joab
Member
The purpose of punishment should be to make sure it doesn't happen again, not revenge
So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?
- Thread starter TechBrute
- Start date
- Status
Hardtarget
Member
I didn't read all the replies on this.Still,I gotta ask...you're kiddin'...right?I read somewhere that about 80% of the crime was committed by 20% of the criminals. I don't think they rehabilitate very many of them.
Mark.
Mark.
ksnecktieman
Member
If they serve their time. release them. If they repeat offend, lock them up for longer. If they repeat again, lock them up forever, or execute them, they are not fit for society. If they will rob or kill with a gun, a regulation about their gun will have no meaning. someone is willing to risk 10 to 20 years to commit a crime? and you are going to threaten him with 90 days and a fine for illegal firearms?????
IMHO, The best way to respond to this problem is to ensure that his "targeted victim?" is armed. Remove ALL firearms restrictions, and regulations so it is easy for everyone to protect themselves.
An armed society is a polite society.... I BELIEVE that. If everyone has a gun, I will not cut you off in traffic, or steal your parking place, or cuss you for being double parked. I will not cut in line at the grocery store. I will say, yes sir, no sir, and thank you maam, as required.
Do YOU think an armed society is more polite? Are you personally more polite when you know someone is armed?
IMHO, The best way to respond to this problem is to ensure that his "targeted victim?" is armed. Remove ALL firearms restrictions, and regulations so it is easy for everyone to protect themselves.
An armed society is a polite society.... I BELIEVE that. If everyone has a gun, I will not cut you off in traffic, or steal your parking place, or cuss you for being double parked. I will not cut in line at the grocery store. I will say, yes sir, no sir, and thank you maam, as required.
Do YOU think an armed society is more polite? Are you personally more polite when you know someone is armed?
Ryder
Member
The restriction of convicts access to weapons is identical to that of young people who have never committed a crime. Why do I suppose that is? Because this "free society" has given some among us the power to tell others what to do and those people use that power. Who said there has to be a logical reason for the law?
As an example let me tell you of a very interesting thing that happened here today.
There was a highschool shooting here recently. The shooter went on trial trial for murdering one of his classmates. Defense claims self-defense. It just ended in a mistrial today because the school administration and police witheld video evidence which could have shown a gun in the possession of the dead person. The school administration is supposedly furious. In their eyes this kid dosen't have the right to defend his life with a gun. It is so written in our laws!
If laws were all good and logical everyone of the people involved in trying to have this kid imprisoned for life would be charged. But it isn't that way, is it
We can expect nothing of the sort. The line between what is good and evil gets drawn by a physical object, not what is in a man's heart.
As an example let me tell you of a very interesting thing that happened here today.
There was a highschool shooting here recently. The shooter went on trial trial for murdering one of his classmates. Defense claims self-defense. It just ended in a mistrial today because the school administration and police witheld video evidence which could have shown a gun in the possession of the dead person. The school administration is supposedly furious. In their eyes this kid dosen't have the right to defend his life with a gun. It is so written in our laws!
If laws were all good and logical everyone of the people involved in trying to have this kid imprisoned for life would be charged. But it isn't that way, is it
We can expect nothing of the sort. The line between what is good and evil gets drawn by a physical object, not what is in a man's heart.joab said:
Do you mean "make sure it doesn't happen again" as in, the person is rendered incapable of committing another crime? (For example, still locked up?)
In this case I agree with you.
Or do you mean "make sure it doesn't happen again" in the sense of putting violent criminals through some kind of process that renders them noncriminal?
In this case, you are fantasizing.
I do believe people can change, but the desire to change is internal and effected through means beyond the penal system's control. Those who do change represent a tiny fractional minority of serious hardcore criminals.
There is no way you can set up a government run system whereby criminals go in one end against their will and get reprocessed into law abiding citizens as they emerge. This is a fantasy. That hasn't stopped its being tried several thousand different times at great cost to the public - the non-success of which efforts is self-evident.
joab
Member
As in making sure it doesn't happen again.
If rehabilitation works then fine. I personally don't think it is the answer as it is practiced currently
But what is the chance that part of the recidivism rate can be attributed to the road blocks that are placed in front of felons.
For example. In my state of Florida a felon cannot be employed in the oh so sensitive field of pest control, can't work in the medical field or be a teacher. It makes no difference what the offense was.
How many of us really feel safer now that Martha Stewart can not own a gun or work on a mosquito control crew.
I honestly don't know what the answers are, I'm not a physiologist or a criminologist.
