Posted on 02/16/2008 6:55:11 PM PST by em2vn
The world abounds in instruments with which people can kill each other. Is the widespread availability of one of these instruments, firearms, a crucial determinant of the incidence of murder? Or do patterns of murder and/or violent crime reflect basic socio-economic and/or cultural factors to which the mere availability of one particular form of weaponry is irrelevant?
This article examines a broad range of international data that bear on two distinct but interrelated questions: first, whether widespread firearm access is an important contributing factor in murder and/or suicide, and second, whether the introduction of laws that restrict general access to firearms has been successful in reducing violent crime, homicide or suicide. Our conclusion from the available data is that suicide, murder and violent crime rates are determined by basic social, economic and/or cultural factors with the availability of any particular one of the world’s myriad deadly instrument being irrelevant
(Excerpt) Read more at law.bepress.com ...
Increases it, and I have yet to see a gun jump and kill someone .....
If a person really wanted kill themseleves or others, there are ways...
Japan has a higher per capita rate of suicide than the US does. Japan has essentially no personally owned firearms. Half of all US suicides are effected with guns. Half of all firearms related deaths in the US are suicides. If firearms were to magically disappear from the US, those who want to kill themselves would simply find other means to do so.
Let’s just make a law against murder and suicide. Oh wait, that’s been done.
Bump
It certainly doesn’t reduce government sponsored murder.
First of all, the language used in treatises on guns should be clear. Banning firearms is a phrase that has dubious meaning. It does not mean “banning firearms,” it mean “attempting to ban firearms.”
Yet, other than guns what is a common element in these shootings? Ans: Prescription drugs.
Absolutely, someone taking mind-altering drugs should not be able to legally buy guns. As for illegally buying guns.. well that's why they call them criminals.
What aspect of prescription drugs and guns is not common?
Advertising.
Thus rare mention of the advertisers' products.
Thus once again I must say, most employees of the MSM are skid marks on journalism's shorts.
Terrific paper. Thank you for posting it.
Thus rare mention of the advertisers' products.
Just wait for the brave pharmaceutical to give the warning:
Those taking _____ should not operate motor vehicles, machinary, or own guns.
Well, the next logical step is warning labels on guns.
And other warning labels that tell people it is a crime to remove warning labels.
I once had a bumper sticker; “If they outlaw guns, can we use swords?” (Member of SCA back then).
England banned guns. Now, with some high profile murders with swords, they are thinking of banning swords ... and long knives, and bats ...
why not just ban murderers and dispose of them? It would be easier.
Ping for later.
“——it means attempting to ban firearms—”
wrong-—it means banning law abiding citizens firearms while criminals and govenment keep theirs-
BTTT!
Some years back I read a report that when Canada (or some Canadian city) banned handguns in an attempt to lower handgun suicides, the rate actually fell.
However, the rate of suicide by bridge-jumping went up, so that the overall suicide rate stayed the same.
You broke the liberal code---now you'll have to be terminated.
Good post, saving, Thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.