imported post
AWDstylez wrote:
I agree that violent and non-violent should be differentiated, but my post was mainly in relation to this:
Orygunner wrote:
If someone is convicted of a crime, and pays their debt to society, they should be allowed to have a firearm for self-defense. Repeat violent offenders,maybe theyshould be denied legally having guns, but it won't stop them, so why are we even trying?
I disagree. Whether a violent criminal pays their debt or not does not change the fact that theyare a violent criminal. The only option I think we would both agree to be the ideal is reviewing these people on a case-by-case basis, however, thereis currentlyneither the time, man-power, nor willingness to do it.
Even non-violent felonies like fraud and embezzelment show a complete lack of self-control and respect for other people as well as an anti-social personality, all attributes of someone I would NOT want to see with firearms.
It could also be argued, then, that inappropriate speeders and other aggressive drivers should lose the right to possess firearms, as they clearly demonstrate a lack of self-control as well. Hell, the soccer moms who systematically race past playgrounds at 45 in a 25 because they can't manage their time are, IMHO, lacking even more self-control than most of your violent offenders. But that's another topic...
imperialism2024 wrote:
Which leads to a second aspect, that of dangerousness in general. We all know that people can be killed with a variety of instruments, and that the killing depends on motive and not the tool. I believe you're missing the point that a gun is just a tool. Deny access to that tool, and a determined individual will improvise. Gun or no gun, if a felon decides he wants to kill his girlfriend who cheated on him in prison, I doubt he'll go, "Oh no! I can't legally buy a gun! Guess I won't kill her now..." Perhaps an illegal gun will be used, or perhaps a knife, shovel, brick, or bare hands. A gun is a tool.
I agree that a gun is a tool and not what causes the crime, but to deny that a gun is a far superior tool to a knife or a bat is either naive or intentionally overlooking the facts. I shouldn't even have to give the possible ex-girlfriend killing senarios thatwould have drasitically different outcomeswith a gun over a knife or bat, they're blatantly obvious.
You say it isn't a defeatist attitude and yet that's what your position boils down to: it won't stop them anyway so why not just let them have it? I'm all for keeping the guns in the hands of good guys, but I'm also for keeping the guns out of the hands of bad guys. Blanket gun control doesn't do that and we all know it. However, specific gun control might and if nothing else then maybe it's the thought that counts. Just because the current laws don't stop it completely (no current law stops anything completely) isn't enough reason to can them.
Actually, putting the paragraph you quoted in context with the paragraph I wrote after it, I explained this. I'm saying that banning felons from possessing and carrying firearms has no effect on the ability* to commit violent acts of those felons who want to do so. While taken by itself, this would be a wash, I also brought up how felon gun bans
hurt those who don't want to commit violent acts. So... if it were so simple that all felons went on to violently assault other people, then I could see a case to ban them from owning guns, as a matter of damage control (not to mention, oh yeah, harsher sentencing). But it's not that simple, and the benefits of delaying a potential re-offender a few minutes or hours in his commission of a violent attack do not outweigh the deleterious effect of preventing a felon from effectively protecting himself and his family.
It's still a sticky area, obviously. The solution, really, is two-fold. First, stop making crimes felonies that do not directly and seriously injure another party. Second, since the only crimes that remain as felonies are presumably very serious, life sentences should be the norm for such crimes, with special exceptions made for those truly showing a rehabilitation. I believe that would alleviate the fears of most people who oppose allowing felons to possess and carry firearms... not to mention that it would have a decent impact on the crime rate in general.
*Let's look at the gun's effectiveness. In most domestic violence situations, there is a passion aspect that grants a good deal of determination to the attacker(s). If one is raging against another person in a violent manner, the use of a gun will just exhaust the first option for inflicting harm on the victim. No gun? Grab a knife. A pen. A chair. A book. Whatever happens to be laying around. Maybe the victim will survive the first attack without a gun. Will he/she be so lucky at the second attack? Third attack? The point is, guns are at the top of the list for weapons in a domestic violence situation, but there is more than one tool on that list. As for the more methodical criminals, who will give some thought to their intended attack, they have the benefit of time to improvise a weapon, or illegally acquire a gun. The only time that a gun provides a significant advantage in killing power is for defensive use, because a peaceable citizen is generally not expecting such an attack, and can't be expected to improvise while defending himself. But in offensive situations, I'd have to say that a gun is only marginally more useful.
