Warren
Member
Desire for freedom = being unbalanced?
Now where have we heard this before?
Now where have we heard this before?
So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?
- Thread starter TechBrute
- Start date
- Status
Wildalaska
member
I wouldnt classify your idea that anybody should be able to walk into a store and buy an RPG so as to fight the "scum" as desire for freedom, since freedom entails a reasoned, careful and mature balancing of rights and responsibilites in a sophisticated polity...
YTour idea reminds me more of teenage video games...
I think I will stay in the real world, thanks....
Wildletsjustblast"thescum"Alaska
YTour idea reminds me more of teenage video games...
I think I will stay in the real world, thanks....
Wildletsjustblast"thescum"Alaska
priv8ter
Member
I hate this
I almost don't want to reply, because I hate questions like this. I am a black and white kind of guy, so I hate admiting there are shades of grey to some things.
I admit that there are different kinds of crime out there. Like Standing Wolf said, trying to devide crime into two or three catagories doesn't cut it.
There are some crimes, which are SO vile to me, that if a person commits them, I don't feel they should be able to own a gun again. I'm talking Murder, Rape(not statutory rape), and probably child molestation.
Then again, in crimes of these types, I don't think the felon should be allowed to keep breathing more than ten minutes after a Guilty Verdict is in also, so them owning a gun is not a problem.
So, if someone commits a crime, and we decide to release them back into society, I say we welcome them back into society.
greg
I almost don't want to reply, because I hate questions like this. I am a black and white kind of guy, so I hate admiting there are shades of grey to some things.
I admit that there are different kinds of crime out there. Like Standing Wolf said, trying to devide crime into two or three catagories doesn't cut it.
There are some crimes, which are SO vile to me, that if a person commits them, I don't feel they should be able to own a gun again. I'm talking Murder, Rape(not statutory rape), and probably child molestation.
Then again, in crimes of these types, I don't think the felon should be allowed to keep breathing more than ten minutes after a Guilty Verdict is in also, so them owning a gun is not a problem.
So, if someone commits a crime, and we decide to release them back into society, I say we welcome them back into society.
greg
Heh - if i want to own a RPG and its legal to own one....
then wouldn't the act of blowing something up i shouldn't have blown up be a crime? Already on the books crime?
You CAN buy dynomite legally.... its possible....don't know the hoops... but somehow my gf got some from someone... i was charged w/ getting rid of it.... since she didn't know the stability of the stuff... i got rid of it the boring way - since i didn't know the stability of the stuff.. <grin>
So there is one example of someone w/ some stuff that didn't just blow apart something.
Course - there are plenty of idiots... and apparently a van full of fertelizer is a bomb... so who is to say these days... rofl Ingenuity and a lack of respect for whats right will win any day over what a person can buy.
J/Tharg!
then wouldn't the act of blowing something up i shouldn't have blown up be a crime? Already on the books crime?
You CAN buy dynomite legally.... its possible....don't know the hoops... but somehow my gf got some from someone... i was charged w/ getting rid of it.... since she didn't know the stability of the stuff... i got rid of it the boring way - since i didn't know the stability of the stuff.. <grin>
So there is one example of someone w/ some stuff that didn't just blow apart something.
Course - there are plenty of idiots... and apparently a van full of fertelizer is a bomb... so who is to say these days... rofl Ingenuity and a lack of respect for whats right will win any day over what a person can buy.
J/Tharg!
Ok, here's a good one...
18 year old walking hormone gets it on with 16 year old girl. Girl's parents go wiggy when they find out and have the guy prosecuted for statutory rape. RAPE!! Now the guy is a registered sex offender, appears on both city and county websites, looses the right to vote, own a gun, etc. To add insult to injury, it may have been the girl behind the whole incident.
According to WildGunControlisOKaslongasIhavemineAlaska, this kid shouldn't have his rights, so screw him.
18 year old walking hormone gets it on with 16 year old girl. Girl's parents go wiggy when they find out and have the guy prosecuted for statutory rape. RAPE!! Now the guy is a registered sex offender, appears on both city and county websites, looses the right to vote, own a gun, etc. To add insult to injury, it may have been the girl behind the whole incident.
According to WildGunControlisOKaslongasIhavemineAlaska, this kid shouldn't have his rights, so screw him.
Foreign Devil
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 507
It makes sense to prohibit someone who has committed a violent crime from owning a gun, at least for a some period of time, or maybe permanently. This could be done as part of the sentence. There's people out there who have no business owning guns.
Are you also going to prohibit him from owning:
archery equipment
baseball bats
icepicks
kitchen knives
axes
hedge trimmers
swingblades
hammers
crescent wrenches
screwdrivers
cinder blocks
rocks
2x4's
chainsaws
nailguns
a vehicle
etc, etc, etc ad infinitum
(hands and feet might be a problem, but I'm sure you can figure out a way to legislate amputation...)
You'd probably be amazed at how many unconvicted felons you share breathe with, and I'm talking about the ones that would never occur to you at face value.
archery equipment
baseball bats
icepicks
kitchen knives
axes
hedge trimmers
swingblades
hammers
crescent wrenches
screwdrivers
cinder blocks
rocks
2x4's
chainsaws
nailguns
a vehicle
etc, etc, etc ad infinitum
(hands and feet might be a problem, but I'm sure you can figure out a way to legislate amputation...)
You'd probably be amazed at how many unconvicted felons you share breathe with, and I'm talking about the ones that would never occur to you at face value.
JohnBT
Member
Okay, let's say for the sake of discussion that the law is changed so a person who has done his time regains all of his rights, etc.
Then they do another crime and once again do their time. Do they once again regain all of their rights, etc.?
What about the 3-time losers when they finally get out?
Does anyone really believe that jail time automatically = rehabilitation? If you do, where do you live because I want to move there to the land of milk and honey.
Meanwhile, convicted criminals lose more than just their freedom as measured in days spent in confinement. It's part of the punishment.
Another thought. Should a convicted drunk driver do his time and then get his license back immediately upon release? After all, he's rehabilitated. Right?
John
Then they do another crime and once again do their time. Do they once again regain all of their rights, etc.?
What about the 3-time losers when they finally get out?
Does anyone really believe that jail time automatically = rehabilitation? If you do, where do you live because I want to move there to the land of milk and honey.
Meanwhile, convicted criminals lose more than just their freedom as measured in days spent in confinement. It's part of the punishment.
Another thought. Should a convicted drunk driver do his time and then get his license back immediately upon release? After all, he's rehabilitated. Right?
John
ID_shooting
Member
This is a good topic; actually, I am quite surprised at the civilty displayed here.
Anyway:
Three senarios:
1. 20 y/o Guy gets cought up in the internet. Gets into a chat with what he thinks is a 16 y/o girl. In reality she is a 40 y/o cop posing as such. Through some suggestive language by the cop, the guy says some things that are of a sexual nature and the cops give him new bracelets for "enticing children." Was this a violent crime? Is there a victim? should he sepnd the nest 15 years in prison and give up some of his rights for the rest of his life?
2. Kid gets busted driving w/o priviliges when 17. His driving priviliges are suspended for 5 years because he couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of the judge. During the next few years, he is cought driving a few more times and his privilage suspension runs up to 25 years. During this time, not one accident, just minor traffic stuff is what keeps him being pulled over. The last one, the judge considers it a felony and lets him spend 2 years locked up. Again, who is the victim? Where is the violence? Why would he loose his right to firearm ownership, voting, and other liberties? BTW, before his prison term, he was a Marine and a Gulf War vet. Because he is now a felon, he lost most of his vet benefits too.
