The 2nd Amendment and criminals.

Yossarian

Forum Resistance Leader
This topic has been brought up a thousand if not more times , let alone dozens on this forum alone.

But I am asking for another perspective on the problem of gun control and regulation.

I am looking for those on this forum with experience in law enforcement on the question of how many gun crimes or crimes involving firearms are from legal qualified gun owners with registered firearms.

With the trade in Arizona still very much fresh in our minds, this topic is bound make more than one appearance in the mainstream media. But from what I can tell is that the maniac who went loose that day in Tuscon used a legal and had legal ownership of the weapon.

The reason I ask for law enforcement stats is because one main agreement against ( least for me) for gun restrictions or banning laws is because that a MAJORITY, is not a vast majority of gun related crimes, and crimes involving firearms are via people who do not have legally owned firearms,or are qualified to own them.

I really do not think banning firearms to the public, will stop strategies like Tuscon, Virginia Tech, even older cases like the Texas Campus Shooter, banning them would have in theory have little effect on such occurrences.

For instance, theft is illegal, but yet people still walk out of department stores with merchandise in their pockets, and even rob convenient stores.

Murder is illegal, yet people kill each other in cities and even rural areas around the country every day.

My point being that any statistics on gun crime, and relation to gun criminals who have legal gun ownership to those who do not and any conclusion that we here at the forums can come to on how to look at the matter.

The question being, does gun crimes generally involve illegal firearms? And if so, how would regulating the legal law abiding gun owners help prevent that?Or even lower gun related crime? And would it help prevent tragedies like in Tuscon?

Any and ALL thoughts on the subject are very much welcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WELLLLLcommmmMMMMe to PLANET EARTH, Brotheeeer Yossarian!
People are people no matter where you go. Good and bad, pretty and ugly.


Regulating firearms will not succeed in anything beneficial to the people.
 
Last edited:
Thats my freakin point exactly, just seems all the hippies won't pick up on that crap, and I would love to see any attempt to round up our country's legal gun owner's firearms and toss em into the compactor.

Allot of our media gurus don't seem to think very clearly allot of the time.

I just played middle man on the original post here so it would not offend anyone, for all I know some one still may have a strong counterpoint to my opinion, which by all means, is still weclome for debate.


Also why I asked for solid information on the matter, to better seal the case.
(Not OUR media gurus, on the forums that is)
 
You can bet I am looking into that, numbers are without opinion thankfully.
The numbers might not be... but the explanation given to these numbers are often twice as tainted.

I don't have any numbers either on legal or illegal gun ownership and crime. All I do know is that European countries with gun regulations have a lot less gun related killings. Even Joe Sixpack might one day lose his cool and stroll of with his Smith&Wesson.
 
Guns in the US are not the problem, it's a poor "cultural attitude" towards firearms and their place in society.
 
Guns in the US are not the problem, it's a poor "cultural attitude" towards firearms and their place in society.
Think it's more of the revolving door justice system(in many places) & the odds of a murderer being executed is less than 1%.
 
According to statistics from the Danish police in 2010, 47 murders was committed. 13 were committed with firearms. Legal firearms were used in 11 of the killings. Even if one takes into account the small population of Denmark the percentage is much lower than the over 10,000 who annually gets shot in the U.S.

"It costs roughly $ 100 billion per year to treat victims of firearms-related crime in the U.S.. For each injured individual - and those there were 87,358 last year - we pay $ 3,000, "according to Jens Ludwig University of Chicago in his much quoted book 'Gun Crime: The Real Cost. "

In the U.S.each citizen owns an average of 2.8 firearms. This means that there are almost half a billion guns in America.

The U.S. Constitution's saying that "Every Man har right two carry a gun" – is found nowhere else in the world. But there are also no other countries were so many murders are committed as in the U.S.
 
Well, this is not self confidence, self empowerment, or bragging here, but it's absolutley true, least for myself. (self indulging comment I am aware)

But I grew up looking at firearms as appliances, yes they could kill people if employed that way, but so could power tools and farm equipment, as well as motor vehicles.

