Guns cause crime huh?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by pro2A, Apr 14, 2007.

  1. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Then matches cause arson. If gun control worked then Washington DC and Chicago would be the safest cities in the United States.

    :no: But they're not. Why you might ask? I thought no guns means no crime. Violent criminals don't care about gun bans. Do you think the man in the recent shooting in Michigan really cared if he carried a shotgun on to the premises? Probably not. But I thought there was a gun ban. Do you really think a man who has murder on his mind cares about a little wimpy sign saying "NO GUNS"? No... it just gives him the green light to shoot the place up. The only people abiding by these laws are the same ones who wont shoot a place up... so it's pointless to have gun bans. Hince why DC and Chicago have higher crime rates.

    This link and soundbyte makes my point.

  2. Malificus

    Malificus Likes snow

    Violent Criminals don't care about gun control, but it does help keep guns out of the hands of people with spontaneous fits of anger like road rage. So, yeah, sure, a criminal who puts his mind to it could get a gun, but a normal person who's just really worked up wouldn't be able to shoot someone. :/
  3. Corona

    Corona Registered Member

    No gun's don't cause crime, but that's oversimplifying. Easy access to guns make crime more prolific.
  4. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    On a tangent, why do gun enthusiasts say they are "pro-2nd amendment" and think it's that simple? If they were, they wouldn't have guns. The National Guard would, and private citizens wouldn't.

    Guns can't cause crimes because they are inanimate objects. However, I would be more inclined to commit crimes if I had a firearm.
  5. CamelPepper

    CamelPepper Registered Member

    I've always found this interesting while reading about the second amendment.

    "To keep and bear arms"

    Relative to the "bear arms" meanings, an extensive study found " ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".
    The United States Declaration of Independence uses the expression "bear arms" in the sense of military duty on a ship.
    He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country.
    In Amyette v. State the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in 1840 that the term "bear arms" "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

    In a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, and well known gun rights proponent, states
    They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.
    "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."
    For a more recent judicial interpretation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that
    there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" [or "citizen" or "citizens"] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.

    What is your stance?
  6. blenderboy55

    blenderboy55 Guest

    Not really. Anyone who wants to can easily get a gun, bans or no bans

    Actually, easier access makes gun violence decrease. In most of Florida, all civilians are allowed to carry handguns.

    If you're a criminal, would you attack in Florida, where most people could have guns, or a place like DC, where there is strict control?
  7. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Amen brother :thumbup:
  8. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I tend to be against people having guns period, but that's just because I have very little faith in people. I just don't see the point in having more than a shotgun or pistol for home defense. I also don't see the point of owning anything heavier just because, why not just make them legal at shooting ranges where most people use them anyways?

    I just don't like guns in general because people are panicky, stupid, and while there are a fair amount of decent people that know how to handle guns, it's just scary to me. I would agree with the idea that more guns may reduce crime rates, but I think we need more justification to allow people more guns.
  9. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    Personally, I think that if guns are going to be available to the public, then there shouldn't restrictions so much on type (The average citizen doesn't need a flamethrower) but on who should get them. The background checks should be a lot more rigourous and better/manditory safety and usage training for new owners. And crimes committed with guns would automaticlly add time to a sentence (similar to a hate crime). I know that won't help much since the crime's already committed, but...
  10. ChinUp

    ChinUp ¤ Breathe

    the second supports local independent well regulated militia not the gun producers .. anyone found in the possession of a firearm who doesn't have a very high degree of training in firearm use needs to be disarmed & banned from ever buying another .. ownership of firearms is as dangerous as ownership of explosives .. only people who are officially trained & overseen should be in possession of them .. the militia is a public service .. not a way for private individuals to play king of the mountain with a gun ..

    having a standing army & a militia is a contradiction in terms .. in truth the second needed to be amended as as soon as the usa decided to have a standing army ..

Share This Page