Green Lantern
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2006
- Messages
- 1,665
And how it makes us feel safe up till we realize that really violent felons can cause harm WITHOUT a gun, even - thus, isn't it better just to keep them locked UP?
A response to a story in the local paper: A guy given a "life sentence" in 1982 was paroled last year, and just recently pretty much caved a woman's face in with his bare hands!
So far:
A response to a story in the local paper: A guy given a "life sentence" in 1982 was paroled last year, and just recently pretty much caved a woman's face in with his bare hands!
So far:
There was a time when I agreed wholeheartedly with the law that prevents convicted felons from buying guns. But then a man told me once, "if someone is too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, shouldn't that mean he's too dangerous to be walking the streets freely anyway?" The story in last weeks Times Journal, about a savage assault committed by a parolee from a "life sentence," really seems to drive that point home. While the subject of that story certainly does NOT need to be able to own a gun, he was nonetheless able to do a great deal of damage with naught but his bare hands!
So, what would REALLY make society safer? The status quo of letting violent ex-cons roam the street, unable to buy a gun (legally), but still able to commit mayhem any number of ways? Or, a criminal justice system that actually did it's job and kept violent and deranged people locked up until they did not pose a threat? And did such a good job of it that there would be no NEED to deny gun ownership to felons - because they would not be released from prison until they have shown themselves to be willing to be lawful, productive members of society.