Would a single Criminal Code reduce gun deaths?
- Thread starter mainecoon
- Start date
- Status
Agree, but again, off topic.
Bob Willman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 166
A country wide uniform law would imply that the federal government would be in control. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, made it clear that this was not a desirable option and in my opinion it would be a disaster today. I personally do not agree with the "hate crime" definition and see it as a way for the feds to horn in. Murder is murder no matter what the motivation. Any criminal activity is not changed by the motivation.
Bob
WB8NQW
Bob
WB8NQW
.38 Special
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 7,355
We've already been spanked by the mods for being off-topic, Kleanbore. You may be immune to that sort of thing, but the rest of us are not.
Posted beforeI read Frank's note, edited to point out the single connection to the legal issue.
Actually, very reply other than Frank's and Bob Willman's has ben off topic.
CapnMac
Member
There's a twist in this in its premise.
Now, there is a legitimate Gordian Knot in that we presently have 20,000 to 25,000 "gun" laws already on the books, not one of which appear to have any effect upon crime at all (other than as a basis for charging alleged criminals).
There is another legitimate issue in that RKBA is presently legally mandated on being able to prove yourself 100% innocent of any crime lest they permanently lose that right. The Gordian Knot of "gun" laws does stand in the way of the surety gun owners are required to have to exercise their rights.
So, a unification of Codes could have merit, to the law-abiding gun owners. Maybe. Perhaps. I will contend that if we simply removed the presumption of guilt GCA 68 is founded upon would vastly improve the lot of law-abiding gun owners.
Criminals, by their nature, are not law abiding. People who commit violent criminal acts are clearly criminals. So, new laws are unlikely to deter such crimes. Only enforcement of existing laws and the incarceration of the guilty will deter crime.
There's an underlying premise that "banning the weapon" will reduce crime committed with that weapon. The evidence for this is specious at best. None of the places that have tried such bans have achieved anything close to compliance. Much vaunted bans in Australia only reached about 33% compliance; in the UK, perhaps 40%. The recent weapons bans in the US NE have yet to break 10% compliance.
When bans are ineffective, amnesties are often touted as the answer. There is a logic there. Decriminalization often works. If that is the desired end wanted in unified code, that would have merit.
Now, there is a legitimate Gordian Knot in that we presently have 20,000 to 25,000 "gun" laws already on the books, not one of which appear to have any effect upon crime at all (other than as a basis for charging alleged criminals).
There is another legitimate issue in that RKBA is presently legally mandated on being able to prove yourself 100% innocent of any crime lest they permanently lose that right. The Gordian Knot of "gun" laws does stand in the way of the surety gun owners are required to have to exercise their rights.
So, a unification of Codes could have merit, to the law-abiding gun owners. Maybe. Perhaps. I will contend that if we simply removed the presumption of guilt GCA 68 is founded upon would vastly improve the lot of law-abiding gun owners.
Criminals, by their nature, are not law abiding. People who commit violent criminal acts are clearly criminals. So, new laws are unlikely to deter such crimes. Only enforcement of existing laws and the incarceration of the guilty will deter crime.
There's an underlying premise that "banning the weapon" will reduce crime committed with that weapon. The evidence for this is specious at best. None of the places that have tried such bans have achieved anything close to compliance. Much vaunted bans in Australia only reached about 33% compliance; in the UK, perhaps 40%. The recent weapons bans in the US NE have yet to break 10% compliance.
When bans are ineffective, amnesties are often touted as the answer. There is a logic there. Decriminalization often works. If that is the desired end wanted in unified code, that would have merit.
BlueHeelerFl
Member
Just today on the radio the topic of nationalizing the country's entire police force was brought up, which apparently is being discussed by the same politicians that was to pack the Supreme Court.
