are doing, and give up peacefully. They wont get a reasonable sentence if they limit the harm caused in their spree. They will get about the same thing if they kill every witness as they will if they even fire a gun in the air to scare people in a robbery. Many different charges adding up to some ridiculous sentence that can often be in the triple digits in years, or a death penalty which frankly is easier to deal with than meaningless existence behind bars anyways.

Tough on crime is a talking point the conservatives make you think will solve the issue, while big business for profit prisons go up all over. It has little direct correlation with your freedom or your firearm rights.
Most violent murders and crime are gang members killing gang members, which is actually cheaper than housing them in prison, or sentencing them to death. It doesnt make it right, but the correlation with your freedoms is limited.
The only reason you want to support it is because the antis use those violent statistics against you rather than being truthfull in what they represent.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top