This is the old MovableType blog. To enter the new blog visit the home page.

January 10, 2006

Nifty > Word of the Day: Deodand

From Wikipedia:

Deodand is a term used to describe an object or instrument that had caused a person's death. In medieval Europe it became forfeit to the crown or the church. The word comes from the Latin Deo dandum which means to be given to God.

The practice of deodand was abolished in 1846 in England, some U.S. State constitutions ban deodands, frequently in the same article that bans corruption of blood.

This ancient word has gotten some interest because of this NY Times story about a Maine law that requires guns used in homicides to be destroyed once they're no longer required for evidence.

Given the tight budgets at most police departments I think they should be able to sell their retired guns and guns confiscated in crimes. I think that because I don't believe that guns are possessed or cause their owers to commit crimes. Like Ted Nugent says, if guns cause crime all of mine are defective.

However, I actually agree with the Maine law, and not because of some Medieval superstition about a weapon possessed of evil. If one of my family members was killed with a criminal's weapon, I wouldn't want it going back into circulation. So destroy the murder weapons out of respect for the family, but sell other guns to law-abiding citizens. The loss in income to police is tiny, and you've given a measure of respect for the deceased and their family.

Posted by lesjones | TrackBack



Comments

Or what about distrubing the guns internally within the department, if needed. Maybe for undercover operations and the like or cheap low cost back up guns. I bet they come across some very good solid guns everyonce and a while.

If the gun is not used internally, then scrap it.

Posted by: cube at January 10, 2006

A "good" shooting by a homeowner IS homicide even if modified by calling it "justified". So let's at least reserve the destruction of other people's property to cases of murder.

Posted by: Marc at January 14, 2006

Marc, I would only support this for destroying criminal's guns. There's no reason an honest person should lose their gun because they lawfully defended themselves.

Posted by: Les Jones at January 14, 2006

Comments on the old blog are closed.


Terms of Use