Currently local departments that are Pro 2A might not cooperate with any Federal attempts to confiscate firearms. A national police force run from DC that would definitely comply with confiscation
earlthegoat2
Member
Enforcing current laws would help I think. Why make more laws that criminals will ignore when you already have so many others that they ignore currently because of lack of enforcement.
gyp_c2
Member
It is sad that you think their are only 2 choices. Law abiding gun owners don't violate laws, the people that do commit acts, don't care what laws they violate. Your choice of do nothing, or do something to get rid of guns, is fallacious at best. How about we allow more freedom, then, when someone wants to do something horrible, it gets stopped instantly.
Sorry you are too close to the forrest to see the trees.
Yet his mother told authorities that he was going to commit suicide by cop a year ago, they investigated and said they found nothing. Yet they took away a shotgun he had and never returned it. But he was a good boy, and never did nothing!
entropy
Member
Why not just get right to the point and say only single shot muzzleloading rifles and pistols? BTW, this would make owning cannon legal without restrictions also, as that was fine back in 1776.
So, because YOU don't like certain types of guns, they should be 'bought back' by a government that never owned them in the first place?
Your whole post looks like it was written by Joe Biden in his more coherent days. no, strike that. Biden would have included double barrel shotguns!
MOLON LABE!
They have armed drones and real weapons of war in Afghanistan, too, and did not completely defeat the various terrorist groups there. Did many die? Yes, but it seems ten more would spring up. This silly argument shows you know nothing about how the US Govt. and the US military operate. It shows you know nothing about how and why this country was founded in the first place. And it shows you agree with the left's idea of throwing money at a problem, not addressing the real problems; Closing down the mental heath facilites, and concentrating on objects instead of behavior.
Think: They are having a hard time controlling a bunch of unarmed, uncoordinated protesters in Brooklyn Park right now. Imagine if they were all armed and organized.
You don't want that, so just present some realistic solutions. You wouldn't want to hear mine.
rabid wombat
Member
Yeppers. People problem, not a law problem.
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/n...54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/
Tommygunn
Member
The second amendment does not remain intact with a ban on semiauto weapons. People who claim this do not understand the intent of the Founders or what the word "infringe" means.
INFRINGE: 1.) To intrude into. 2.) To diminish. From THE OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY.
I've given this explanation before. It's a metaphorical one. If you cannot INTRUDE into a room, then you may not enter it, you cannot vacuum the rug, empty the wastebaskets, straighten out the desk, and so forth. Likewise, if it cannot be DIMINISHED, it must remain whole.
Your comments about the futility of resistance ignores asymmetric and guerrilla warfare techniques which I will not delve into here except to say if they did not work, Vietnam would have been over in six months instead of dragging out a decade. You should do your own research.
Last edited:
Let’s answer the OP’s question very simply.
No. It wouldn’t. Because it can’t. Because the law doesn’t prevent crime or death. The respect of the law and fear of consequences by law abiding citizens is the only reason any law carries any tangible weight. And only for those citizens.
No. It wouldn’t. Because it can’t. Because the law doesn’t prevent crime or death. The respect of the law and fear of consequences by law abiding citizens is the only reason any law carries any tangible weight. And only for those citizens.
Last edited:
Ranger99
Member
We'll have to reach a point where family
and friends don't make excuses and
enable people that are engaged in
dangerous behavior, and/or don't have
the mental capacity to abide by the laws
of a civilized society.
I hate to think we'll reach a place after we
keep blaming inanimate objects for crimes
to the point where we are like the UK
and have a knife ban.
Since lawbreakers and dangerous criminals
are a small minority, why can't we keep
them confined until we figure out why
each individual can't do right instead of
punishing tens of thousands?
Personally, I don't see where I should have
to have the latest greatest surveillance
camera system and myriad alarms etc.
when the troublemakers are obviously
the problem and the simplest solution
is to confine and punish them and not
to force the law abiding citizens to
live in a fortified castle
Can anybody explain why the places
with the most strict of gun laws such
as DC and Chicago and NYC and many
European countries have more crime
than places where the honest citizens
can defend themselves with lethal
force when necessary?
and friends don't make excuses and
enable people that are engaged in
dangerous behavior, and/or don't have
the mental capacity to abide by the laws
of a civilized society.
I hate to think we'll reach a place after we
keep blaming inanimate objects for crimes
to the point where we are like the UK
and have a knife ban.
Since lawbreakers and dangerous criminals
are a small minority, why can't we keep
them confined until we figure out why
each individual can't do right instead of
punishing tens of thousands?
Personally, I don't see where I should have
to have the latest greatest surveillance
camera system and myriad alarms etc.
when the troublemakers are obviously
the problem and the simplest solution
is to confine and punish them and not
to force the law abiding citizens to
live in a fortified castle
Can anybody explain why the places
with the most strict of gun laws such
as DC and Chicago and NYC and many
European countries have more crime
than places where the honest citizens
can defend themselves with lethal
force when necessary?
Oh....My....God. Ok. I shouldn’t. But I’ll play a round. It’s 2021. 2nd Amendment was signed into law Dec 15th 1791. Basically 230 years ago. Since then, the government has done very little to increase 2A freedoms. I would argue it’s only worked to restrict (infringe on) that freedom. Yet, here we sit, with all this so called carnage. 230 years of law after law. So if all the laws currently on the book didn’t reduce the carnage, why do you think more laws would?
Do you honestly believe anyone besides a law abiding citizen would comply with a ban or a buyback? Why would criminals give up a weapon that, when the law abiding citizens gives up theres, gives the criminals even more of advantage? You’re literally advocating for giving criminals more power.
The guy who shot up that fedex facility wasn’t a law abiding citizen. Had the people inside that facility been armed, the situation had a much better chance of turning out worse for him, than for them.
Sure. Laws don’t prevent crime. They only define it and provide consequences for convictions.
And if you think about it, the more laws you have, the more likely someone is to break them. It’s a game of odds, knowledge, and memory. The “odds” are you don’t “know” all the laws, nor have you committed them to “memory”.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
A single criminal code would seem to be in direct opposition to nearly any form of states rights.
Carl N. Brown
Member
FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
Homicides listed by weapons used.
In typical years of the last deade, 600 to 800 people killed by assailants using Personal Weapons, less than 300 murdered by assailants using rifles. Semiauto rifles with detachable magazines are a subset of rifles.
Forcing me to surrender my semiauto rifles or detachable magazines under threat of being declared an outlaw and have a missile dropped on me from a drone does not remove the greater threat of what FBI calls my "personal weapons" - hands, fists, feet, etc.
Statistically an unarmed assailant is more likely to kill you today than a person armed with a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. Multiple times more likely. The crime problem is not arms, it is violent people.
I need to prep for today's vintage and modern military match at the gun club. Taking as-issued M1 Carbine and Yugo M70AB2, oblivious to the danger imposed by all the other participants many who also have semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. There and back I'll also be surrounded by people armed with those evil unregulated Personal Weapons; I don't think a federal law would save me though.
Homicides listed by weapons used.
In typical years of the last deade, 600 to 800 people killed by assailants using Personal Weapons, less than 300 murdered by assailants using rifles. Semiauto rifles with detachable magazines are a subset of rifles.
Forcing me to surrender my semiauto rifles or detachable magazines under threat of being declared an outlaw and have a missile dropped on me from a drone does not remove the greater threat of what FBI calls my "personal weapons" - hands, fists, feet, etc.
Statistically an unarmed assailant is more likely to kill you today than a person armed with a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. Multiple times more likely. The crime problem is not arms, it is violent people.
I need to prep for today's vintage and modern military match at the gun club. Taking as-issued M1 Carbine and Yugo M70AB2, oblivious to the danger imposed by all the other participants many who also have semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines. There and back I'll also be surrounded by people armed with those evil unregulated Personal Weapons; I don't think a federal law would save me though.
Then we need to enact more laws until you’re sure it will. It’s the only way. Let’s start with making it illegal to assault you. That should completely prevent the attack, right?
- Status