But I do believe that someone who has been deemed incapable of be fully reintroduced into society should not be reintroduced at all
joab
Member
Who's talking about building prisons
Not all felons are violent, hell not all felons are even felons.
I mentioned halfway houses under strict supervision. They can pay for the upkeep.
Repeat violent offender that have proven themselves themselves unable to rejoin society and there fore of no use to society could be euthanized for all I care
Not all felons are violent, hell not all felons are even felons.
I mentioned halfway houses under strict supervision. They can pay for the upkeep.
Repeat violent offender that have proven themselves themselves unable to rejoin society and there fore of no use to society could be euthanized for all I care
joab
Member
No I am not talking about prisons.
I specifically stated half-way houses which the residents can pay for.
Ifthe houses take on the appearance of prisons, so be it.
Give them some of the closing military bases, they've already got the fences up.
One more row of fencing and some off the welfare roles guards to man the dead zone. What else is needed
When it's either that or a tent city wearing pink underwear and eating prison loaf and green baloney they can make the adjustment
I specifically stated half-way houses which the residents can pay for.
Ifthe houses take on the appearance of prisons, so be it.
Give them some of the closing military bases, they've already got the fences up.
One more row of fencing and some off the welfare roles guards to man the dead zone. What else is needed
When it's either that or a tent city wearing pink underwear and eating prison loaf and green baloney they can make the adjustment
Last edited:
joab
Member
Guess you missed the part about the residents paying their own way
Missed the part about tent city jails for screw ups also I see
I worked for a landscape company that employed about half it's labor from work release ,In the five years that I was there not one prisoner ever failed to return to lock up. I offered most of the ones that worked for me jobs after there time was up, the ones that accepted usually stayed on
Ever heard of child support, I pay it why can't they
Then build the damn fences and did you miss the part about strict supervision. Screw up and go to tent city.
Part of rehabilitation is making sure that they are not as comfortable on the inside as they are on the outside.
I was in jail once for 20 days to me it was all I needed to see that this was not the life I wanted. Others had it better in than out.
To some free rent, AC, food and TV is more than they can hope to get by making an honest wage.
Very few people would see a tent city and unflavored food as a step up.
Earning an honest wage and having something to show for your labor is a character and esteem building experience that many criminal types have never even tried.
joab
Member
hey, where'd the guy I was debating with go.
Now y'all see why I always quote the comments I'm responding to
Now y'all see why I always quote the comments I'm responding to
Then what is the rational for releasing them from prison and turning society at large into an extension of the prison yard?SDC said:
Is a "law" that makes them "criminals" if they possess a firearm etc going to stop them from possessing firearms or committing violent acts if they intend to anyway?
What incentive is there for these people to be productive and not commit any further crimes if they are going to be third class citizens when they have served their sentences passed down as punishment by a court? Bearing in mind that most criminals are rarely planning on "getting caught" - so the idea of "going back to prison" is certainly not going to be a significant overall deterrent here. Very long prison sentences and hard labor might deter some first and second offenders though.
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
LAK said:
Again, nobody believes this will actually stop them from acquiring a gun or committing a crime with it if they so decide. What it does allow is that if a known habitual violent criminal is caught with a gun, you can go ahead and throw them back in the slam instead of having to wait around until they shoot someone.
The way I see it, a person who has committed multiple violent crimes has tarnished their presumption of innocence. If a law-abiding citizen is carrying a firearm, it is reasonable to assume they are just carrying it for self-defense or other legitimate purposes. If a known habitual violent felon is carrying a firearm, presuming they intend to abide by the law is not supported - in fact there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
I'll give you an example: would you hire a convicted child molester to babysit your kids? Why not? Surely, if they've served their criminal sentence, don't they deserve a second chance? If you go on treating them like second class citizens, they have less incentive to change their ways, right?
NineseveN
member
antsi said:
Wow, great point. You've just ended the argument for me!
Oh, wait, darn...um, I knew we were forgetting something. I don't seem to recall a constitutional right to babysit.
ksnecktieman
Member
Antsi? I think you are dealing with that problem at the wrong place and time.
"If a known habitual violent criminal" is out of prison, the system has already failed. Either keep him locked up, or execute him. The thirty grand per year to keep him in prison is cheaper than the paperwork, and restrictions on everyone's "right to keep and bear arms". If you will not trust him with a gun, keep him locked up until you can. If he has to die of old age before you can trust him, so be it.
"If a known habitual violent criminal" is out of prison, the system has already failed. Either keep him locked up, or execute him. The thirty grand per year to keep him in prison is cheaper than the paperwork, and restrictions on everyone's "right to keep and bear arms". If you will not trust him with a gun, keep him locked up until you can. If he has to die of old age before you can trust him, so be it.
NineseveN
member
ksnecktieman said:
Exactly.
fellow14
Member
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....
Seems pretty simple to me.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Well, some are led to believe it is so, but generally it is not. It is a fraudlent arguement from so-called "anti gun" politicians who know better. So the immediate question is - why have they introduced and supported "controls" using blatant lies. What are their real motives.antsi said:
This is a very weak arguement; especially when one examines the numbers in total who are actually "thrown back in jail" just because they were unlucky enough to get frisked with a firearm. And when they do get "thrown back" - for awhile - it is obvious these people do not care. Which indicates that this is not any logical and rational course, let along even close to a solution. The real issue is, if they are "known habitual violent criminals", they should be incarcerated or under some other 24 hour supervision for a very lengthy period second time around. Anything else simply turns the whole country into an extension of the prison yard. And the second time arounders wouldn't be as common if prison meant hard labor. This is not something that can treated as a separate issue because the two are inextricably connected.
We know what the so-called "liberals" say about that, but the so-called "conservatives" have a duty to do what is right in these regards when they have the upper hand in the seats. Not go along with "controls" that create a prison yard with a population of 280 million people.
So everyone is treated as one of "tarnished" while they have free reign - there are a whole string of issues connected with this.
No is the obvious answer. But while they roam freely, what is to stop them from zeroing in on your children anyway? What should the government have done about these people to begin with?
--------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
LAK said:
Hey, no argument from me.
We were discussing 'should habitual violent criminals have their firearms rights restored upon release from the penal system?' I already agreed that petty criminals and nonviolent criminals and so on should have a mechanism to restore their rights, so there's no disagreement there.
All I was left with an objection to was restoring the firearms rights of released violent criminals.
You come back with, "They never should have been let out of prison in the first place."
To which I fully agree. I just didn't know that option was on the table.
NineseveN
member
antsi said:
Are you serious? That's not a very compelling argument...
Well; some of them should never be let out. But IMO not every person convicted once of a robbery or other felony is somehow genetically or mentally different from anyone else and therefore a permanent danger.antsi said:
But speaking strictly of "habitual offenders" we are speaking of people who are; at least in as much as their "habit" is not dependent on the low risk of doing a full 20 years hard labor. Rather, they get some perverse enjoyment or suffer from some other mental aberration.
Amidst the general subject of the Peoples' rights to keep and bear arms, Tench Coxe described it as " ... the birth-right of an American ... ".
When you deprive a citizen of his right to do so - you deprive him or her of the right to self defense as well. The safety of an incarcerated (or otherwise in custody) person is the moral and legal duty and responsibility of the custodial authority. Once they are set free, they must have the right to defend themselves.
And I think that "the horror of a large number of dangerous people running around with guns" has been historically debunked anyway. Both as we have seen with "the wild west" for example and modern day gangland. In times and jurisdictions when every free person could arm themselves, the "horror" has not occurred. It is in the places where everyone can not that the horrors truly begin.
-------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
RealGun
Member
TechBrute said:
What would change if criminals were officially "allowed to have guns"? Not much I suspect, but having the rule in place makes people feel better. They are also not going to have their brain explode if confronted with the need for aggressive capital punishment and more prisons
NineseveN said:
Hey, I'm asking. I hear folks saying that the second ammendment is absolute; as in, no infringements of a person's gun rights ever, under any circumstances whatsoever.
So, I'm proposing a scenario where a reasonable person might think it is justifiable to deprive someone of their firearm. You tell me: is it justifiable to disarm the day-care shooter? If yes, then the second ammendment is not absolute, and there are some exceptions. If you really want to maintain that the second ammendment is absolute, you'll have to respect the second ammendment rights of the day-care shooter.
NineseveN
member
antsi said:
First: While committing a crime or being incarcertaed of a crime, you forfeit your rights (except those rights specifically granted to you in the process of an arrest and incarceration - i.e. Miranda, search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment)...breaking the law with a firearm is abusing your freedom, not exercising it. There is a huge difference, I hope you're not serious enough to require one to spell the differences out for you.
NineseveN said:
No, actually I agree with you here. Behaving criminally is legitimately associated with deprivation of rights.
This is contrary to the views of those who believe that the Second Ammendment is absolute and can never be infringed under any circumstances.
- Status