I saw, and still see firearms at home as nothing more than a coffee maker or toaster. Weclome to America I guess, I know many people who are the same way, and I do know way more people who own at least one firearm than people who do not own any.:neutral:

(NOTE: This does not mean I do not practice gun saftey, all weapons I handle as if loaded and never point the muzzle at anything I do not intend to shoot, weapons and ammunition are stored seperatly at all times unless right before firing and unused cartriges are emptied from the weapon immediatly after use.)

Saftey measures in mind, hence now it's a appliance.
 
This topic has been brought up a thousand if not more times , let alone dozens on this forum alone.

But I am asking for another perspective on the problem of gun control and regulation.

I am looking for those on this forum with experience in law enforcement on the question of how many gun crimes or crimes involving firearms are from legal qualified gun owners with registered firearms.

With the trade in Arizona still very much fresh in our minds, this topic is bound make more than one appearance in the mainstream media. But from what I can tell is that the maniac who went loose that day in Tuscon used a legal and had legal ownership of the weapon.

The reason I ask for law enforcement stats is because one main agreement against ( least for me) for gun restrictions or banning laws is because that a MAJORITY, is not a vast majority of gun related crimes, and crimes involving firearms are via people who do not have legally owned firearms,or are qualified to own them.

I really do not think banning firearms to the public, will stop strategies like Tuscon, Virginia Tech, even older cases like the Texas Campus Shooter, banning them would have in theory have little effect on such occurrences.

For instance, theft is illegal, but yet people still walk out of department stores with merchandise in their pockets, and even rob convenient stores.

Murder is illegal, yet people kill each other in cities and even rural areas around the country every day.

My point being that any statistics on gun crime, and relation to gun criminals who have legal gun ownership to those who do not and any conclusion that we here at the forums can come to on how to look at the matter.

The question being, does gun crimes generally involve illegal firearms? And if so, how would regulating the legal law abiding gun owners help prevent that?Or even lower gun related crime? And would it help prevent tragedies like in Tuscon?

Any and ALL thoughts on the subject are very much welcome.

Last week our neighborhood made the news, a guy broke into his ex wife's apartment and shot her dead. It was his gun,a registered pistol he'd had several years.

One could ponder... how does a gun come to be unregistered and illegal? They don't start out that way usually. i don't know about out here, but around L.A. gangs actually looked to rob guys who were known to be gun collectors. Stealing a dozen weapons is worth more to a street gang than robbing a convenience store.

In many cases, someone just sells a legal gun to whoever has the cash...what happens next...he doesn't much care. a lot of guns get transfered much like you might sell a used sofa.

I don't have a handgun. If I do decide to get one...I don't have any issues with registering or a waiting period. It's not like I have someone I'm in a hurry to shoot. Besides..a rifle is more accurate.
 
Last edited:
Last week our neighborhood made the news, a guy broke into his ex wife's apartment and shot her dead. It was his gun,a registered pistol he'd had several years.

One could ponder... how does a gun come to be unregistered and illegal? They don't start out that way usually. i don't know about out here, but around L.A. gangs actually looked to rob guys who were known to be gun collectors. Stealing a dozen weapons is worth more to a street gang than robbing a convenience store.

In many cases, someone just sells a legal gun to whoever has the cash...what happens next...he doesn't much care. a lot of guns get transfered much like you might sell a used sofa.

I don't have a handgun. If I do decide to get one...I don't have any issues with registering or a waiting period. It's not like I have someone I'm in a hurry to shoot. Besides..a rifle is more accurate.
There's no Law, nationaly @ least, that guns have to be sold to dealers, that's a good thing. Dealers are the only ones who can run background checks. An individual selling a handgun is required to check to see if the buyer is a resident of the State the sale is in, if buyer isn't a citizen, the seller could be charged. Hand gun sales is the only time that you are a citizen of a State & being a US citizen is meaningless. Guns become unregistered if buyer doesn't register them or they are stolen from owner. Registration can provide a possible suspect, case still has to be solved by investigation. Registration gives The State opportunity to confinscate legally owned guns. There are probably plenty of ways that you might become aware of a need to have a gun in less than the waiting period, , i imagine it would suck to sit there hoping you survive the waiting period(if person to person sales wern't possible).
 
Okay, the arguement for keeping guns is the fact that most gun-related crimes is commited with illegally obtained guns?

Please don't tell me that is your whole arguement, cause any lawyer can chew that up right there.

