• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control: Thomas Jefferson's Opinion

HowardBThiname

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,173
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
So many times, I hear the argument that the Founders only meant for firearms to be carried as part of an organized militia, but that's not accurate.

Jefferson included the following quote in his book, "Legal Commonplace Book." He was not the original author -- Cesare Beccaria wrote the original sentiments in 1764. For anyone who questions what the Founders meant by the 2nd Amendment, the following should clear it up.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
Click to expand...

https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
 
Yet all evidence shows Jefferson to be wrong. There has never been any evidence linking gun ownership rates to violent crime levels.
 
spud_meister said:
Yet all evidence shows Jefferson to be wrong. There has never been any evidence linking gun ownership rates to violent crime levels.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. But we can’t fault Jefferson for believing that disarming the populace was only going to hurt those who abide by The law. That is logical. He wouldn’t have access to metadata like we do. He wouldn’t even have the data. :)
 
spud_meister said:
Yet all evidence shows Jefferson to be wrong. There has never been any evidence linking gun ownership rates to violent crime levels.
Click to expand...

Please cite all this evidence for our edification, if you don't mind.

Since it appears to me that one piece of evidence overlooked is the fact that nearly all of those "mass shootings" that have been occurring lately involved targeting places where firearms were not allowed.

Thanks.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Please cite all this evidence for our edification, if you don't mind.

Since it appears to me that one piece of evidence overlooked is the fact that nearly all of those "mass shootings" that have been occurring lately involved targeting places where firearms were not allowed.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I can't provide all the evidence, I'm currently on holidays. However, for a brief overview, I'd suggest comparing US states in terms of gun ownership and violent crime, you'll see there's no correlation at all.
 
HowardBThiname said:
So many times, I hear the argument that the Founders only meant for firearms to be carried as part of an organized militia, but that's not accurate.

Jefferson included the following quote in his book, "Legal Commonplace Book." He was not the original author -- Cesare Beccaria wrote the original sentiments in 1764. For anyone who questions what the Founders meant by the 2nd Amendment, the following should clear it up.



https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/laws-forbid-carrying-armsquotation
Click to expand...

I blame the right wing for being all political talk and no political action regarding this issue. We have a Second Amend. We should not have security problems with so many gun lovers; the right wing prefers to whine about gun snatching laws instead of love their Republic enough to muster and be Necessary to the security of a free State, and not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, for their State or the Union.
 
spud_meister said:
I can't provide all the evidence, I'm currently on holidays. However, for a brief overview, I'd suggest comparing US states in terms of gun ownership and violent crime, you'll see there's no correlation at all.
Click to expand...

I'll wait for your return then...as it is not MY responsibility to prove YOUR assertion. ;)

Terms also need to be defined, because Jefferson was not talking about "gun violence" in general, (including suicides, accidental discharges, gang warfare, etc.), but rather violence directed by an assailant against the common citizen.

When I see the facts you provide, I can then evaluate them and see what if any counter-evidence I could provide.

Meanwhile, I hope you are enjoying your holiday. :)
 
Last edited:
spud_meister said:
I can't provide all the evidence, I'm currently on holidays. However, for a brief overview, I'd suggest comparing US states in terms of gun ownership and violent crime, you'll see there's no correlation at all.
Click to expand...

That, of course, ignores the victim selection process entirely. Are the legally armed folks more likely to become the selected crime victims within those more gun rich (or gun poor) environments?

If my home has two noisy dogs outside then that may well cause a burglar to pass up selecting my house in favor of robbing another. It was not that my street, neighborhood, city or state has more (or less) dogs than some other state that was important - it was only by making a dog/no dog decision by that particular criminal in their nighty victim selection which made a difference. The crime (burglary) was going to happen anyway - the only change was who (among those in their "patrol" area) would be selected as the crime victim that night.
 
Last edited:
danielpalos said:
I blame the right wing for being all political talk and no political action regarding this issue. We have a Second Amend. We should not have security problems with so many gun lovers; the right wing prefers to whine about gun snatching laws instead of love their Republic enough to muster and be Necessary to the security of a free State, and not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms, for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


The right wing does suggest political action, but the Left is narrowly focused on grabbing guns and doesn't seem to notice.

When we point out the violent rhetoric in rap music and the videos games that many of these shooters enjoyed, all we hear is that we can't regulate it because that would be censorship. The young gangbangers that cause more gun death than anyone else are almost all adherents of anti-social rap music.

When we point out that a majority of the school shooters are on psychotropic meds, we're met with resistance -- after all -- the Left loves their meds, even the ones that fry their brains.

We also point out that these school shootings are taking place in public schools, and that maybe the public school system needs to be rethought to eliminate the caste systems that lead to kids being bullied, and then becoming shooters. When we point out that young male shooters often do not have a male paternal presence in their lives, the Left just pooh-poohs our concerns.

All the Left wants to do is grab guns -- they don't want to get to the bottom of the issues that are turning these young kids into killers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That, of course, ignores the victim selection process entirely. Are the legally armed folks more likely to become the selected crime victims within those more gun rich (or gun poor) environments?

If my home has two noisy dogs outside then that may well cause a burglar to pass up selecting my house in favor of robbing another. It was not that my street, neighborhood, city or state has more (or less) dogs than some other state that was important - it was only by making a dog/no dog decision by that particular criminal in their nighty victim selection which made a difference. The crime (burglary) was going to happen anyway - the only change was who (among those in their "patrol" area) would be selected as the crime victim that night.
Click to expand...

