home

DOJ Report: Gun Murders Down 39% From 1993-2011

By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:17:21 PM EST
Tags: gun control (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Department of Justice's latest report on gun violence by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows a 39% drop in gun murders from 1993 to 2011. Non-fatal gun crimes are down 69%.

In 2011, homicides made up about 2% of all firearm-related crimes. During the same period, gun sales increased. Also, 60% of state inmates charged with gun crimes obtained their guns legally. Only 2% got their guns at a gun show:

60 percent of state prison inmates arrested for a gun-related crime obtained their guns legally: 37 percent from family or friends, 10 percent from a retail or pawn shop and just 2 percent from a gun show or flea market.

The full report is here.

< James Holmes Wants to Change Plea to Not Guilty (Insanity) | Colo. Passes Drugged Driving Bill >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    DOJ Report: Gun Murders Down 39% From 1993-2011 | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Is it not illegal for a felon to have (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue May 07, 2013 at 08:40:57 PM EST
    possession of a firearm?

    Yes, in the sense that it is prohibited (none / 0) (#2)
    by Peter G on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 for a person previously convicted of a felony to possess a firearm that has ever crossed a state line, or otherwise "in or affecting interstate commerce."  What Jeralyn was referring to was people imprisoned for committing an offense with a firearm.  No reason to assume that most of those folks had a prior felony conviction at the time of the present offense.

    Parent
    At least in CA, under state law, (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:36:04 PM EST
    It is a wobbler for a person who has previously been convicted of a felony to possess a firearm. Doesn't matter how the person in possession acquired the firearm.

    Parent
    a wobbler? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:43:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Could be charged as a felony or (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue May 07, 2013 at 09:58:46 PM EST
    a misdemeanor.   But I was wrong. Ex felon in possession is a straight felony. CA Penal Code Section 12021(1).

    Parent
    From the report: (none / 0) (#6)
    by Anne on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:57:08 AM EST
    For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002.

    Firearm violence accounted for about 70% of all homicides and less than 10% of all nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011.

    About 70% to 80% of firearm homicides and 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun from 1993 to 2011.

    In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.

    Bold is mine.

    Almost meaningless stat (none / 0) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:04:32 AM EST
    .

    In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident.

    This is almost meaningless because:

    1. There are folks that simply won't report using a firearm.

    2. It completely ignores situations that were on the way to violence but stopped short of that by a defensive firearm.

    3. It ignores both fatal and non-fatal violent crimes that were stopped by an armed non-victim.

    Once a that perp (OJ?) cut Goldman's and Brown's throats the use of a firearm would be too late.  So what?

    This is the problem: (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:54:32 AM EST
    One can cite data; opponents reject the data citing unsupported speculation.

    Parent
    There is no speculation at all (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    .

    The purpose of a defensive firearm is to avoid being a victim.  The quoted stat is completely useless in evaluating defensive gun use for that purpose, as it only deals with victims.

    .

    Parent

    No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:52:54 AM EST
    2)  It completely ignores situations that were on the way to violence but stopped short of that by a defensive firearm.

    Did you read the report?

    In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender (table 11). This amounted to approximately 1% of all nonfatal violent victimizations in the 5-year period.


    Parent
    Complete agreement. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:54:30 AM EST

    the victim used

    So if you were not a victim you are not counted.  That stat also shows that assailants prefer unarmed victims by about a 99 to 1 ratio.

    Parent

    You define victim (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    in a way that is apparently different than the report.

    In your view, you know that there are untold situations where a potential victim  brandishes a firearm and the assailant flees, and that this situastion is not counted.....

    You are just making up stuff.

    Parent

    "Victim" (none / 0) (#22)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    A "victim" would include virtually everyone justified in using a weapon to deter a crime, including those who were assaulted, robbed or merely threatened, etc.

    Parent
    Oy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:41:07 AM EST
    We have a ridiculous amount of firearms in this country, and an even more ridiculous amount of modified and automatic weapons, AND a completely corrupt federal government. That's not a good recipe. Just my humble and silly opinion. And the psycho-sexual nature of guns, sorry, this is never talked about or studied enough. And it's a huge monkey-wrench in the current situation America faces. That of a nation subconsciously addicted to its own demise. Every paradigm we subscribe to is a death wish, from the economy to energy to education to the environment to guns. Boom boom boom, we are dead. In the mind.

    This is what happens when a country sacrifices all national imagination on the alter of money.  

    Interesting take (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    .

    Gun murders down 39% while gun sales are booming.  It is nice documentation of "more guns, less crime."

    .

    Parent

    You seem to be skipping over the part (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    of the report that states:

    For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002.

    What's happened in the ten years from 2002 to 2012?

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and expired on September 13, 2004.

    Parent
    Might want to research that a liitle more. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:08:32 AM EST


    Parent
    Not so much (none / 0) (#17)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:25:49 AM EST
    The 10 States with the highest levels of gun violence?  Not those liberal states with strong gun laws:

    1.  Louisiana
    2.  Alaska
    3.  Alabama
    4.  Arizona
    5.  Mississippi
    6.  South Carolina
    7.  New Mexico
    8.  Missouri
    9.  Arkansas
    10.  Georgia

    The 10 states with the lowest levels of gun violence:

    1.  California
    2.  Nebraska
    3.  Maine
    4.  Minnesota
    5.  Rhode Island
    6.  Iowa
    7.  New York
    8.  New Jersey
    9.  Connecticut
    10.  Massachusetts
    11.  Hawaii

    More guns = more homicide

    Parent
    Your link (none / 0) (#19)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:22:47 PM EST
    Your link failed to define "gun violence."  Are you using stats that are driven in large part by suicide to make a claim about homicide?  

    How convenient they left DC off their ranking even though it has more population than some states.

    Parent

    Not "convenient" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:45:45 PM EST
    It's not a state.  Moreover, given that it's comprised entirely of a city, it's not comparable to actual states.

    But nice try at ignoring the other 50 states.

    BTW - If you click on the link at the very top of the page you can view the entire study.  It does include homicides and suicides, since both are gun violence (and deaths).  But if you want to claim the point isn't valid because it includes suicides, you'll still be very disappointed by the results (see page 17):

    Top 10 states by Firearms homicides (homicides per 100,000):

    1.  Louisiana - 9.53
    2.  Mississippi - 6.91
    3.  Alabama - 5.92
    4.  Missouri - 5.59
    5.  Maryland - 5.3
    6.  Delaware - 5.01
    7.  South Carolina - 4.95
    8.  Tennessee - 4.62
    9.  Georgia - 4.57
    10. Arkansas - 4.53


    Parent
    I know its not a state (none / 0) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    .

    Perhaps the point of limiting the comparison to states is that the DC will be left out, as it does not support the narrative.  

    With a 2012 murder rate of 14.6 it is certainly worth considering the tragic results of DC's gun control policies.  

    .

    Parent

    Apples and oranges (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    Cities versus states.  But then again, I understand why you'd prefer to ignore the studies showing how all those states with fewer gun laws have higher rates of gun violence and homicides, while trying to single out one city.  Not to mention switching arguments after the gun violence/suicide/homicide tack didn't work.

    With a 2012 murder rate of 14.6 it is certainly worth considering the tragic results of DC's gun control policies.

    Interesting theory.  Do you have any actual studies to back up that claim, or is it just a silly fairy tale?

    Parent

    Or The Correlation... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    ....assuming the murder rate is a result of the policy doesn't make it so.  The policies were enacted because of the high murder rate.  

    Their murder rate for 2012 is the lowest it's been in 50 years.  It would appear that the controls are working.

    Parent

    The Firearms murder rate has not gone (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:41:06 PM EST
    down since 2000. Per the chart 2000 had the lowest firearm murder rate. Each rate from 2001 through 2011 had a higher firearm murder rate than 2000. IOW the gun murder rate went up not down from 2001 through 2011 while gun sales are booming.

     

    Parent

    FBI stats (none / 0) (#25)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:18:36 PM EST

    This FBI stats page shows a drop in homicides every year from 2007 to 2011.  Where are your stats coming from?

    Parent
    The chart on Firearm homicides 1993-2011 (none / 0) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    (Bureau of Justice Statistics) from Jeralyn's linked article. Chart from article is here

    As you can see from the chart referenced above, the rates rose above the 2000 level from 2001 through 2007 with 2006 & 2007 having the highest rates during the period from 2000 to 2011. The rates dropped each year from 2008 to 2011 but never quite dropped down to the 2000 rate.


    Parent

    So, either Abdul doesn't know how to (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:29:48 PM EST
    read a chart, or he thinks the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out; some day, I may understand why people work that hard to maintain their ignorance, dodging the facts with great abandon, or why they think we can be persuaded by it, but today isn't that day.

    As satire, the ignorance shtick might make a great weekly SNL skit, but knowing that some people actually prefer to think this way is just sad.

    Parent

    Actually, Abdul read it 100% correctly. (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:46:23 PM EST
    Murder Victims

    by Weapon, 2007-2011

    Weapons 2007     2008     2009     2010     2011

    Total firearms: 10,129     9,528     9,199     8,874     8,583

    As you and I discussed earlier today, it's a "my link contradicts your link" conversation.

    Parent

    No, it's more like, "I'll cherry-pick the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    numbers that support my position, since using all the numbers won't work out quite like I want them to."

    This is nothing new with Abdul - I've seen him do this over and over and over on any number of subjects; it's gone beyond tiresome.

    Parent

    Despite all that, (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:48:55 PM EST
    isn't the data he found interesting? Especially in the face of "while gun sales are booming?" I know I was surprised to read it.

    Parent
    We have no idea what the effect will be (none / 0) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:54:41 PM EST
    of the current boom in gun sales; if, in 5 years, we see a dramatic spike in gun crime, gun deaths, etc., it will be too late to go back and do the sensible things that could have been done to prevent them.

    Parent
    Sounds like the proverbial (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    vicious cycle going on in the Guns 'n God states: more gun homicides = more fear and paranoia = more gun sales = more gun homicides..

    Parent
    OK, isn't it interesting that (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    gun permit applications, the best metric we have of actual guns sales according to this link, rose pretty dramatically from 2006-2013, yet according to the FBI data, gun homicides have decreased during that same time period?

    Parent
    And yet ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    ... the reduction in the number of firearms homicides is not due to fewer shootings.  While violent crime (including firearms homicides) was trending downward, the number of non-fatal gunshot wounds was increasing:

    2001 - 20,844 people
    2011 - 30,759 people

    In other words, more people in the U.S. are getting shot, but doctors have gotten better at patching them up. Improved medical care doesn't account for the entire decline in homicides but experts say it is a major factor.

    Emergency-room physicians who treat victims of gunshot and knife attacks say more people survive because of the spread of hospital trauma centers -- which specialize in treating severe injuries -- the increased use of helicopters to ferry patients, better training of first-responders and lessons gleaned from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.

    "Our experience is we are saving many more people we didn't save even 10 years ago," said C. William Schwab, director of the Firearm and Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania and the professor of surgery at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.



    Parent
    WSJ link - requires subscription (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:29:05 PM EST
    Article is titled, "In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence."

    Parent
    Very interesting. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    Odd the at the occurrence of non-fatal firearm crimes/victimizations steeply decreased during the same basic time period that your data shows that non-fatal gunshot wounds steeply increased.

    So, much fewer people are victimized by gun-wielding criminals these days despite there being many more guns, but the gun-wielding criminals that we do have are much more trigger happy than before so they shoot many more people than before, but doctoring is much better now so much fewer of these gunshot victims die...

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#53)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    Violent crime (including those committed with firearms) fell during this period.  The number of nonfatal gunshot wounds, OTOH rose sharply, while the number of homicides from those shootings dropped due to better medical treatment.

    but the gun-wielding criminals that we do have are much more trigger happy than before so they shoot many more people than before

    That part you just  made up, since there is absolutely no evidence that the number of "gun wielding criminals" remained the same but suddenly became "much more trigger happy".

    Parent

    Of course I just made it up. (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:27:53 PM EST
    I don't have access to your article.

    You tell me, according to your article are the non-fatal gunshot wounds up by the same amount the the gun homicides are down?

    Parent

    Don't blame it on the article (none / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:38:51 PM EST
    That's all your own fairy tale and has nothing to do with the article.  Don't be bashful - own it.

    You tell me, according to your article are the non-fatal gunshot wounds up by the same amount the the gun homicides are down?

    No idea - nor any idea of what relevance/point you're trying to make.  But as I pointed out above, non-fatal gunshot wounds increased by 9,915 over this period (2001-2011).  According to the report that is the subject of this post, there were 11,348 firearm homicides in 2001 and 11,101 in 2011 (Table 1 on page 2).  So the answer is "No" - non-fatal gunshot wounds increased significantly more (+9,915) than the decrease in firearms homicides (-247).

    Parent

    Right. There are fewer incidences (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:19:09 PM EST
    of gun crimes yet there are many more (~9700) people getting shot by gun criminals.

    Either the data is wacky or the gun criminals in 2011 are a lot more trigger happy than the ones in 2001.

    My bet is on wacky data.


    Parent

    There were fewer instances ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:16:19 AM EST
    ... of other crimes involving guns, not shootings.  Some crimes go up while others decrease.  Either the data has been magically altered or - for some reason - someone doesn't want to accept it.

    My bet is on the latter.

    Parent

    Now you're just making stuff up. (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:43:40 AM EST
    Probably you're one of the Americans described here:
    Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago.


    Parent
    Sorry, I have the data. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    Your specious theories are unconvincing.

    Parent
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:17:19 PM EST
    2007 was the high point in firearm murders during the period of 2000 - 2011. Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics chart, 2000 was a low point. You and Abdul are only confirming what the Bureau of Justice Statistics chart indicated - that the numbers decreased from that high point in 2007. The numbers you and Abdul are using do not prove that 2007 was lower than those in 2000 - 2005.

    If you want to use the Bureau of Justice's Statistics to claim that there was a 39% drop in gun murders from 1993 to 2011 and that non-fatal gun crimes were down 69%, you need to use the numbers they used to come up with those percentages.

    Parent

    I think the claim was: (none / 0) (#40)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    This FBI stats page shows a drop in homicides every year from 2007 to 2011.
    in response to:
    IOW the gun murder rate went up not down from 2001 through 2011 while gun sales are booming.


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    That wasn't the claim at all. You just chose not to include the information regarding 2000 that was in my original comment.

    The claim was that the number of firearm murders from 2001 through 2011 were higher than what the chart indicated for 2000 which was the low point on the chart for the period of 2000 - 2011. 2006 and 2007 were the high point of the chart between 2000 - 2011.  Once again, the thread was about Bureau of Justice's Statistics and not about FBI statistics.

    Parent

    Fair enough, his data set was not the exact (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    equivalent of the data set you were commenting on. And each side uses the data he/she finds that supports their position.

    However, like I asked Anne down thread, does it surprise you that the gun homicides decreased 2007-2011, especially in the face of what you called "booming" guns sales?

    It surprised me.

    Parent

    Once again the thread is discussing (none / 0) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    the Department of Justice's latest report on gun violence by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Didn't realize that Jeralyn was choosing sides when she chose to discuss a report based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics for a 20 year period rather than finding a report using FBI data looking at only a 4 year period.

    Abdul went out to pick cherries using limited data from another data source while I chose to discuss the data used as the basis for the report under discussion on the thread.

    From the report on gun violence by the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

    For both fatal and nonfatal firearm victimizations, the majority of the decline occurred during the 10-year period from 1993 to 2002. The number of firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006 and then declined through 2011. Nonfatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004 before fluctuating in the mid- to late 2000s.

    There is not a one on one correlation between the number of guns and the number of households who own gun since many gun owners buy numerous guns and many people have begun stockpiling guns.

    While gun sales have gone up during 2007 - 2011 the number of households who owned guns has remained much the same or has gone down slightly. Per Gallup approximately 43% of households owned guns in 2007, 44% in 2008, 43% in 2009, 42% in 2010 and 41% in 2011.