The fact is, the regulations of guns is actually more difficult to control because of the 2nd amendment. A good deal of legally obtained guns become "lost" or sold (as the above guy said) therefore a good deal of guns are circulating just like our currency. It is difficult to regulate illegal traffic of guns when its on this type of scale. I think US, can do without the 2nd amendment. Sure, the only guys that will then have a gun will always be illegally obtained and a person can't defend themselves with more confidence, but think of all the lives that is being taken away BECAUSE of this law.

Banning guns will dramatically decrease gun crime. I think I would rather have few people die and ban guns than have many people die because people don't want to let go of personal possessions or "rights". The only problem is that SOO many guns are already in U.S thanks to the 2nd amendment in play for 200 years, it will be hard to track and confiscate them.

The fact that there are already so many guns in U.S it would take years and the government to be more tight on border control for them to control it effectively. I am pretty sure many politicians and economist already know that this will be straining.

To be honest, that amendment should me withdrawn, it was flawed once modernized weapons came to be (accurate auto-firing guns). That law was to protect the citizens so they can overthrow the government if it defied the will of the people. That is almost impossible in today's USA.

It is not the fact that people are "hippy" as you said in one of your post. It is the fact that those people know that the state of gun control right now is too heavy a price on human lives.

Tell me why we have more people incarcerated than China when they have 1.2-1.4 billion people? Don't seem right to me lol, even if our judiciary system is the best in the world and have on average the highest sentences given to law offenders.


We basically = an undeveloped country when it comes to our gun crimes....
 
Okay, the arguement for keeping guns is the fact that most gun-related crimes is commited with illegally obtained guns?

Please don't tell me that is your whole arguement, cause any lawyer can chew that up right there.

The fact is, the regulations of guns is actually more difficult to control because of the 2nd amendment. A good deal of legally obtained guns become "lost" or sold (as the above guy said) therefore a good deal of guns are circulating just like our currency. It is difficult to regulate illegal traffic of guns when its on this type of scale. I think US, can do without the 2nd amendment. Sure, the only guys that will then have a gun will always be illegally obtained and a person can't defend themselves with more confidence, but think of all the lives that is being taken away BECAUSE of this law.

Banning guns will dramatically decrease gun crime. I think I would rather have few people die and ban guns than have many people die because people don't want to let go of personal possessions or "rights". The only problem is that SOO many guns are already in U.S thanks to the 2nd amendment in play for 200 years, it will be hard to track and confiscate them.

The fact that there are already so many guns in U.S it would take years and the government to be more tight on border control for them to control it effectively. I am pretty sure many politicians and economist already know that this will be straining.

To be honest, that amendment should me withdrawn, it was flawed once modernized weapons came to be (accurate auto-firing guns). That law was to protect the citizens so they can overthrow the government if it defied the will of the people. That is almost impossible in today's USA.

It is not the fact that people are "hippy" as you said in one of your post. It is the fact that those people know that the state of gun control right now is too heavy a price on human lives.

Tell me why we have more people incarcerated than China when they have 1.2-1.4 billion people? Don't seem right to me lol, even if our judiciary system is the best in the world and have on average the highest sentences given to law offenders.


We basically = an undeveloped country when it comes to our gun crimes....
I don't agree that the "main point" on keeping guns is the # of illegally held ones are used in crimes. We have a Right to Life, that includes the individual responsibilty of self defence. Police exist to protect the "masses", no one specific individual. If you call the police & they don't show up niether you or your Estate can sue them, the Courts have ruled on this a # of times. If Gun Control reduced crime, N.Y.C. & Washington D.C. would have the lowest crime & Fla., S.C. et al would have the highest. Just doesn't work that way. Guns are a deterent to crime & Controls are OSHA for criminals. The State Line runs through Bristol Tn/Va. Lets move Bristol to the Vt/Ma border. Ma has strong(ridiculose) gun Laws, Vt is quite loose with thiers. If you were a criminal, would you break into houses on the Ma. ot Vt side of the Line?
 
Banning firearms completely may have another adverse effect on our country's already strained budget, look at the war on drugs, effective on hard drugs yes. But after years and millions upon millions spent, today lesser drugs, (even though still categorized as a class A substance) such as Marijuana are this country's BIGGEST cash crop, that beats all legal cash crops mind you.

Banning firearms from a economic stand point would mean more money spent on another war to rid our country of something, more and more money, and look, around 2.8 firearms per household in many places in our country right?

If pot has proven such a expensive in devour (I am not pro legal by the way) to control, firearms have it beat extensively in how many people have access to them. And you can't give a test to figure out if someone has used a firearm in the last 30 days either.

Besides I honestly do not feel that banning firearms will effect crime, sure may be less gun crime, but let's face it, the U.S. is not Europe or another smaller developed nation, More people, from many many more backgrounds, and a whole spectrum of living conditions, crime will happen, without guns or not, I hate to see the nature of homicide then, but if people want it, let it be pot, guns, with or without either to steal or kill. They will do it.

I do not like that those facts, really it brings society down a small bit every time. But even automobiles under intoxicated drivers killed around 11,773 people in 2008,and thats down from 13,041 in 2007 and still a far cry from 1988's fatalities, also the automobile alone killed close to 37,261. Is alcohol deadly? Yes in the wrong situations and to unborne children, Has the government regulated it like guns? Yes, yet undesirables such as minors still drink excessively.

Least firearms have a safety switch...

Heres the kicker: has the government outlawed alchohol before? Yes, and what happened there?

That Amendment was repealed, proved to expensive and not really effective, the people wanted it, and they got it.

Besides, how would the public view our large expansive arms industry if the 2nd Amendment and what it entails is no longer in effect?

Listen I do value and continue to ask for every counterpoint, so if anyone disagrees please post it up an let me know what you think.
 
Last edited:
Banning firearms completely may have another adverse effect on our country's already strained budget, look at the war on drugs, effective on hard drugs yes. But after years and millions upon millions spent, today lesser drugs, (even though still categorized as a class A substance) such as Marijuana are this country's BIGGEST cash crop, that beats all legal cash crops mind you.

Banning firearms from a economic stand point would mean more money spent on another war to rid our country of something, more and more money, and look, around 2.8 firearms per household in many places in our country right?

If pot has proven such a expensive in devour (I am not pro legal by the way) to control, firearms have it beat extensively in how many people have access to them. And you can't give a test to figure out if someone has used a firearm in the last 30 days either.

Besides I honestly do not feel that banning firearms will effect crime, sure may be less gun crime, but let's face it, the U.S. is not Europe or another smaller developed nation, More people, from many many more backgrounds, and a whole spectrum of living conditions, crime will happen, without guns or not, I hate to see the nature of homicide then, but if people want it, let it be pot, guns, with or without either to steal or kill. They will do it.

I do not like that those facts, really it brings society down a small bit every time. But even automobiles under intoxicated drivers killed around 11,773 people in 2008,and thats down from 13,041 in 2007 and still a far cry from 1988's fatalities, also the automobile alone killed close to 37,261. Is alcohol deadly? Yes in the wrong situations and to unborne children, Has the government regulated it like guns? Yes, yet undesirables such as minors still drink excessively.

Least firearms have a safety switch...

Heres the kicker: has the government outlawed alchohol before? Yes, and what happened there?

That Amendment was repealed, proved to expensive and not really effective, the people wanted it, and they got it.

Besides, how would the public view our large expansive arms industry if the 2nd Amendment and what it entails is no longer in effect?

Listen I do value and continue to ask for every counterpoint, so if anyone disagrees please post it up an let me know what you think.


I disagree with almost everything you said except the part about it being a strain on the government to control at this moment.

While you guys are correct, that this isn't Europe and is more multi-cultured, it is still no excuse for our high-level crime rates in comparison to larger (China) or almost same countries (politically and economically).

We have 2.03 MILLION people incarcerated (1 million more than China with them having 1.4 billion people! They have 4x them population of U.S yet we have 2x prison population).... Search up the strain on tax payers to keep these guys resided in these areas (state and federally).

In V.A it cost $300 every inmate per month or day I forgot, but thats still alot.

You are correct that deciding to ban and control guns out of nowhere would be a hard task, but that is because of the 200 years of weapon rotating around the country like U.S paper dollars. If this wasn't allowed from the very beginning (or at least changed somewhere after WW1), then that would not be so.

The thing I find most silly in your topic is your comparison of gun control to alcohol and drug control. Marijuana and alcohol are completely different than the designing and construction of a gun. The two former items can be grown/made by any person who knows how to farm correctly. Marijuana is a plant that can grow in a great variety of places, it isn't a plant that is hard to get to mature.

The drug control is a major problem mainly due to border control being ill-handled by the federal government.

Guns are more sophisticated to make, I am not saying there won't be any illegal trafficking of guns, I am saying that there will be fewer in circulation around the country. Of course there will be some people who will make, sell, and/or import guns illegally in U.S still. The thing, is now it can be more controlled.

One do not need a gun to defend themselves if they know how to use their bodies (unless the attacker has the gun). The right to defend themselves is definately true, but if less guns were available to criminals or future criminals, then by logic the crime rates involving guns should decrease as well.

People must know that they have a "right" to do and have anything they want, but just because one have the "right" it mean they really need it or to do it?

"Rights" is too overused in U.S. People must know that there are limitations to freedom. One who is too free, becomes ignorant of true freedom and abuse the freedom they already have. That is the problem with U.S today imo.
 
I disagree with almost everything you said except the part about it being a strain on the government to control at this moment.

While you guys are correct, that this isn't Europe and is more multi-cultured, it is still no excuse for our high-level crime rates in comparison to larger (China) or almost same countries (politically and economically).

We have 2.03 MILLION people incarcerated (1 million more than China with them having 1.4 billion people! They have 4x them population of U.S yet we have 2x prison population).... Search up the strain on tax payers to keep these guys resided in these areas (state and federally).

In V.A it cost $300 every inmate per month or day I forgot, but thats still alot.

You are correct that deciding to ban and control guns out of nowhere would be a hard task, but that is because of the 200 years of weapon rotating around the country like U.S paper dollars. If this wasn't allowed from the very beginning (or at least changed somewhere after WW1), then that would not be so.

The thing I find most silly in your topic is your comparison of gun control to alcohol and drug control. Marijuana and alcohol are completely different than the designing and construction of a gun. The two former items can be grown/made by any person who knows how to farm correctly. Marijuana is a plant that can grow in a great variety of places, it isn't a plant that is hard to get to mature.

The drug control is a major problem mainly due to border control being ill-handled by the federal government.

Guns are more sophisticated to make, I am not saying there won't be any illegal trafficking of guns, I am saying that there will be fewer in circulation around the country. Of course there will be some people who will make, sell, and/or import guns illegally in U.S still. The thing, is now it can be more controlled.

One do not need a gun to defend themselves if they know how to use their bodies (unless the attacker has the gun). The right to defend themselves is definately true, but if less guns were available to criminals or future criminals, then by logic the crime rates involving guns should decrease as well.

People must know that they have a "right" to do and have anything they want, but just because one have the "right" it mean they really need it or to do it?

"Rights" is too overused in U.S. People must know that there are limitations to freedom. One who is too free, becomes ignorant of true freedom and abuse the freedom they already have. That is the problem with U.S today imo.

China has a different approach to criminal incarceration than the U.S. does, also as for guns being hard to make, let me produce two counter points.

*We live in the biggest arsenal on the planet, and biggest dealer, who is by the way on the permenant UN World Security counsel. We make it all,especially guns and ammuntion, all kinds sizes and calibers.

*Also making firearms are not that incredibly difficult, CHILDEREN in Pakistani gun sweat shops are hand building firearms, shotguns assualt weapons also handguns any thing they can get their hands on.

I do not think with our country's detiorating budget we would ever be able to carry out an effect gun ban, let alone get through red tape to properly enforce it.

But guns, they are imbedded in our nature, we can not serperate that from Americans quickly let alone easily.

Like I said, I look for counterpoints, long story short debate like this is good, and it's through debate like this you can learn to find solutions to problems, or at least walk away from the stand with alittle something new fresh in mind.

I believe that up ending the 2nd Amedment would void belief in the Bill of Rights for many Americans. I am a firm believer and supporter in the U.S. Constitution, and rewriting ink work is something that should be thought about very seriously.

thanks, Yo
 
Last edited:
I disagree with almost everything you said except the part about it being a strain on the government to control at this moment.

While you guys are correct, that this isn't Europe and is more multi-cultured, it is still no excuse for our high-level crime rates in comparison to larger (China) or almost same countries (politically and economically).

We have 2.03 MILLION people incarcerated (1 million more than China with them having 1.4 billion people! They have 4x them population of U.S yet we have 2x prison population).... Search up the strain on tax payers to keep these guys resided in these areas (state and federally).

In V.A it cost $300 every inmate per month or day I forgot, but thats still alot.

You are correct that deciding to ban and control guns out of nowhere would be a hard task, but that is because of the 200 years of weapon rotating around the country like U.S paper dollars. If this wasn't allowed from the very beginning (or at least changed somewhere after WW1), then that would not be so.

The thing I find most silly in your topic is your comparison of gun control to alcohol and drug control. Marijuana and alcohol are completely different than the designing and construction of a gun. The two former items can be grown/made by any person who knows how to farm correctly. Marijuana is a plant that can grow in a great variety of places, it isn't a plant that is hard to get to mature.

The drug control is a major problem mainly due to border control being ill-handled by the federal government.

Guns are more sophisticated to make, I am not saying there won't be any illegal trafficking of guns, I am saying that there will be fewer in circulation around the country. Of course there will be some people who will make, sell, and/or import guns illegally in U.S still. The thing, is now it can be more controlled.

One do not need a gun to defend themselves if they know how to use their bodies (unless the attacker has the gun). The right to defend themselves is definately true, but if less guns were available to criminals or future criminals, then by logic the crime rates involving guns should decrease as well.

People must know that they have a "right" to do and have anything they want, but just because one have the "right" it mean they really need it or to do it?

"Rights" is too overused in U.S. People must know that there are limitations to freedom. One who is too free, becomes ignorant of true freedom and abuse the freedom they already have. That is the problem with U.S today imo.
The flaw in gun grabber thinking is obsesing over an object when objects don't commit crimes
, & the silly belief that if guns didn't exisit the crime wouldn't have happened. In fact, as esily available as guns are, only 10-12% of crimes involve guns. The high crime rate is more a product of revolving door justice, blame Society instead of the criminal & the welfare/I'm owed something by Society instead of having to work for it mentality. As far as "using your body" that might work for a fit 20-30 something male, but not for most of the population where the typical criminal is a 15-25 year old in good shape. Murder & other mayhem didn't start with the invention of guns & wouldn't end with confinscation. Crime has soared in the U.K. since the ban.
 
Thats pretty much sums up my outlook on the situation, crime itself is not a manifestation of gun ownership, merely an excessory for some crime.

And the reason for incarceration in the U.S. is because of as listed, a revolving door criminal justice system, product of policies like the "three strikes laws"

Some of the convicts in prison today are in there for numerous types of "white collar crimes", such as the recent phenomnon of electronic fraud and identity theft, guns are totally irrelevent in those cases.

Also unlike China, most U.S. states are currently having a large debate on execution or have had one in the last ten years.

As well as the U.S. has many levels of incarceration involving everything from probation to jailtime to hard time.

It is strange however, that there are more people incacerated in the U.S. than serving in the entire United States Armed Forces, the latter of which is very familar with firearms for obivious reasons ( our country's defense). While only a fraction of the criminals who are in some form of incarceration today are there for gun related crimes.

Im am NOT comparing the U.S. Armed Forces to criminals in any way, just trying to prove a point, guns alone are not the root of crime, looking elsewhere in society such as the Armed Forces you can see, that a professional and wholey good natured aspect (our men and women of the U.S. armed forces) with wide access to such tools, do not suddenly become gun toting crimnals and go on a murdering rampage. If fact they do the exact oppisite, same can be said about most gun owning private citizens, they do not go on killing sprees and like the U.S. armed forces can keep their iron holstered and practice proper saftey rules, most of which are common sense, and are of no threat to society.

It's the ocassional thug, or nutcase which should in my opinion be looked at in a mental health aspect and not their access to firearms.

In short, the Glock that the kid in a mans body in Tuscon used, did not grow a conscious and tell him to become and end of the roader,his mental instability did, and it's his mental instability which is what should be looked at, not just the tools he used.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top