Which is part of my point. The factors that drive violent crime exist regardless of whether you have a gun or two noisy dogs or not. Carrying a gun might prevent crime from happening to you, but it doesn't prevent crime from happening, not on any statistically significant scale anyway.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The right wing does suggest political action, but the Left is narrowly focused on grabbing guns and doesn't seem to notice.

When we point out the violent rhetoric in rap music and the videos games that many of these shooters enjoyed, all we hear is that we can't regulate it because that would be censorship. The young gangbangers that cause more gun death than anyone else are almost all adherents of anti-social rap music.

When we point out that a majority of the school shooters are on psychotropic meds, we're met with resistance -- after all -- the Left loves their meds, even the ones that fry their brains.

We also point out that these school shootings are taking place in public schools, and that maybe the public school system needs to be rethought to eliminate the caste systems that lead to kids being bullied, and then becoming shooters. When we point out that young male shooters often do not have a male paternal presence in their lives, the Left just pooh-poohs our concerns.

All the Left wants to do is grab guns -- they don't want to get to the bottom of the issues that are turning these young kids into killers.
Click to expand...

Nothing but political rhetorical, like usual. We have a Second Amendment; why does any State of our Union, have security problems?
 
Captain Adverse said:
I'll wait for your return then...as it is not MY responsibility to prove YOUR assertion. ;)

Terms also need to be defined, because Jefferson was not talking about "gun violence" in general, (including suicides, accidental discharges, gang warfare, etc.), but rather violence directed by an assailant against the common citizen.

When I see the facts you provide, I can then evaluate them and see what if any counter-evidence I could provide.
Click to expand...

Here's a list of states by gun ownership, and another by violent crime. There's no correlation there:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/most-heavily-armed-states-in-america/9/
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/crime-and-corrections/public-safety

When I next have access to my computer, I can get a list of studies that link violent crime to poverty and social conditions. It's difficult, however, to find an unbiased study on the effect of guns on overall violent crime rates, as most interpret the data in ways that support the conclusion they're looking for.

Meanwhile, I hope you are enjoying your holiday. :)
Click to expand...

I am, thank you.
 
spud_meister said:
Which is part of my point. The factors that drive violent crime exist regardless of whether you have a gun or two noisy dogs or not. Carrying a gun might prevent crime from happening to you, but it doesn't prevent crime from happening, not on any statistically significant scale anyway.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is obviously true. One must make it a priority to decrease their own chances of becoming a crime victim. As we can all see., from the latest FL mass shooting, criminals prefer the softer targets. Crime prevention is said to be greatly enhanced by the "see something, say something" cooperation of citizens with law enforcement and mental health professionals.

One would think that after (at least) 39 reports resulting in contacts with those Floriduh state public safety and education "officials" that some action would result but that too, it seems, is beyond our control.

When someone can load up their favorite semi-auto rifle, strap on a vest bristling with extra magazines, hail a cab (uber?) and waltz on into a school building full of unarmed folks for target practice then maybe some added school security is in order.
 
spud_meister said:
Which is part of my point. The factors that drive violent crime exist regardless of whether you have a gun or two noisy dogs or not. Carrying a gun might prevent crime from happening to you, but it doesn't prevent crime from happening, not on any statistically significant scale anyway.
Click to expand...


That it prevents crime from happening to me is sufficient for me.

I've had too many real world events where being armed may have saved my life or otherwise prevented Really Bad Things from happening.

And the impact is greater than that.... its been shown that in states with Shall Issue concealed carry, crime tends to migrate to crimes that reduce the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen (ie theft when the owner isn't around).

Much of the general criminal violence is thug-on-thug. Factor that out of the equation and if you avoid involvement in gangs, drugs and crime (including peripheral involvement like having a buddy or housemate into those things) you're much safer than stats indicate.
 
danielpalos said:
Nothing but political rhetorical, like usual. We have a Second Amendment; why does any State of our Union, have security problems?
Click to expand...

You just made my point for me -- if a solution does not involve grabbing guns -- the Left doesn't want to hear it.

As far as "why does any State of our Union have security problems" the answer is obvious -- not everyone obeys the laws of the land. If they did -- we'd never see another intentional shooting, would we?
 
spud_meister said:
I can't provide all the evidence, I'm currently on holidays. However, for a brief overview, I'd suggest comparing US states in terms of gun ownership and violent crime, you'll see there's no correlation at all.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that the sales of firearms and CCW permits has increased while violent crime has decreased. Not saying that they have any connection but it does qualify with correlation
 
spud_meister said:
Yet all evidence shows Jefferson to be wrong. There has never been any evidence linking gun ownership rates to violent crime levels.
Click to expand...

So let's make guns illegal. It will stop all the violence, just like making drugs illegal stopped the drug problem....... Oops, I may need to rethink this one. :mrgreen:
 
If carrying guns didn't deter and cut down on crime than police wouldn't carry them.
 
spud_meister said:
Which is part of my point. The factors that drive violent crime exist regardless of whether you have a gun or two noisy dogs or not. Carrying a gun might prevent crime from happening to you, but it doesn't prevent crime from happening, not on any statistically significant scale anyway.
Click to expand...

If everyone did it would. Just read about Kennesaw Georgia.
 
HowardBThiname said:
You just made my point for me -- if a solution does not involve grabbing guns -- the Left doesn't want to hear it.

As far as "why does any State of our Union have security problems" the answer is obvious -- not everyone obeys the laws of the land. If they did -- we'd never see another intentional shooting, would we?
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment does not say, grabbing guns are necessary to the security of a free State.
 
Maccabee said:
Except for the fact that the sales of firearms and CCW permits has increased while violent crime has decreased. Not saying that they have any connection but it does qualify with correlation
Click to expand...

Yet overall gun ownership has also decreased, so that's a correlation too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom