Reasonable Gun Control - Page 8

Reasonable Gun Control

This is a discussion on Reasonable Gun Control within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Addendum: I'm really having trouble seeing why we're in such a hurry to make sure people convicted of violent crimes -- that is, violent criminals ...

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678
Results 106 to 115 of 115
  1. #106
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Addendum:

    I'm really having trouble seeing why we're in such a hurry to make sure people convicted of violent crimes -- that is, violent criminals -- should have access to firearms. One of the big arguments in favor is the extremely low % of crime by CCW'ers. Why would we let the very people who've proven themselves violent soil the image of responsible gun ownership and usage by throwing our lot in with them? This seems very counterproductive to me.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams


  2. #107
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    Addendum:

    I'm really having trouble seeing why we're in such a hurry to make sure people convicted of violent crimes -- that is, violent criminals -- should have access to firearms. One of the big arguments in favor is the extremely low % of crime by CCW'ers. Why would we let the very people who've proven themselves violent soil the image of responsible gun ownership and usage by throwing our lot in with them? This seems very counterproductive to me.
    Because we don't cut the tongue out of people who are guilty of libel, or slander.

    Firearms are just about the only thing that the gov't attempts to regulate(unsuccessfully) the 'ability' of a person to commit a crime. You don't put a muzzle or restrict the vocal cords of people that enter a public theater to ensure that they do not yell 'Fire!' or 'Bomb!'; you simply make it illegal. If you perform such an action, you are held responsible.

    The equation of limitations on 1st amendment rights with the limitations on 2nd amendment rights are laughable. We impose penalties for improper use of the 1st amendment, and yet we impose restrictions to attempt to prevent people from abusing the 2nd amendment.

    Next time you fill out a Criminal Background check to purchase a typewriter or computer, let me know.

    If a felon has been released from prison, I equate that as MY gov't telling me that they no longer believe the person they are releasing to be a detriment to society. If they are releasing him before they can give me that assurance, then not only should the felon be held responsible, but the person who authorized his release.

    There is no reason to 'legislate a restriction' upon somebody who is released from prison that cannot neither be enforced, or detected, unless they commit another crime.

    Making it illegal for a prior felon to defend himself only hinders the felon who would have only used a firearm for self defense and does not matter to the felon who would break the law in the first place.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  3. #108
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    The firearm restrictions -- in my world -- wouldn't be restrictive. It's retributive. You don't give personality or DNA tests to determine one's criminal tendencies and restrict access to those who might commit crimes. You punish convicted violent offenders by taking away their guns. It's, again, not restrictive, any more than prison is about "keeping them away from the public." Prison is about punishment; you take away their liberty because of their crimes.

    If a felon has been released from prison, I equate that as MY gov't telling me that they no longer believe the person they are releasing to be a detriment to society. If they are releasing him before they can give me that assurance, then not only should the felon be held responsible, but the person who authorized his release.
    This is entirely absurd.

    The government releases a felon because they've fulfilled the aspect of their punishment related to prison. If an individual is sentenced to 10 years, at 10 years, the prison must release that person, even if the guy is just as homicidal or more so than when he came in. Maybe they'll get early release for good behavior, but no amount of bad attitude (so long as it doesn't turn into an actual crime) will extend a prisoner's sentence past the release date. It has nothing to do with the government saying "This person is no longer a threat to society." In fact, many individuals imprisoned because of nonviolent offenses end up as violent criminals after their release. [See these Bureau of Justice documents; it is a BoJ doc, so they try to dress up the statistics, but look closely and you'll find that nonviolent offenders tend to become violent: "Among nonviolent releasees, about 1 in 5 were rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years of discharge"].

    I think you made the exact opposite argument you intended by arguing that the prison should keep someone beyond their sentence because some shrink somewhere thinks they're still a danger.

    And, again, I don't see it as preventative. I see it as a punishment.

    Can't handle your freedom without committing a crime? Welcome to prison. Can't go through life without being violent? Welcome to being unarmed.




    Then again, you might be entirely right about the ability to enforce.... but whether it would work is an entirely different argument from whether it would justified in the first place...
    Last edited by biasedbulldog; July 17th, 2008 at 12:46 AM. Reason: Clarity
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  4. #109
    Member Array hpj3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by PaulJ View Post
    If you look at any right provided by the constitution, it is controlled by laws. The 2nd. amendment should not be any different. As you have a right to carry, so I have a right to walk into Walmart without being afraid that a new rightful but untrained gun owner is practicing quick draws while enjoying his Nachos.

    Where in the Constitution does it say you the right to not be afraid?

    "If you think its a good idea for everybody to carry, wouldn't it be a good idea for everybody to understand gun safety?"

    Agreed - but not mandated by the imperial gov-co.


