jrfoxx
Member
Agreed. I, for one, am TERRIFIED at the thought of evil felons like Martha Stewart being armed.Who knows what her next felony will be, and who much worse it would be for the victims if she were allowed a gun.
Point is, not all felons are violent, were violent, will be violant, or committed any act of violence to get their felony charge, nor are those types of felons likely to re-offend. People who have shown no tendency towards violence have no logical reason to be disarmed for life.Even if someone like Martha were to re-offend, it's pretty likely that wether or not she has ANY type of weapon is irrelevant, and her obvious "crime of choice" doesnt require one anyways, so it wont matter. Maybe it should be done case by case, and instead of ALL felons not being allowed guns, it should be changed to make the restriction fit the crime. I.E.-violent felon=no weapons, embezzler=no computer access, tax fraud=a CPA of the govt. choosing does your taxes,mail fraud=not allowed to ship items, arsonist=no flammable liquids or fire starting implements, CEO of Enron=not allowed to hold a postion in ANY company above peon levelp). At least THAT would make some sense, and may actually help keep even non-violent ones from re-offending with another non-violent offense.
Do I want murderers allowed to have guns? not really, but why should they be allowed poisonous items, rope, knives, bats, etc if you are really concerned about them commiting another violent act as people say? If a murderer lived next door to me, knwoing he couldnt legally own a gun doesnt make me any safer, as he can kill me just as easily with lots of other things. I'm more concerned with the fact he is out in society where he could kill again, than I am about what instrument he'll use next time.
Point is, not all felons are violent, were violent, will be violant, or committed any act of violence to get their felony charge, nor are those types of felons likely to re-offend. People who have shown no tendency towards violence have no logical reason to be disarmed for life.Even if someone like Martha were to re-offend, it's pretty likely that wether or not she has ANY type of weapon is irrelevant, and her obvious "crime of choice" doesnt require one anyways, so it wont matter. Maybe it should be done case by case, and instead of ALL felons not being allowed guns, it should be changed to make the restriction fit the crime. I.E.-violent felon=no weapons, embezzler=no computer access, tax fraud=a CPA of the govt. choosing does your taxes,mail fraud=not allowed to ship items, arsonist=no flammable liquids or fire starting implements, CEO of Enron=not allowed to hold a postion in ANY company above peon level
p). At least THAT would make some sense, and may actually help keep even non-violent ones from re-offending with another non-violent offense.Do I want murderers allowed to have guns? not really, but why should they be allowed poisonous items, rope, knives, bats, etc if you are really concerned about them commiting another violent act as people say? If a murderer lived next door to me, knwoing he couldnt legally own a gun doesnt make me any safer, as he can kill me just as easily with lots of other things. I'm more concerned with the fact he is out in society where he could kill again, than I am about what instrument he'll use next time.
