Treat Gun Criminals Like Sex Criminals!


PDA






Fourbits
April 20, 2008, 11:55 AM
In Philadelphia they treat gun criminals (anybody convicted of a crime involving a gun) like sex criminals. They need to register when they get out of jail and always let the police know where they live. Itís back to jail for a year if they donít register. This seems to be a great idea and worth promoting around the country.

To go along with this, 89% of the people killed by guns in Philadelphia have criminal records.

If you enjoyed reading about "Treat Gun Criminals Like Sex Criminals!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gyp_c2
April 20, 2008, 12:17 PM
...Funny...
How about this, if you want to purchase a gun, you have to go through a background check and have your name, address and drivers license# available for those records in a database?
...More rules for criminals?
yeah, that'll work...http://emoticons4u.com/smoking/rauch06.gif
...oops, I'm in the wrong place...

ArfinGreebly
April 20, 2008, 01:32 PM
No activism in this.

Moving to General.

We'll see if it lasts there.

Sans Authoritas
April 20, 2008, 01:41 PM
A "gun criminal?" Because using a bat or one's boots to beat or stomp someone's brains out is somehow less animalistic and violent than using a gun? And that that such criminals should be selected for a more severe punishment because of it?

Unbelievable. That argument has no logical roots.

-Sans Authoritas

RP88
April 20, 2008, 03:00 PM
I think the 'gun' should be changed to 'violent', then it sounds good to me.

insidious_calm
April 20, 2008, 10:52 PM
If offenders are so dangerous(gun, sex, or otherwise) that they need to be kept on a list and have their whereabouts tracked, then they are too dangerous to be out in society anyway. I swear..:banghead:, someone needs to take the politicians, people, cops, whomever thinks of or particates in blissninny feelgood bs like this and slap the daylights out of 'em. What the hell are people thinking? I want my frickin' country back!!! The constitution, may it RIP...


I.C.

WayneConrad
April 21, 2008, 10:20 AM
This seems to be a great idea and worth promoting around the country.
No, it's not a great idea.

Nor is the "sex offender" registry.

If you can't trust someone in society, they shouldn't be in society.

Period.

Parole, probation, registries and other clever tricks are ways for government to abridge rights on the cheap, with the expense of prison. They make it inexpensive and easy for government to restrict rights of citizens in mass, when only a small fraction of our citizens are truly criminals deserving that treatment.

Sato Ord
April 21, 2008, 10:38 AM
Not only does this single out guns and is therefore a bad idea, such lists, in general have so many problems that the last thing we need is one more to keep track of.

My friend had two complaints sworn out on him for Domestic Violence. His wife, whom I cared for as a friend, was nuts. Her stated reason for swearing out the complaints, "I was afraid he would yell at me."

The first time the judge simply threw it out. The second time he told her that if she did such a thing again he would hold her in contempt and she would serve jail time.

Too bad he didn't just Baker Act her, because not too long after the second incident she checked into a motel, put the barrel of her pistol in her mouth and splattered her brains all over the wall and bed linens. If the judge had been a bit more alert she might be alive her kids would still have a mother!

The sad part about all of this is that, even though she was certifiable, and both complaints were thrown out, my friend is now on a national registry as having been arrested for domestic violence. He could have one such instance sealed and this might go away, but the law is clear, two times and it follows you forever regardless of the outcome of the case, even if you are proven innocent!

I can just see everyone who is arrested for successfully defending himself with a firearm and then proven innocent because it was a good shoot ending up on a list and having his rights stomped on because a bunch of bleeding hearts have convinced the legislature that such lists will do more good than harm.

I have to agree with everyone who has said, and I paraphrase, just get the creeps off the street and quite trying to fix what ain't broke!

PS Oh yeah, these registries always seem to start off as being for those convicted, and end up being registries of those arrested. Eventually someone will cry that smart lawyers are getting the criminals off of the charges so it is in the "Public Interest" to keep track of those arrested. There is no appeasing these people, give them one thing and it just gives them the energy to push for more.