    "the US does have laws regulating birth control / abortion."

    And the relevance?


    "I agree on the politician. As far as the police officer (or someone else mentioned military) goes: Are you willing to go thorugh the same training and qualify once a year?
    "

    Then requirements for police are a departmental - not mandated by law.
    As for the military, the training they get is not really applicable to the civilian world... and many get none at all. I don't agree with the concept that simply because one is in the military that it automatically qualifies them with a firearm. (Note: I'm not diss-ing here - I'm a SEA vet with considerable post-SEA armed experience).

    Howard
    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    SC SLED Certified CWP Instructor

  5. #110
    Member Array hpj3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    68
    Originally Posted by PaulJ
    In my opinion, I consider the following reasonable:

    "- Convicted felons should not be permitted to carry guns."

    I may debate this later...

    "- Alcohol and guns don't mix. While I wouldn't mind carry in bars, I would consider similar rules as for DUI reasonable."

    Only if an incident occurs involving the weapon while carrying. The simple possession while "UI" should not be an offense,as NO crime has been committed.


    "- Minors should not carry guns. 21 vs. 18 years old: I don't really care. If they are old enough to serve in the armed forces, they are probably old enough to carry."

    Disagree - the difference here is that at 18, military experience lends itself to a degree of self-discipline that too many of those without it don't have. Saying this, there are many 18 yr olds that are military that I wouldn't trust off-duty. And there are many that I would. The extra 3 yrs adds some maturity to many of them...

    " I don't mind mandatory training. Having people carry concealed without a basic understanding of gun safety and reasonable use of force is a scary aspect to me."

    Again - not mandated by gov-co. See my sig line - I am an instructor as well as a RSO. I do this for one reason - the law in SC says a class is required. By teaching the class, I facilitate the process, allowing more people to comply. As a general rule, I lose money on most classes. I don't do it for the money.

    " A gun owner is responsible for guns they own, and responsible for keeping them out of BGs hands by reasonably securing them (either have them close to you at all times, or lock them up)"

    Again - who determines "reasonable" ? I agree with the basic premise, but laws can be distorted/bastardized (seen the latest DC response?).

    Howard
    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    SC SLED Certified CWP Instructor

  6. #111
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Well, I will start off by saying I wasn't in best form in my argument. I try not to leave so many large holes that could have been avoided by simple changes in wording. With that said...
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    The government releases a felon because they've fulfilled the aspect of their punishment related to prison. If an individual is sentenced to 10 years, at 10 years, the prison must release that person, even if the guy is just as homicidal or more so than when he came in. Maybe they'll get early release for good behavior, but no amount of bad attitude (so long as it doesn't turn into an actual crime) will extend a prisoner's sentence past the release date. It has nothing to do with the government saying "This person is no longer a threat to society."
    I should have stated early release from prison rather than released from prison. I would be interested in the actual % of people who serve their full sentences. In just about every news report I read, the criminal is somebody who was released early and committed the crime when they should have been in jail in the first place. Many of our repeat offenders should have been in jail in the first place, which would have severely limited their ability to commit that crime. Also, if you think about it from an Economic standpoint, the criminal has a cost/benefit curve. He must weigh the chance of getting caught vs the punishment if caught vs the perceived gain he expects to achieve by the crime. By altering those sentences(either up or down), we shift the curves to make it more or less profitable for the criminal to break the laws.
    In fact, many individuals imprisoned because of nonviolent offenses end up as violent criminals after their release. [See these Bureau of Justice documents; it is a BoJ doc, so they try to dress up the statistics, but look closely and you'll find that nonviolent offenders tend to become violent: "Among nonviolent releasees, about 1 in 5 were rearrested for a violent crime within 3 years of discharge"].
    That does not surprise me, especially when they are seeing how little time people actually serve for their sentences. It also does not surprise me because by making them 'felons' and forcing them to carry that title, we make them 3rd class citizens. Even after they are released, they have difficulty getting hired, getting an apartment, or defending themselves. By permanently branding somebody as a felon, the system does, in fact contribute to further bad behavior. I will almost never 'blame the system' or 'their circumstances' instead of the individual; this is a small exception.
    I think you made the exact opposite argument you intended by arguing that the prison should keep someone beyond their sentence because some shrink somewhere thinks they're still a danger.
    I did not mean to imply they should be kept beyond their sentence. I meant that they should be kept for their full sentence unless the govt is sure that they will not continue to commit crimes when their freedom is restored.
    And, again, I don't see it as preventative. I see it as a punishment.

    Can't handle your freedom without committing a crime? Welcome to prison. Can't go through life without being violent? Welcome to being unarmed.

    Then again, you might be entirely right about the ability to enforce.... but whether it would work is an entirely different argument from whether it would justified in the first place...
    It's the same argument the Brady Campaign uses against us. "If the guns were illegal, then they wouldn't have them, and we wouldn't have any gun crime." We know this to be untrue. How many times have we used the argument of, "Gun control only effects law-abiding citizens since the criminals will break the laws anyway"? Well, its the same thing, "Restricting felons RKBA will only effect the reformed felon since the unreformed felon will break the laws anyway."

    If we can agree that the die-hard BG's will acquire guns anyway, then the only reason to restrict a felons RKBA, from a common sense standpoint, is to have something else to charge a criminal with if he does break the law. In other words, to add sentencing time. We can do that much more efficiently by automatically increasing time served for habitual offenders. In that way, the reformed felon is not restricted, and the unreformed felon's situation has not changed. It's a net-positive gain. Saying that "making it illegal for a felon to own a handgun will prevent prior-felons from committing violent crime" is the same as saying that "making all guns illegal will eliminate all violent crime."
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  7. #112
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Okay, the practical aspects (criminals don't obey gun laws, almost definitionally) have beaten me into submission. And the 3rd-class-citizen branding.

    Still, I'm not entirely convinced that, in theory, a punishment that takes away a citizen's RKBA is unsound. And at this critical juncture, I wouldn't advise making "Give Felons their Guns Back" a regular slogan for gun rights advocates. Of course, there's the "first they came for the..." slippery-slope argument, but I don't think it's relevant. I think the opposite is more likely: undecided voters thinking that if either everybody, violent felons included, gets guns or nobody gets guns, they'd rather have the latter. That doesn't mean its a logical argument, but when we throw our hat in with violent felons... well, I'm not sure we'd be doing ourselves any favors in public opinion. Things like the VCDL picnic are a huge boost to gun rights image because of the way it was handled, because of the obvious responsible citizenship. I'm not so sure the VECGA picnic would turn out so well... that the Virginia Ex-Cons Gun Association... Which doesn't exist... yet.
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

  8. #113
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    You're right, of course. "Give Felons Their Guns Back" would not be a good slogan, and it's not a strong position to argue from.

    But then again, I never made the claim that the general public is logical.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  9. #114
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by biasedbulldog View Post
    Okay, the practical aspects (criminals don't obey gun laws, almost definitionally) have beaten me into submission. And the 3rd-class-citizen branding.
    Well, then I'll take the baton.

    The one issue with which I wholeheartly agree with the antis is that we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Sure, they will find a way to get them anyway but that does not absolve our resonsibility to make it as difficult as possible for them. We certainly don't go to the gang neighborhoods and offer guns to gang members 'because they will get them anyway.'

    Convicted felons ARE criminals. They chose to break the law; they chose to run afoul of society. It is not only that they committed a crime. It is a character flaw. We all know the recidivism rate of child molestors. No amount of punishment or rehabilitation deters their base evil. To think that a criminal can serve his jail sentence and pay his fine amd it will change his character is naive. Moreover, part of the punishment IS that he loses certain rights for life. Do the crime, do the time AND the other associated penalties.

    As to making them third class citizens, that is not accurate. They made themselves into felons. I understand the concept of forgiveness, but that is between the criminal and God. For the safety of society, I see no reason to take a chance that the felon (a proven violent aggressor) would suddenly become goody two shoes. And I see no compelling reason to allow him legal access to firearms.

  10. #115
    Member Array biasedbulldog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    317
    Moreover, part of the punishment IS that he loses certain rights for life. Do the crime, do the time AND the other associated penalties.
    This is certainly what I argued and still think. There's no need to see it as a "pre-punishment" against future crimes; simply comes with the territory. I do think, again, that most measures to prevent felons from acquiring weapons (or anyone, for that matter) are going to cumbersome, inefficient, potentially invasive to the rest of us, and will probably not be effective with the folks we're most concerned about -- the guy who got in a bar brawl or kicked his neighbor's dog or punched a guy for insulting his wife will probably follow the law, but the hardcore criminals won't. And, again, I'm not sure there's any reasonable way effectively to prevent them from getting them.

    I agree with you in theory, though I would say that it's possible to become a felon through a lapse in judgment rather than some deep, intrinsic personal flaw (i/e, punching a guy for insulting your wife; unwise, but I think we can sympathize).
    "War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Looking for a S&W 637 whats a reasonable price?
    By rainyday in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: September 27th, 2009, 12:39 PM
  2. Police chief says something reasonable about bad cop
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 09:23 PM
  3. Reasonable Restrictions
    By 2edgesword in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: July 20th, 2008, 04:02 PM
  4. Reasonable Gun Control Solution
    By Pitmaster in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: August 29th, 2007, 12:42 PM

Search tags for this page

gun control commercial

Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors