M-Rex
member
The_Ferret said:Hmm...
I hate arguing on the internet, and have no intention of doing so here. However, I do feel compelled to offer an observation. (If you have questions or opinions on what I am writing, lets have a civilized "question, answer, and discuss" discourse, not an "I'll quote your statements and prove you are logically fallacious you sorry excuse for a human being!"-style discourse... Please.)
NOTE: I want to discuss this in the context of CURRENT AND STANDING LAWS, not in the context of "how it should be." I hope I can do that anyway.
To the point of this. As I see it, M-Rex is arguing against restoration of the right to keep and bear arms for "felons". I'm going to put that in quotes here so I can expound the definition a little. What are we talking about when we say "felons"? Many here are looking at this as "Any person convicted of a felony." That seems to be the correct definition. Let's examine that a little more...
Why are the majority of felons convicted? That is, what are the most frequent crimes commited which make a felon? I'm actually looking up some information for that right now, as I type. Be right back...
Okay, I'm back. I found this: http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/criminal_law/felony/charges.html
Lest's see if I can get a quote outta it...
"The most common felony charges that led to conviction in 2000 were drug offenses (35 percent); property offenses, such as burglary, arson, fraud and forgery (28 percent); violent offenses, such as murder, rape or aggravated assault (19 percent); and weapon offenses or other non-violent offenses, such as escaping custody or receiving stolen property (18 percent). Marijuana felony charges accounted for 6.4 percent of the total convictions in 2000."
So it looks like 35% drugs, 28% property offenses, 19% violent stuff, and 18% weapons/non-violent stuff. (If anybody has other data, post it too. I'm actually forming an opinion on this as I'm writing it.) Now the question here seems to me to essentially be, "Is it smart to allow ex-felons the right to keep and bear arms?" This is a matter for public safety (of individuals), and also for the safety of society as a whole. If we look at the data I found and make some assumptions, we might can come to some conclusions about who is and who is not likely to be...(poo, I can't find it spelled on this page) recidivistic.
(NOTE: IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THESE ASSUMPTIONS, I WANT YOU (PLEASE) TO REDO THIS MATH WITH YOUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS IN ANOTHER POST. THEN WE CAN COMPARE AND DISCUSS, AND MAYBE LEARN SOMETHING.)
Let's assume that most of the people who commit drug offenses just made a dumb mistake. Only 1 out of 5 was really into some crap. Then let's go one further, and assume that only 1/2 of those people were actually doing stuff with guns, like robbing to get drugs or distributing. For property offenses, burglary and arson sound bad, but forgery and fraud don't seem so much so, so let's assume 1/2 of those people will commit crimes again, and giving them guns will be an enabler. Now let's assume ALL the violent offenders are gonna do it again. Remember, I am in the context of the CURRENT system of laws and rules, not ideal ones. Now the final group consists mainly of non-violent offenses, according to the info I found. Let's still assume that the people convicted of weapons offenses were mostly gun-runners, and will continue when released, because its their livelihood. Let's say that...man this is a hard one to guess reasonably...1 out of 5 is gonna recommit some crime when released. Now, let's crunch the numbers...
Of the 35% who did drugs-stuff, 3.5% are going to recommit crimes. Of the 28% doing property stuff, 14% will reommit. All 19% of the violent criminals are foaming at the mouth for a gun here, and 3.6% are lookin to go a crimin' who were in for other stuff. REMEMBER: If these seem off to you, I really ask that you redo it as you think it should be and post that data here too.
Now we have 35+14+3.5+3.6 = 56.1% of felons who are going to recommit crimes, and who we DO NOT WANT to get a gun under the current laws. Again looking at the above website, we see that this is a total (from their statistics) of 0.561x(985,000 people, so call it a million) = 561,000 armed and dangerous (and we are talking DANGEROUS) people who did not need to have their rights restored.
I looked on Wikipedia just now, and found that the population of the US was estimated by the census bureau to be (again, in 2000, the year our crime statistics are from) 281,421,906 people, for comparison to the above number (If you want to compare).
I guess the question now is, "What should we do about 561,000 criminals?" We'd be denying 439,000 people their right to bear arms as punishment for some crime, but does it make sense to award rights back to 439,000 while endangering 281,421,906? I'm hoping that these 439,000 are the cases we're hearing about here, the so-called "fringe" cases where violations occurred that shouldn't have been felonies, or occurred under "bizzare" circumstances, or were mistakes. Actually, I'm not really discussing the mistakes portion here, since I'm not sure that falls under felony convictions in the statistics.
Now, as I see it, M-Rex says:
"deny all". Under the current laws, we should protect those 281,421,906 from 561,000, and the 439,000 need to lobby to get the law fixed, since it is currently "broken", and they do not deserve to lose their right to keep and bear arms. But for Pete's sake, giving guns back to FELONS? To correct the mistakes of the law for 439,000 while endangering (some of, all of?) 281,421,906?! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS?!?!
The other prevailing opinion seems to say:
"reallow"/"reallow WITH important changes to the law". We need to reallow some/all of the convicted because they are being wronged. 439,000 innocent/reformed people without the right to arms is 439,000 TOO DAMNED MANY. Aside from the fact that 561,000 will not endager ANYWHERE NEAR 281,421,906, this is another incremental loss of freedom, and it CAN NOT AND MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. You say protect 281,421,906, but this idea is really hurting them just as badly by giving away their precious freedoms! These are our rights you're talking about!! Our God-given rights!!! ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS??!?!
(If anybody else has other ideads/insight into these, let me know here. I want discussion! I want to learn something here, and understand.)
Now my opinion here...I've been pretty undecided up until now, honestly. The main problem I have is that I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that there are inalienable rights. I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the government should not be allowed to merely strip away basic rights under the "its a felony! They're bad people!" argument. This sounds to me suspiciously like the "It's for the children" argument, and I have my mind made up on that one. (My opinion:)
Now on the other hand, I'm a farm-boy and an engineer, and in that order. I'm about real solutions to real problems that work and work NOW. I love guns and I have done my best, on my end of the social contract, to obey the law, as well as I can. This includes stopping at a four-way stop even when nobody is there. I never have, and hope I never will, ended up on the wrong side of the law. This society has to be upheld and protected, and I will do my dead-level best to do just those things. In that vein, the idea of re-arming 561,000 people who have an intention of recividism (my poor spelling, again...) to try to save the rights of 439,000 seems ridiculous. It's bad economics. This is because I'm seeing the current laws and their status, and I see how laws change; Namely: slowly and only when forced to. If the 439,000 deserve guns, let's fight for them. But in our rush to do justice, do we really want to do an (approximately) equal amount of injustice?
I really cannot decide. You guys help me here. (M-Rex, this includes you. I NEED your opinion, with relation to the argument above, which is really an argument with myself.) How do we go about doing justice? Do we reform laws first? Do we allow a case-by-case basis? I know I've left out the whole "How do criminals attain firearms" business completely. Is that really a factor here? Will we be, even though not enabling criminals to re-attain arms (they could do this already) be SIGNIFICANTLY re-enabling criminals to be (The Lord is going to smite me for bad spelling in my sleep) recidivstic?
Please help me. I do not like having a non-opinion on an important subject.
Thanks guys. Again, let's DISCUSS. I'm looking for help here.
-the_ferret-
Excellent post.
Let me 'splain.
When I think 'felons', I think criminal felons. Ex-cons. Parolees-at-Large. Victimizers. I also include with those, assorted doper trash. In my mind, these individuals made a conscious choice to abandon their rights to live in a free society when they C H O S E to break the law. They chose. Chose.
If they chose, then one can make the logical assumption that they completely weighed the consequences of their actions and had them in mind when they chose. They deemed the repercussions of their actions acceptable and chose to engage in criminal activity. On some level, each and everyone of these individuals chose to break the law, and damn the consequences.
I have no sympathy for them. They are criminals. Cause and effect. Choice and consequence.
That is not to say that there are specific and anomalous cases (such as the gentleman's sister mentioned in a post above) that fly against convention. Those folks should be granted the opportunity to have their rights 'restored'. However, having the insight that I do from working in the field, I state that cases like this are extremely rare. I also believe that a person in this situation would not simply wait for someone else to pick up the tab.
I have never met a 'felon' who did not belong in jail. Conversely, every 'felon' I have met, insisted that he/she is innocent and 'it was someone else's fault'. Were an organization such as the NRA start assisting people in the 'restoration' of their rights, I speculate it would start with folks such as the gentleman's sister, but soon their lists would be glutted with every type of criminal element seeking to get out of some portion of their punishment.
There are consequences to actions. Although it is simplistic, it is true. Want guns? Don't commit crimes.
Don't like what constitutes a crime? Get active and vote.