Would a single Criminal Code reduce gun deaths?

rust collector · Apr 17, 2021

A single criminal code would not deter someone who violates multiple local and federal laws by intentionally hurting or killing fellow humans. It would do serious damage to our long standing constitutions and way of life. It would also eliminate the backstop that in many cases permits charging by another government when there has been a failure to convict under the primary laws. So no, the proposal would not help and there has been nothing other than reference to other cultures to suggest that it would. Such other cultures make a direct comparison untenable.

We expect laws to deter illegal behavior but in a large and seemingly growing sector of our society, they do not. There are many humans who seem unable to understand or willfully disregard cause and effect. They are apparently unable to control emotional reaction, and our current approach is to mainstream these individuals and pretend that everything will be OK. Shaming, segregation and restraint have been deemed inhumane so those tools are off the table, at a time when law enforcement is under attack and corrections are extremely under funded and were always questionable regarding rehabilitation. I agree that what we are doing is not doing an acceptable job of containing this violence. I disagree that it can be "controlled" by focusing on a specific instrumentality or restrictions that are not effective. Let's encourage useful and respectful dialog on what can be done to reduce violence against other humans, but not waste time on things like assault rifle bans that seem like they should work but have proven ineffective in earlier trials.

Waveski · Apr 17, 2021

A) Weakening States Sights and making individual States more subordinate to the Federal Government is a step in the wrong direction. That flies in the face of the basis of self rule as established by the Founders.
(That may sound idealistic at this point in history , but it is still true.)

B) Passing more laws that restrict the rights of law abiding citizens while continuing to be weak on prosecution of existing gun laws will do nothing other than - restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. That , I believe , is the intention of those who are pushing new gun laws.

Example : If I were required to surrender all high cap magazines - or better yet all semi-auto firearms - while my state of Wisconsin continues to plea bargain away the majority of charges of possession of a firearm by a felon in commission yet another crime , what effect would that have on reducing crime involving guns?

The answer is obvious , even to the OP.

webrx · Apr 17, 2021

If you want to reduce gun deaths you need to reduce, suicides by gun, and criminal activity (effectively eliminating 97% = 65+15+17)

quoting an old post

You can't push an anti 2A agenda or that strict gun laws work using real data, Chicago is a prime example of this,

Do their own research.
DON'T trust my research, don't trust the media, do your own research.

Quick Stats I have found from 2016 CDC and US Department of Justice Data:

~ 35k annual gun deaths in 2016
65% Suicide
15% law enforcement in the line of duty
17% criminal activity (gangs, drugs, initiations, etc)
3% accidental discharge

So 35k is actually more like ~6k actual "gun violence" (~17% of 35K)
(note 40,000+ died from a drug overdose that year, and 36k died from car accidents)

6k (17% of 6k):
701 Los Angeles (11.7%)
480 in Chicago (8%)
344 in Batimore (6%)
333 in Detroit (6%)
119 in Washington DC (2%)

About 1/3 = 33% of all gun violence happens in 5 major cities (not states) all of these cities are in states with very strict gun laws and is considered "criminal activity" not counting the other 15% that is line of duty which is also criminal activity being stopped by a cop (making the total deaths related to criminal activity 32%)

This basically leaves 4000 for the entire rest of the nation, ~80 deaths per state on average.
NOTE: That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California, a strict gun law state, had 1,169 deaths and Alabama had 1.

d

Pivot Dr · Apr 17, 2021

Viking357 said:
The problem is not the gun, but how society reacts to their problems. Passing more gun laws won't work, criminals don't follow the law anyway. I think education is the key. Teach gun safety in high schools. Teach family values. Teach respect.

Teaching gun safety is fine, but will have absolutely no effect on criminal use of firearms. Safety is not the issue.

gyp_c2 · Apr 17, 2021

The term that eludes those who seek it is called control...
It is an illusion.

FlippinHippie · Apr 17, 2021

BigBore44 said:
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.

I envision a plan where the buy back is optional. You're free to keep the weapons you have for home defense. But may God have mercy on your soul if you're caught off your property with a semi-auto. Everyone is already armed but I see very few instances where an armed citizen actually fights back. I for one am not going to play the hero by going up against a nut with an assault rifle while armed with a 9mm. I'll be running the other way IF possible. Just like everyone else.

George Dickel · Apr 17, 2021

FlippinHippie said:
I envision a plan where the buy back is optional. You're free to keep the weapons you have for home defense. But may God have mercy on your soul if you're caught off your property with a semi-auto. Everyone is already armed but I see very few instances where an armed citizen actually fights back. I for one am not going to play the hero by going up against a nut with an assault rifle while armed with a 9mm. I'll be running the other way IF possible. Just like everyone else.

The NRA magazine American Rifleman has a section called the Armed Citizen that cites different newspaper reports on armed citizens protecting themselves and others. Self defense by armed citizens happens all the time, the national media chooses to ignore these incidents because it contradicts their anti-gun propaganda. Have you done any research on the number of incidents involving an "assault rifle"? It represents a very small percentage of of firearm deaths with handguns being the major weapon used in homicides. There are far more deaths caused by bludgeons than rifles of all kinds, not just "assault rifles".
Some years back in Maryland if memory is correct, the local government and anti-gun activists staged a media dog and pony show highlighting the death machine, the AK, and all the carnage it caused. They asked the police for the loan of an AK used in a shooting, guess what? The police didn't have one, there weren't any AK rifles used in a shooting.
Do you still have your scoped hunting rifle that is also a sniper rifle?

BigBore44 · Apr 17, 2021

FlippinHippie said:
I for one am not going to play the hero by going up against a nut with an assault rifle while armed with a 9mm.

And that would be your choice. Others might be willing to engage him with their 9mm. And that engagement would allow you a greater chance of survival. Except you just limited them to 5-6 rounds instead of possibly 18. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you can engage a threat for a longer period of time, and have a higher percentage chance of a hit with 18 rounds as opposed to 6 right? I mean, it’s basic statistics. The nut with the “assault rifle” isn’t abiding by the law. And he certainly has more than 5-6 rounds. So why limit the law abiding who would actually defend themselves and you? The nut obviously isn’t playing fair. And you wish to make it even more lopsided.

BTW, who stopped the fedex shooter? Who slowed him down. No one. Because no one was even allowed to carry a firearm there.

Kleanbore · Apr 17, 2021

One more time: the question was about the idea of eliminating differences among criminal codes, and not about whether the code should allow possessing a semi-auto beyond one's property line.

Let's stay on topic.

bdickens · Apr 17, 2021

FlippinHippie said:
I envision a plan where the buy back is optional. You're free to keep the weapons you have for home defense. But may God have mercy on your soul if you're caught off your property with a semi-auto. Everyone is already armed but I see very few instances where an armed citizen actually fights back. I for one am not going to play the hero by going up against a nut with an assault rifle while armed with a 9mm. I'll be running the other way IF possible. Just like everyone else.

Once again, you totally misunderstand reality and are oblivious to the facts of violence.

Kleanbore · Apr 17, 2021

Enough

Would a single Criminal Code reduce gun deaths?

rust collector

Moderator

Waveski

Member

webrx

Member

Pivot Dr

Member

gyp_c2

Member

FlippinHippie

Member

George Dickel

Member

BigBore44

Member

Kleanbore

Moderator

bdickens

Member

Kleanbore

Moderator

Similar threads