Phil DeGraves
April 21, 2008, 10:50 AM
What they need to do is treat criminals like CRIMINALS! Criminals belong in PRISON. If they feel like they need to have them register, to keep an eye on them, why are they letting them go?

bogie
April 21, 2008, 11:00 AM
The OP reads like it came from Brady... Is someone a "gun criminal" or just a criminal.

And people aren't killed by guns. The guns don't go out looking for someone to shoot. They're killed by CRIMINALS (usually...) who use the guns as their tools. Get that straight.

csmkersh
April 21, 2008, 11:09 AM
I'm out of step with most on how to treat criminals.

If they served their time and have been released and NOT on probation, why restrict their right to vote or own a firearm? If you can't trust them with a ballot or a bullet, why aren't they still in prison?

XDKingslayer
April 21, 2008, 01:22 PM
Shall not be infringed...

akodo
April 21, 2008, 08:26 PM
keep em in jail

Shall not be infringed... does that mean that a criminal currently behind bars can expect to keep a firearm under his pillow, or use his 'freedom of assembly' to leave any time he wants?

If your response is "but they are in jail" let me remind you that I see no constitutional mention of being in jail or not.

It is my firm believe that the rights enumerated in the bill of rights pertain to law abiding folk who have no evidence they will abuse that right. Up until you abuse it, you get it. No need to prove you WON"T abuse it.

If you shout fire in a crowded theater, you get your mouth gagged for life, goodbye freedom of speech.

ColinthePilot
April 21, 2008, 08:32 PM
I have a slight issue with this registry and any other registry. others have mentioned that if they are so dangerous, keep them in a cage. If they are fit to be released, then they have served their debt to society, as judged by law. A non felon becomes a member of society again and is given another chance to fit in to societal norms. if they fail again, back to the cage. otherwise, if they've been rehabilitated as is the aim of the penal system, let them be.

Nolo
April 21, 2008, 08:35 PM
I wonder if Heinlein's external society would actually work...

Walkalong
April 21, 2008, 08:38 PM
This seems to be a great idea and worth promoting around the country.Not, it's ignorant.

No, it's not a great idea.

Nor is the "sex offender" registry.

If you can't trust someone in society, they shouldn't be in society.
I agree. We should NEVER let sex offenders leave prison. Even the die hard Liberal Shrinks have said they cannot cure most of them and they will do it again.

Unfortunately, we let them out, so a list of sex offenders is OK by me. THEY are the offender and the wielder of the "weapon" used in the crime.

In "gun crime" "they" are still the offender, but it's blamed on the gun, not the wielder thereof.

If they have served their time and gotten paroled, I would agree to give them their rights back, if it was the first offense. Second offense, F-em. They lose rights from now on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the criminal said when confronted by an old lady with a gun when they tried to rob her: "That's why I always vote for gun control"

Walkalong
April 21, 2008, 08:40 PM
No activism in this.

Moving to General.

We'll see if it lasts there. :uhoh:

Nolo
April 21, 2008, 09:40 PM
I say we have people who commit crimes with a non-gun weapon be treated like sex offenders. Using a gun is at least a humane way to kill someone.

bogie
April 21, 2008, 11:44 PM
Criminals lose citizenship. Their second amendment rights are no longer an issue.

Personally, I think that if someone did a felony, it needs to be in LARGE TYPE on their drivers license...

Save a lot of trouble.

XDKingslayer
April 22, 2008, 09:35 AM
does that mean that a criminal currently behind bars can expect to keep a firearm under his pillow, or use his 'freedom of assembly' to leave any time he wants?

If your response is "but they are in jail" let me remind you that I see no constitutional mention of being in jail or not.

It is my firm believe that the rights enumerated in the bill of rights pertain to law abiding folk who have no evidence they will abuse that right. Up until you abuse it, you get it. No need to prove you WON"T abuse it.

If you shout fire in a crowded theater, you get your mouth gagged for life, goodbye freedom of speech.

You're doing exactly what the government is doing only on the other side of the spectrum. Not using common sense.

It's quite easy. If you're in jail you have no rights. Once you're out, you get them back.

If you can't be trusted with any of your rights then you shouldn't be let out of jail.

It's really a simple concept.

If you enjoyed reading about "Treat Gun Criminals Like Sex Criminals!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!