3. 18 y/o kid goes into the Marines, comes out of boot and inf training but has developed a loose skrew and is sent home being found unfit for the Marines. Shortly after he is home, him and his 15 y/o step sister do the nasty and she becomes pregnant. He gets a 10 year trip for molesting her. Even in the trial, she says the she was not forced and that she initiated all contact. OK, here we have a victim, but was the offence enough that he now be marked a felon?
Points to ponder for sure.
1 shows potential to commit a crime but IMO, there was no crime committed and he should not go to prison or be a felon. 2 I think is crime, just not one that he should be so severly punished for. 3 While the guy shows no moral caracter; however, since she was a willing participant and not a "blood" relative. I can not find fault in what he did legaly other than her age.
Anyway:
Three senarios:
1. 20 y/o Guy gets cought up in the internet. Gets into a chat with what he thinks is a 16 y/o girl. In reality she is a 40 y/o cop posing as such. Through some suggestive language by the cop, the guy says some things that are of a sexual nature and the cops give him new bracelets for "enticing children." Was this a violent crime? Is there a victim? should he sepnd the nest 15 years in prison and give up some of his rights for the rest of his life?
2. Kid gets busted driving w/o priviliges when 17. His driving priviliges are suspended for 5 years because he couldn't keep his mouth shut in front of the judge. During the next few years, he is cought driving a few more times and his privilage suspension runs up to 25 years. During this time, not one accident, just minor traffic stuff is what keeps him being pulled over. The last one, the judge considers it a felony and lets him spend 2 years locked up. Again, who is the victim? Where is the violence? Why would he loose his right to firearm ownership, voting, and other liberties? BTW, before his prison term, he was a Marine and a Gulf War vet. Because he is now a felon, he lost most of his vet benefits too.
3. 18 y/o kid goes into the Marines, comes out of boot and inf training but has developed a loose skrew and is sent home being found unfit for the Marines. Shortly after he is home, him and his 15 y/o step sister do the nasty and she becomes pregnant. He gets a 10 year trip for molesting her. Even in the trial, she says the she was not forced and that she initiated all contact. OK, here we have a victim, but was the offence enough that he now be marked a felon?
Points to ponder for sure.
1 shows potential to commit a crime but IMO, there was no crime committed and he should not go to prison or be a felon. 2 I think is crime, just not one that he should be so severly punished for. 3 While the guy shows no moral caracter; however, since she was a willing participant and not a "blood" relative. I can not find fault in what he did legaly other than her age.
Wasn't it the Gun Control Act of 1968 that made felonies a disqualifier for gun ownership? I thought that before the 1968 GCA, it was a state decision.
I'd be a lot more comfortable with the idea if I didn't see 2nd degree murder convicts out after six years. If we'd toughen up the penalties for acts of violence and eliminate the penalties for personal pharmaceutical use, I'd be all for complete (including voting) restoration of rights.
I heard somewhere that the notorious gunman John Wesley Hardin's first act upon leaving prison was to purchase a pair of Colt Peacemakers and that he spent the remainder of his life as a trial attorney.
Keith
I'd be a lot more comfortable with the idea if I didn't see 2nd degree murder convicts out after six years. If we'd toughen up the penalties for acts of violence and eliminate the penalties for personal pharmaceutical use, I'd be all for complete (including voting) restoration of rights.
I heard somewhere that the notorious gunman John Wesley Hardin's first act upon leaving prison was to purchase a pair of Colt Peacemakers and that he spent the remainder of his life as a trial attorney.
Keith
Here in TN, it wouldn't have to be changed much. Most convicted felons can appeal to have their rights fully restored after the maximum sentence has elapsed. I find this fair and reasonable.
I don't understand the relation there, would you explain how eliminating penalties for personal pharmaceuticals factors in?
DMK
Member
This is a common assumption and probably the major reason why convicted felons must forfeit their right to self defense.
I'll bet that if you polled NRA members, 99% would say that somebody accused of violating a tax law should not forfeit their right to self defense and 99% would say those convicted of a violent crime should. If you just asked "should somebody accused of a felony forfeit their right to self defense", most would assume the latter.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I do live in fear of inadvertantly violating some firearm or tax technicality and losing my rights. A free man should not have these worries.
J Miller
Member
TechBrute,
Since I'm on my way to go do things I read your post and then skipped all the other responces. I hope I'm not duplicating somebodys comments.
As far as my knowlege goes, and it's spotty, there is no constitutional prohibition on ex cons possessing firearms or other weapons.
This ban on felons possessing guns started with GCA 68.
Now, in recent years more and more crimes have become felonies. A convicted felon can't own guns. And they've even added certain misdemenors as conditions to prevent ownership of guns.
Both of these trends are patently absurd.
Here is a couple examples, one vague, one specific.
If a person is such a vicious criminal that we don't want him owning guns, then what the heck is he doing out on the street? He should be locked up till he's so old he forgot why he was locked up in the first place.
My brother in an alcoholic. In California a 3'rd conviction for DUI is a felony. Several years ago while fighting a bought of stupidity he got busted a third time while walking into a rehab center. The arresting officer saw him walking on the sidwalk, recognized him as a previously arrested DUI and busted him. The qualifying factor was his car was parked just down the street.
Anyway, my brother has never commited any violent crimes, never robbed anyone, never done anyting to harm anybody but himself. Yep DUI is very bad, I'm not excusing it. But because of his 3rd coviction, he's lost his gun rights forever. Why? He is not the kind of person that we would associate with violent crimes.
It is my feelings that once a person has been released from prision, their rights should be returned. All of them. Punishing and if possible rehabilitating a person is totally useless if they can not lead a normal productive life once they leave the prison. And in todays society there is a stigma about ex-cons that prevents them from living a normal productive life.
As I said above, if a person is so bad that we fear them, then keep them in jail or execute them.
Joe
Since I'm on my way to go do things I read your post and then skipped all the other responces. I hope I'm not duplicating somebodys comments.
As far as my knowlege goes, and it's spotty, there is no constitutional prohibition on ex cons possessing firearms or other weapons.
This ban on felons possessing guns started with GCA 68.
Now, in recent years more and more crimes have become felonies. A convicted felon can't own guns. And they've even added certain misdemenors as conditions to prevent ownership of guns.
Both of these trends are patently absurd.
Here is a couple examples, one vague, one specific.
If a person is such a vicious criminal that we don't want him owning guns, then what the heck is he doing out on the street? He should be locked up till he's so old he forgot why he was locked up in the first place.
My brother in an alcoholic. In California a 3'rd conviction for DUI is a felony. Several years ago while fighting a bought of stupidity he got busted a third time while walking into a rehab center. The arresting officer saw him walking on the sidwalk, recognized him as a previously arrested DUI and busted him. The qualifying factor was his car was parked just down the street.
Anyway, my brother has never commited any violent crimes, never robbed anyone, never done anyting to harm anybody but himself. Yep DUI is very bad, I'm not excusing it. But because of his 3rd coviction, he's lost his gun rights forever. Why? He is not the kind of person that we would associate with violent crimes.
It is my feelings that once a person has been released from prision, their rights should be returned. All of them. Punishing and if possible rehabilitating a person is totally useless if they can not lead a normal productive life once they leave the prison. And in todays society there is a stigma about ex-cons that prevents them from living a normal productive life.
As I said above, if a person is so bad that we fear them, then keep them in jail or execute them.
Joe
tulsamal
Member
Let's use the example of my poor dad. He worked as a civilian for DoD (Air Force) almost his whole working life (35 years). As he passed 60, he started to think about retirement. Lot of guys in his situation had been able to retire but then come back as work as a private contracter with the same basic job but more money. Sounded like a good deal to him. But he didn't want to actually retire until the contract was all laid out. He didn't want to accidentally "really retire." But he had a slug for a boss who didn't want to take the time to fill our all the paperwork. So Dad screwed up. He basically used his job description to fill out the job description for the contract. (If he boss had done the exact same thing it would have been fine.) My dad thought this was the way everybody did it. He certainly had no "criminal intent."
He had a big retirement party and all the big brass at WPAFB came and got everybody crying about what a great asset he had been to the defense community. He retired for one month and then came back three days a week as a contracter. He did that for a little over a month before he was told to "stay home while we investigate this contract." He hasn't worked since and that's been a year and a half. After six months of increasingly high legal bills, he decided last December to plead guilty to a felony in order to bring it all to a close. (I don't know the exact charge. Something like "creating a contract to favor yourself" or something.) He thought that was going to make it all end and he could at least find another job. (He's 63 and feels like his prime "earnings years" are slipping away.) Despite the plea agreement, it is still going on with another hearing scheduled for the end of this month. They seem to have settled on Dad "paying restitution" in the amount of $12,000. This will cover everything they paid to him as well as the plane tickets they paid for during that time. (Which is fxxxing stupid anyway since the man flew to AFB's and DID the work. NOBODY is saying he took money that he didn't earn! The court officer recommended ZERO restitution but the government wouldn't accept that. It would look bad. People might start asking why they wasted all this time and money on this GS-15 retired employee!) He will be fined somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 on top of that. Plus he will be banned from ever working on any type of government related contract again. (Which is going to make it hard for him since that's what he knows how to do.) They are saying he "probably" won't go to jail but JUST be on probation for 2-3 years. Plus, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees my parents ran up.
This is a man who has had one speeding ticket in his life. He's a real threat to society. But he owns a dozen or so guns that he has had since he was a teenager. He's going to have to "get rid of" all of them because he is a conviced felon now. I think that "label" of "felon" is even more painful to him than all the money.
See, that's part of the problem. People hear "felon" and think "violent." Obviously my dad has never done anything violent in his whole life. He was employed every day of his life after high school. He worked full time while going to college at night since he had a wife and young son at home.
Yes, I am bitter about it and so is everybody in the whole extended family. The government has managed to make a bunch more people think that government is just "out to get them." Good job.
Gregg
He had a big retirement party and all the big brass at WPAFB came and got everybody crying about what a great asset he had been to the defense community. He retired for one month and then came back three days a week as a contracter. He did that for a little over a month before he was told to "stay home while we investigate this contract." He hasn't worked since and that's been a year and a half. After six months of increasingly high legal bills, he decided last December to plead guilty to a felony in order to bring it all to a close. (I don't know the exact charge. Something like "creating a contract to favor yourself" or something.) He thought that was going to make it all end and he could at least find another job. (He's 63 and feels like his prime "earnings years" are slipping away.) Despite the plea agreement, it is still going on with another hearing scheduled for the end of this month. They seem to have settled on Dad "paying restitution" in the amount of $12,000. This will cover everything they paid to him as well as the plane tickets they paid for during that time. (Which is fxxxing stupid anyway since the man flew to AFB's and DID the work. NOBODY is saying he took money that he didn't earn! The court officer recommended ZERO restitution but the government wouldn't accept that. It would look bad. People might start asking why they wasted all this time and money on this GS-15 retired employee!) He will be fined somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 on top of that. Plus he will be banned from ever working on any type of government related contract again. (Which is going to make it hard for him since that's what he knows how to do.) They are saying he "probably" won't go to jail but JUST be on probation for 2-3 years. Plus, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees my parents ran up.
This is a man who has had one speeding ticket in his life. He's a real threat to society. But he owns a dozen or so guns that he has had since he was a teenager. He's going to have to "get rid of" all of them because he is a conviced felon now. I think that "label" of "felon" is even more painful to him than all the money.
See, that's part of the problem. People hear "felon" and think "violent." Obviously my dad has never done anything violent in his whole life. He was employed every day of his life after high school. He worked full time while going to college at night since he had a wife and young son at home.
Yes, I am bitter about it and so is everybody in the whole extended family. The government has managed to make a bunch more people think that government is just "out to get them." Good job.
Gregg
Chris Rhines
Member
Untrue. Past performance is no predictor of future performance - my mutual fund certificates say so right on the front (albeit in very small print.) In economics there is NO reliable predictor of future action. All predictors in a complex system break down beyond a very short time horizon - elementary large number theory.
If a person is not in prison, they should be free to own the weapon of their choice.
- Chris
Warren
Member
Wild....
I never said that I'd be out hunting these scumbags.
What I mean is that with equal access to weapons, the attrition rate favors the good people.
We see this in robbery attempts where the victim is armed, most of the accounts I've read has shown that the criminal loses.
I never said that I'd be out hunting these scumbags.
What I mean is that with equal access to weapons, the attrition rate favors the good people.
We see this in robbery attempts where the victim is armed, most of the accounts I've read has shown that the criminal loses.
I love this question. As someone said earlier, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.
The law in question is 18USC922, and for great examples of how the law is effective we only need to go as far as the federal agency tasked with enforcing it. At the ATF website they have tons of Press Releases published that detail successful felon in possession cases, and how those cases allow society to put those people back in jail while preparing to commit more violent crimes.
Here you go with some of their greatest hits:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/061004dal_taylorsentncd.htm
"Taylor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During the course of the investigation it was determined that Taylor qualified for sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Statute for three prior robbery convictions, two in California and one in Oklahoma. Taylor had also been implicated in narcotics activity, including bartering a firearm to secure the funds for the purchase of crack cocaine."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/060204stp_ruffinplea.pdf
"Demetrius E. Ruffin, Chicago, DOB: 09/10/1976, pleaded guilty in United States District Court, to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, on March 12, 2004. . . Ruffin told Officer Markham he had carried drugs in the hidden compartment, and that he sold drugs. According to Ruffin, he had purchased the pistol in Chicago for
$150 and that he needed it for protection from rival drug dealers. Ruffin had earlier been convicted of felony drug distribution in Chicago."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/112602chi_springfieldfelon.htm
"Clayton Brewer, age 24, of 1052 North Fifth Street, Springfield, Illinois, was sentenced today to a term of 40 months imprisonment for possessing a firearm as a felon. . . Court records reflect Brewer was convicted on September 30, 1998, in Sangamon County for aggravated battery and unlawful use of weapons and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."
To see more just go to this link: Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases
The law in question is 18USC922, and for great examples of how the law is effective we only need to go as far as the federal agency tasked with enforcing it. At the ATF website they have tons of Press Releases published that detail successful felon in possession cases, and how those cases allow society to put those people back in jail while preparing to commit more violent crimes.
Here you go with some of their greatest hits:
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/061004dal_taylorsentncd.htm
"Taylor pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. During the course of the investigation it was determined that Taylor qualified for sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Statute for three prior robbery convictions, two in California and one in Oklahoma. Taylor had also been implicated in narcotics activity, including bartering a firearm to secure the funds for the purchase of crack cocaine."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/060204stp_ruffinplea.pdf
"Demetrius E. Ruffin, Chicago, DOB: 09/10/1976, pleaded guilty in United States District Court, to unlawfully possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, on March 12, 2004. . . Ruffin told Officer Markham he had carried drugs in the hidden compartment, and that he sold drugs. According to Ruffin, he had purchased the pistol in Chicago for
$150 and that he needed it for protection from rival drug dealers. Ruffin had earlier been convicted of felony drug distribution in Chicago."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/112602chi_springfieldfelon.htm
"Clayton Brewer, age 24, of 1052 North Fifth Street, Springfield, Illinois, was sentenced today to a term of 40 months imprisonment for possessing a firearm as a felon. . . Court records reflect Brewer was convicted on September 30, 1998, in Sangamon County for aggravated battery and unlawful use of weapons and was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of three years imprisonment in the Illinois Department of Corrections."
http://www.atf.gov/press/fy03press/field/060903kc_mcallsen.pdf
"The jury found McCall guilty of being in possession of a Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver, a Maverick 12 gauge shotgun, a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic pistol, a Stevens .22 caliber rifle and a J.C. Higgins .22 caliber rifle on Feb. 15, 2002. Under federal law, Graves
explained, it is illegal for any felon to be in possession of any firearm or ammunition. McCall has three prior criminal felony convictions for robbery, manslaughter and drug possession."
To see more just go to this link: Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases
Foreign Devil
Member
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2004
- Messages
- 507
etc etc etc
How many times have we made an anti roll their eyes by using this tired old argument. Am I going to be the one who utters the unspeakable truth here? YEs, things other than guns can be used to kill people, but guns make it a lot easier. It's easier for you to defend yourself with a gun than a baseball bat most of the time(though I keep one of each handy).
When it comes to crime people do tend to be creatures of habit. Different classes of criminals have different recidivism rates - I think robbers are the highest for violent criminals and burglars have the highest overall. As a predictor of future behavior, past offending is a pretty good predictor. Those with more arrests in their past are more likely to be arrested again.
The argument that "if they're not in prison they deserve full rights" is also no good. There are many degrees of punishment short of incarceration like house arrest, probation, etc. Of course a right as important as the right to arms shouldn't be taken away for minor offenses, but if it's done as part of the sentence then due process has been met.
Wildalaska
member
My heart bleeds, he should have kept it in his pants then....
Exactly...Ive never been convicted of a gun prohibing crime and if others have, hey so waht...not my problem..
Guess if I ever do I'll spend my time whining about it.
Hey if ya cant do the time, dont do the crime. If your innocenet take it to trial. If ya get convicted, stop whining.
Again my heart bleedss. Should have kept his mouth shut in the first place.
I spent over 15 years defending criminal cases...I have seen and heard every excuse in the book...let me give you a little tip based on my little small corner of the criminal justice system...the vast majority of arresteees are really and truly guilty of something! Im sorry that some of us may have family members who have made mistakes, or even made mistakes oursleves, but until you can think of a system to weed out the scumbags from the "innocent victims" yer gonna have to suffer...
WildandthatsthatAlaska
I love this question too because the greatest proponents of the GCA love to parade its greatest hits but strangely fall silent when it comes to its greatest misses. Several real-life counterpoints have been presented in this thread - do each of these individuals deserve their RKBA stripped forever? If the answer is not "yes" to each case, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that a blanket lifetime prohibition on future firearms ownership is an overly coarse solution?
Wild, you illustrate the single biggest problem within the gun community: indifference and apathy towards other people's rights.
Shotgunners don't care about the evil black rifles. Bullseye shooters don't care about hunting rifles. Hunters don't care about CCW.
You don't care about anyone's rights but yourself. That's your perogative, but don't expect anyone to care when your little FFL is taken away and you are sued out of existence when a gun you sold to someone is stolen and used in a crime. My heart won't bleed for you.
Shotgunners don't care about the evil black rifles. Bullseye shooters don't care about hunting rifles. Hunters don't care about CCW.
You don't care about anyone's rights but yourself. That's your perogative, but don't expect anyone to care when your little FFL is taken away and you are sued out of existence when a gun you sold to someone is stolen and used in a crime. My heart won't bleed for you.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, but I suspect you're talking in some detached abstract manner describing a one size fits all policy. The point is, that no convicted predator, whether they be "violent" or just "exploitive" of another human being should be allowed to legally possess firearms.
Riley, you've just shot an intruder you found standing over your daughter's bed. Congrats, because your DA is one of the leading proponents of Gun Control and is going to use you as a precidence. You're a working man, so you can't quite swing Johnny Cochran, and your lawyer doesn't quite cut it. Congrats again because you've just been convicted of manslaughter. You've now lost all your rights because you defended your family. I guess we won't feel sorry for you, since you shouldn't have done the crime.
- Status