    Parent

    Crazy stuff, isn't it, when we learn more stuff (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:49:52 PM EST
    than simply what was in the article that the thread was started by.

    What interests me is why gun homicides decreased during the time "gun sales were booming" as that seems counter-intuitive. This is much more interesting to me than something obvious like gun homicides tracking gun sales.

    Clearly Yman found some relative info below, better doctoring is saving more gun shot victims, but there's no indication it explains the phenomena completely.

    Parent

    There's also "no indication" ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:10:19 AM EST
    Clearly Yman found some relative info below, better doctoring is saving more gun shot victims, but there's no indication it explains the phenomena completely.

    ... it doesn't, unless you want to reject it as an explanation for some other reason.

    Hmmmm ....

    Parent

    And of of course (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:27:07 AM EST
    ... it does, if you want it as an explanation for some other reason.

    Hmmmm ....

    Parent

    "Gun show" loophole ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:47:10 AM EST
    37 percent from family or friends, 10 percent from a retail or pawn shop and just 2 percent from a gun show or flea market.

    ... is a misnomer.  While "only" 2% of state inmates charged with gun crimes got their guns at a gun show, the "gun show" loophole applies to "private" transfers as well, which comprise around 40% of gun transfers.  There are numerous studies that state universal background checks reduce the number of guns diverted to the illegal market, where theses criminals get their guns.

    Effects of State-Level Firearm Seller Accountability Policies on Firearm Trafficking

    Reducing Gun Violence in America - Informing Policy and Evidence and Analysis

    This is very interesting from your link: (none / 0) (#26)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:38:50 PM EST
    A national study of gun trafficking investigations found that corrupt retail gun dealers accounted for more guns diverted into the illegal market than any other single trafficking channel.7 Although a very small proportion of gun dealers sell the majority of guns traced to crime,8 a national phone survey of retail gun dealers found that half of the gun dealers indicated a willingness to make a sale under circumstances of questionable legality.9 But when retail sellers of firearms become vulnerable to undercover stings by law enforcement, lawsuits by city officials for making illegal sales, or even bad publicity, the flow of new guns into the illicit market often decreases significantly.10,11
    I read that the gunshop that Lanza's mom bought guns from had several 100's of violations. Though I did not read that they were selling guns under questionable legality, they were extremely lax in keeping the required records, etc.

    Existing laws should be enforced.

    Parent

    They should be (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:49:13 PM EST
    ... and strengthened, so that Joe Six-pack can't go and sell his gun to a complete stranger without so much as a simple background check.

    Parent
    How would that be prevented? (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:54:22 PM EST
    I can see laws passed that would result in Joe 6 shouldn't do that, but what law would result in him unable to do it?

    Parent
    You (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    shouldn't murder people, but the law does not render you unable to do it.

    Parent
    My point exactly. (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:59:46 PM EST


    Parent
    So (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by jbindc on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:04:27 PM EST
    Should we get rid of laws against murder, since we can't possibly stop it in all cases?

    Parent
    Strengthening the laws, as Yman suggested, (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    would not give the result he indicated, ie., they would not make it so Joe 6 can't sell his firearm w/o a BG check.

    No more than strengthening the laws against murder will stop murder.

    Parent

    Try again (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    There isn't a single law that makes it impossible to do something ... Just more difficult or with a higher penalty for breaking the law.  That's how our entire system of laws functions.   Right now, it's legal in most states for Joe Sixpack to sell a gun to anyone without a background check.  It shouldn't be.

    Parent
    Not murder... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:53:03 PM EST
    but I got a list of at least 100 laws we could scrap.

    Parent
    Just in case my other reply ... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Yman on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    ... Wasn't clear enough, when I said the laws should be strengthened so that Joe Suspect can't sell guns to a stranger without so much as a background check, I meant he couldn't do it legally.  If you make something illegal, you won't make it impossible for someone to do it, but you well reduce the number of people willing to do it.

    All of which was obvious ...

    Parent

    DOJ Report: Gun Murders Down 39% From 1993-2011 | 63 comments (63 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment