No, it's more important to not even be in the same room with people who disagree with you. Likewise, keeping the guns clean is more important than learning the law regarding when you may or may not use a gun in self-defense.
The list is lousy.
Ten Commandments of Gun Ownership
- Thread starter 450 Dakota
- Start date
- Status
No, it's more important to not even be in the same room with people who disagree with you. Likewise, keeping the guns clean is more important than learning the law regarding when you may or may not use a gun in self-defense.
The list is lousy.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
Absolutely not! Thank you!
And that is my point. Victimless "crimes" like this are a waste of taxpayer money and completely irrelevant. I dont care if Bill, the mild-mannered former embezzler of millions buys and carries a gun. No one should. I also dont care if Scott, the ex-axe-murderer buys one. He is going to do whatever he wants to anyway, and the parole board should require extensive testing before releasing someone like this.
JRH6856
Member
Many of those same politicians were the ones that also decided "the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed." and that no person should "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." They also specified that felony indictments must be returned by a grand jury, and the charges tried by a jury. Over the years, we have really lost sight of the importance of the jury in protecting our rights, but the founder's intent was that the people of the community would decide whether or not a person would be charged, and whether or not they were guilty. It was also expected and intended that through jury service, each person would be involved and stay involved in both the legal a political system and through that participation, learn how the law and government works. These days most of us juet leave it to the politicians to make our decisions for uw and our only role is to complain about the results.
As I said, there are many offenses classified as felonies that probably don't rise to that level. We complain about it here. How many of us have complained directly to our elected representatives and demanded qction?
Not if he gets caught with a gun (though wouldn't he be more interested in axes) and gets put back in jail. As explained above, this particular law does not depend on criminals being afraid of breaking the law. And, therefore, unlike most gun control, it probably has a significant impact on crime and violence rates.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
Yep, should have been number one. However, safety is a VALUE, not a commandment or a rule. Those who are unsafe on the road or on the job are going to be inherently unsafe with a gun. You can learn safety techniques, but at the end of the day, you will be only as safe as you are doing other things.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So we're not actually believing that the law on prohibited possession will stop him, we're instead believing that law enforcement might/could/maybe/perhaps/hopefully/who-are-we-kidding catch him out with a gun sometime and so then we can throw him back in jail?
Gad. I don't know which bedtime story I find least comforting. Yeah, Jimmy the smack dealer gets picked up in a drug sting and has a weapons charge to plea bargain away. Eddie the rapist or Joe the axe murderer out on parole, though? Naaah. If they have a gun for nefarious purposes, they aren't going to get "picked up" with it until they've done whatever it is they were going to do. Or they'll just use an electric cord as a garrote, or a brass lamp as a bludgeon, or... The idea that we "put them away" when we catch them on a weapons charge is a hopelessly naive idea.
The idea that these petty charges will help scare them straight is risible.
Last edited:
Yes. Are you under the impression this doesn't happen with some frequency?
A felon, prohibited from having a gun, who nevertheless has one is almost certainly back on the path to hurting others. When they're caught on that path and can be re-incarcerated before they do further damage, that's a good thing. Again, if you want to argue that some non-violent felons shouldn't be prohibited, then I'm all ears. But a convicted rapist or armed robber gets caught with a gun? Sorry, I want him locked up. You don't?
cambeul41
Member
Do you have something against Martha Stewert's being able to defend herself?
Years ago I was in the sheriff's office to get a pistol purchase permit. There was an old man in bib-overalls there for the same purpose. The clerk, in a sympathetic tone, told him, "I'm sorry, I can't issue you a permit. THis is what we have on you." And she showed him a sheet of paper.
He looked at it, he seemed to shrink into himself, and said, "But, but that was 52 years ago . . . ."
I don't know what he did 52 years previously. But his beaten down image has stuck with me, coming to fore when some one says that losing rights for life is part of the penalty simply because an infraction is labeled "felony." Do we want justice or vengeance?
And to those who say it is easy to not commit felonies — are you so sure? I am not. There is a book, Three Felonies a Day, which is the author's estimate of the number of crimes the average American unwittingly commits. If one unknowingly commits a felony, is caught and convicted, one is a felon . . . so one should forevermore be deprived of ones rights?
I do like what Arkansas Paul said about his state's laws on the subject.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
I dont like to hear "probably" when it comes to laws. I would like to see some actual statistics on that. From what the FBI states, very few blocked (NCIC) attempts at purchasing a weapon are even investigated or prosecuted and felons caught with a firearm are rarely given meaningful sentences. If Charlie the murderer said, "Gosh, I was gonna kill my neighbors but that darn NCIC check blocked me, the FBI arrested me and they put me in jail. If there were hard evidence that these laws are saving lives, I would be more inclined to give them a chance. But, of course, there is none.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
You don't know that. You are now making assumptions about people's motives. I think you are a bright person, but I sure wouldnt want you on a jury if I were an ex-felon being accused of something.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Is he caught DOING SOMETHING? Or just caught WITH a gun? If he's not doing something worthy of official interaction, why is he being investigated to the point that a gun is discovered?
The only reason I can fathom for wanting him randomly "picked up" with a gun and sent back to prison is if you really don't want him out on the streets anyway and would prefer he just stayed in prison. (No problem there.) But thinking that he'll be somehow "found" to have a gun and busted for it is not terribly realistic.
IF he's found with a gun, do I want him sent back to prison? It depends. What is he DOING with it? Is there some proof that he was committing another crime?
Some of the folks with the most realistic reasons to fear for their lives are convicted felons, therefore some of the folks with the most present need of effective tools for defending their lives are convicted felons. It is not logical to say that the only reason a convicted felon might be in possession of a firearm is that they are setting out to hurt or kill someone (again?).
We don't tell any person in this country (short of death row residents) that they must sit idle and die without attempting to prevent someone else from hurting or killing them. Even convicted felons. While the law doesn't say they are allowed to have a firearm, self defense is STILL a perfectly real (if not lawful, usually) reason for them to do so.
I agree about hard data being the best basis for policy. If the data does not support the law as it stands now, then we should re-consider it. Some of the data that would be helpful to see:
Recidivism rate among felons
Recidivism rate among violent felons (if we're having a discussion about treating violent felons differently than non-violent felons)
Number of felon-in-possession charges filed per year (state and federal charges)
Number of those charges that were the primary charge as opposed to an add-in charge
The most useful data - and the data that so often undermines gun control's claims of efficacy - is to either have before-and-after data on crime rates before/after the no-felons-with-guns law was enacted, or to have comparisons across states that have different rules. The problem is that, as far as I know, we've prohibited felons from having guns for so long, and that rule has been uniform across all states, that we really have no "control" group. So we do have to make some projections.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
You hit the nail on the proverbial head! Thanks! EVERYONE has the natural right to self defense and the defense of ones family. I commend this guy for trying to do it "legally". Good description of his reaction. I have seen it in some of the guys who work for me when they try to get a TWIC card. Makes you kind of hate the over-socialization of the world.
There are lots of times when the police will interact with people without catching them red-handed in the commission of a crime. So, yes, either way.
Close, but not exactly. We know that felons are more prone to additional crimes after release. At the same time, we know that a substantial number will turn their lives around and be model citizens. We want to give people a chance to be the latter, but reduce the risks associated with the former. One way to do that is to draw a big red line and tell them "no guns, and if we catch you with one, you're going back to jail." That essentially gives society an earlier/easier standard for monitoring them. If they get a gun, they're presumed to be back on the bad path, and they need to spend more time being "rehabilitated."
That sounds reasonable, but 1) is it true? And 2) why, if true, is that the case? I suspect it probably is true, and that it's because many of them simply resume the same criminal enterprises and associations that got them convicted in the first place. If you want to convince me that those who live a model life have a materially higher risk of violent death, you'll have to show me.
That's true, insofar as it goes. But when a person has demonstrated a willingness to illegally use a gun to hurt others, then allowing them a gun to protect their own rights comes at the expense of others' rights not to be shot or robbed or raped. One consequence of committing serious crimes is that you forfeit the single most effective class of tools for self-defense. Try not to commit serious crimes.
JRH6856
Member
I'm not opposed to the idea that upon release after completion of their sentence, or successful completion of parole or probation for the original sentence, a felon automatically begin a period of probation (time period dependent on the nature and severity of the crime committed or the sentence.) after successful completion of which, his/her rights would be retored. What I am opposed to is those rights being restored automatically just because he avoided shanking someone while in prison.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I worked with an older fellow for several years who had gone to prison for armed robbery as a young man and spent a long danged time in the system. He was very heavily involved in one of the more well-known prison gangs during many of his years on the inside. Eventually became a pastor ... long story.
His descriptions of life inside, and life outside afterward, and being around town or at the probation office, running into "acquaintances" who didn't like him and his "brothers" from his former life would make your blood run pretty cold.
Hey, no sympathy of course. But that man had FAR more reason to need a gun for self-defense than I've ever faced. I wouldn't have given him one, and he never would have asked, but truth is truth.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
Couldnt have said it better. On that note, I think I will rest with regard to gun control. Yes, the law is the law, but some laws are ineffective, irrelevant or just plain wrong--especially laws that criminalize without violation of someone else's life, health or property. No, my wife probably doesnt want to live next door to Henry the Hacker, an ex-murderer who was paroled yesterday and carries a gun in his belt while muttering about revenge. However, its not really the gun in his belt we have to worry about, is it? Which is why we live in a HOA! Oops. There's the elitist in me coming out.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Right. Like I said, with Jimmy the smack dealer. But the guys we're really worried about -- the predators -- aren't going to get picked up this way. They're going to be good little psychopaths until they aren't...
So what, we randomly search their possessions so we KNOW if they've got a gun? Or we're using this an easy shot at the low-hanging fruit. If they're dumb enough to get caught, we'll sweep them back into the system? That's not a warm and fuzzy thought.
Covered that, I think. Sure, could be they're back into the old habits. Or could be that they still have enemies from inside. Or from outside. Or face threats from folks looking for a bit of vigilante justice and revenge. Lots of reasons.
No it doesn't. It MIGHT be thought to increase the effectiveness of their ability to inflict harm, IF you believe there's some minor deterrent effect in the prohibited classification. But it certainly does not remove anyone else's right to safety/security. Those other folks still have exactly the same rights and responsibilities for their own well-being as they ever did or ever will.
Well, that's the bedtime story we tell ourselves, isn't it? Truthy, even if not true.
450 Dakota
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2014
- Messages
- 42
Why would we "presume" that they are back on the bad path?
JRH6856
Member
Perhaps because, in acquiring the gun, they have committed another felony, thus showing a continuing disrespect and disregard for the law?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Don't worry, he's dead now. The last time I spoke with him he was still using a portion of his tiny salary to buy clothes at the goodwill and handing them out to the hookers and addicts who worked the corners around his part of Baltimore.
A rare duck, for sure, but he taught me a few things.
Given that most criminals are pretty dumb, if you can sweep up the dumb ones who are on the bad path, then you're really improving things.
Yes. But what we know is that they have decided to break the law yet again. And that, by itself, is a pretty good indication that model citizenry is not their current plan.
It doesn't effect their legal entitlement to safety. It does impact the likelihood of that right being removed/disregarded. Even if there is no deterrent effect whatsoever. Because some felons will go back to jail, where they are a minimal risk. We've covered this.
What's the bedtime story? That guns are effective for self-defense? That the restriction against felons possessing guns is avoided by refraining from committing serious crimes?
That's excellent. I believe in redemption and that some people can change. That's part of why I continue to favor some form of the no-guns-for-felons rule. If you tell the populace that guys can buy guns on the way home from prison, they'll want all jail sentences to be extended for much longer. I'd rather give some felons the chance to live productive lives. Of course, if they can't deal with that chance without a gun, then they can just go sit in jail again.
- Status
