Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Red Wind, Sep 8, 2016.
We do not even have enough prison space as it is!
Nope, I consider him to be a traitor, one of the worst kinds of criminal.
I don't agree to that. Your opinions are based on emotional reactions that are counterproductive and illogical. There is so much data on this subject from all over the world that the conclusions are not even worth arguing.
Jail is not a deterrent. In a sick and twisted way, it's actually a motivation. For a gang banger, going to jail is like going to boot camp.
The only deterrent to violent crime is an armed citizen. Gangsters all agree; they're not afraid of prison, or even the police, but they are deathly afraid of an armed victim.
They also agree that losing their rights is not even a small consideration. They never voted in the lives anyways, nor did they plan to, and they've been illegally carrying a firearm since they were a teenager. When polled, virtually all ex cons say that being prohibited from owning a firearm in no way deters them from obtaining one, and they don't even really think about it. They carried illegally before they were convicted, so nothing has really changed for them.
Since jail, as well as the associated loss of rights after the fact, doesn't work as a deterrent, all we can ever hope for is to rehabilitate the ones who want to be helped. That means work, job training, education if necessary, and, most importantly, integration into polite society. The less you treat a prisoner like a prisoner, the less likely he is to repeat offend. It's basic reinforcement, like Pavlov's dog. If you treat them like a criminal, then they will be a criminal. A successful prison system relies on taking away only those rights that are absolutely necessary to protect society, and restoring those rights in full as soon as is safe.
Now where's the logic in letting someone run around free as a bird, but telling them they can't own guns? It's insane, just like all gun control. If they want a gun for nefarious purposes then they're going to get one anyway, so why dehumanize them and take away their right to self defense? And if they can't be trusted with a gun, then they can't be trusted with a knife, baseball bat, golf club, poisonous chemicals, chemicals that could be used to make a bomb, vehicles, tools, etc. And what would it take to practically make those things unavailable to them??? Prison!!! That's right, if you can't trust someone with a gun, then they never should have been let go in the first place! And if they were let go, and that was a wise decision on the part of the court, then there's no reason they should be prohibited from owning a gun.
By creating all these half citizens, we're not protecting the public, we're not creating a deterrent, we're not reducing the chance of repeat offense. All we're doing is undermining the confidence and self worth of people who have paid their debts, making them more likely to return to their criminal lifestyle.
To sum it up in one sentence, If you believe that denying ex-felons their right to bear arms in any way protects society, then you are no better than any other gun control advocate because you are applying the same faulty logic to the situation; and if you believe that denying ex-felons the right to bear arms protects the public, then you must also believe that strict gun control in general can also protect the public because both assertions rely on the same idea that the government has the ability to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
Unfortunately our society releases a lot of violent criminal offenders who really shouldn't be in society, and many of these folks are repeat felons. Some of these folks are a risk to society, and I can't say I support a system that just wants to hand all of them guns when they haven't proven that they can even live safely within society.
However, with that said, we've also had a trend to make more and more crimes into felonies in the last several decades, and many non-violent offenses have been classified as felony-level offenses. I'm not going to defend the actions of any criminal (it goes against what I do for a living), but I will say that the guy who passes some bad checks and gets a felony charge is probably no more likely to shoot an innocent person than most other people. Where the issue of gun rights are concerned, I don't think we should be permanently stripping people of their rights for non-violent offenses.
I also think there should be a process for revisiting violent crimes after a certain amount of time has passed. Our current system operates under the premise of "once a criminal, always a criminal", and we all know that isn't necessarily true. For example, a friend of mine has a felony conviction from about 25 years ago. He's a good guy, and I'd trust him like I'd trust any other friend. But, 25 years ago he walked in on his wife having sex with another man, and the guy mouthed off to my friend about it. My buddy struck the guy with a baseball bat, causing minor injuries to the guy (a Felony Assault with a Deadly Weapon). So, my friend is now a lifetime felon, and can't own a gun. He has no other marks on his record, he lives a clean life, and runs a respected business in our area. Should we not give him a chance to restore his rights? Sure, he screwed up... he shouldn't have gone to bat with a guy who was sleeping with his wife. But, he certainly had a reason to be agitated at the time, and he didn't cause any permanent damage to anyone. And, that offense was two and a half decades ago.
It's a tough situation. I can't support handing a gun to everyone regardless of background, but I also can't sit here and claim that the current system is entirely reasonable and fair.
Is your contention that there should be violence involved for a crime to be considered a felony?? How about those "non-violent' habitual criminals that have shown their contempt for the law by continuing their illegal acts. How many "bites of the apple" should they be allowed? I can see a first time offender being given a pass on gun rights, but losing the right if they continue to offend after the first one.
I believe there already is a mechanism for this. It's called a petition for restoration of rights. I agree that it could be less onerous, but it still involves someone determining that a person is no longer a threat to society. This is one step down from keeping them locked up forever if they can't get along in society.
I agree that your friend should be able to present a strong case that his rights be restored. Has he even petitioned the courts?
This is certainly true as we see in this quote from John Stossel's interview with 7 New Jersey convicts.
See the whole program at:
As we have already discussed, Federal Felons have had no method to petition for a restoration of their rights since at least 1995. The program was defunded and never restored by Congress.
Good, they can get motivated while they spend 2/3 of their life behind bars. Career criminal are just that,,,, career criminals. Do they fear jail? No. Are we better off as a society when they are locked up? Yes. When they are in boot camp, earning their street cred, they aren't robbing or raping citizens. When they get out they'll pick up where they left off. They are scum.
Good for them. So they won't care when they don't get their rights back so why bother to give them back? Because they'll get a gun anyways? And you call my thoughts backwards? How about they get a few years tacked on when they go back for illegally carrying a handgun? Works for me!
Whatever, dude. See above. As you've said, they'll get one anyways so why make it legal? Your argument goes against itself.
So because ex-con Johnny can't legally own a gun or vote he'll just go back to his criminal life? Seriously? By your words he's going to go back anyways. So, which way is it? Gangsta Johnny, who just earned his street cred in boot camp now gets out with all his ribbons and since he can legally own a gun he now turns the straight and narrow? Yeah, my thinking is flawed like you say. Yours makes perfect sense. Yep, uh huh.
Just because you feel strongly about what you are saying doesn't make me and people who think like me wrong. It doesn't make you wrong either. As I said before, we can agree to disagree.
So don't bother arguing. It's falling on deaf ears because I don't think you are right. We can skew every poll and study out there to fit our own point of view. We just disagree and you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. You are entitled to your opinions but remember, they are your opinions. They mean nothing to me.
Lighten up Francis. Jeesh
As in most things controlled by the government, the cost is driven by regulations and not by actual needs so the "costly prison" argument is a straw man.
And that's the bottom line.
Years ago, I too classes in criminology by the head sociologist the Louisiana Prison system, and he had a saying, "Before you set out to REhabilitate someone, check to see if he was ever habilitated to begin with."
In other words, most career criminals never change, and as soon as they're back on the street, they're back in business.
all felons. I think each case and individual should be evaluated before any of the rights lost to a felony conviction are restored. Type of crime committed, whether violence or a gun was used in that crime, time spent and how a person has conducted their life since that conviction. This means there needs to be some length of time after the sentence/parole has been served before the restoring of those rights can be considered. IOWs, you just don't give a violent offender back his gun rights the day he walks outta jail.
I agree with this.
I know several felons who are now living more or less normal lives. I wouldn't want either one of them being able to own or purchase a weapon. They can hire an attorney and file for a reinstatement of their rights. Let a judge decide based on how they managed their lives since release. If I were the judge I would say no to both of them, knowing what I know.
Aside from whether there is any truth at all in that, why even discuss something that is so grossly impractical that it could never happen? We might as well be talking about Santa Claus.
In most states, it's a parole board and the Governor who make the final decision, not a solitary judge.
And it has been mentioned several times in this thread that Federal Felons have no recourse at all, due to lack of funding by Congress for over 20 years.
I find it disturbing also. All those no votes on this poll for even non violent felons. The lack of any semblance of empathy for even the most petty of crimes.
There are some very hard hearts on this forum. If one of their loved ones or close friends made that one momentary lapse in sound moral judgement, I wonder if they would have the same harsh, take no prisoners, mindset?
For their sake, I hope that miserable day never comes to pass.
Some thoughts on the matter I share are:
But to put it simply I believe all people ought to be free to arm themselves unless they are currently incarcerated as a result of due process.
To say somebody has proven themselves, through prior violent action, too dangerous to allow access to arms, but can be safely released from incarceration into the public is about the same thing as saying a "no guns" sign outside of a school will stop a mass shooting.
If you aren't justifiably and lawfully locked up, you have your Rights and Liberties. End of story.
Separate names with a comma.