EPTShould ex-cons be allowed to own and carry Guns? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
CCa1ss1e
Canada3231 Posts
| ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:45 Akta wrote: But isn't grouping all "ex convicts" together too generalizing for things like these(and the ones you mentioned) anyway. Better to be safe than sorry. Want to own a gun? Don't fucking stab some guy on the subway, or steal $50,000 from your employer. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:31 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Idealistic but not realistic. Ex-convincts don't have the same rights as others at all that is wishful thinking. Nor should they. Think of jobs in security or banking, sex offenders working with children, and if you can be bothered you can probably find hundreds of other legitimate examples. There is no reason why ex-convicts should per definition have the same rights as others, and they definitely shouldn't have the same rights regarding guns. As far as i can think of, those examples are convicts not being hired for certain jobs, but most of those are private. Is there a LAW that says a convict isn't allowed to have a specific job ? I know there are some that hire ex convicts exactly for security reasons ( since they have "experience", kinda like companies hiring hackers to check security holes ). And even the state payed jobs such ( military. pre school/school/high school teacher ... etc ) that don't allow ex convicts to work there is basically the state saying " We do not want to give money to this person in exchange for services cuz of X" not allowing them to have a gun is saying " We don't offer this RIGHT to this person cuz of X". As far as i know a robber isn't denied entering a store after the served his sentence ( guess the store could "ask" for the sentence to deny him getting near THAT specific store, much like in a person harassment case, but that is a very specific case ). I'm not saying that its a good idea to allow them to have a weapon, but than again its not a good idea to allow a 90 years old to have weapon, or a parent to have a weapon ether ( or anyone beside law enforcements really ) but if your low is shaped the way that those guys ARE allowed to have weapons i don't see why convicts would not. Edit: Thinking of it, i believe that you can get your right to drive a vehicle suspended for certain crimes ( for an unlimited period of time ) but I'm not sure if there is a "perma ban" on driving in USA. | ||
|
isleyofthenorth
Austria894 Posts
I think nobody should have a gun | ||
|
pestilenz
Denmark379 Posts
If I were to state my opinion on this I would say that it should be decided on individual basis. | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:56 Chargelot wrote: Better to be safe than sorry. Want to own a gun? Don't fucking stab some guy on the subway, or steal $50,000 from your employer. So being caught for an ounce of pot is equal to stealing $50,000 from your boss to you and should garner similar punishment? | ||
|
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
| ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:06 zeru wrote: No one should be allowed to carry guns, except police and such You're joking, right? The right to carry is one of the fundamental civil rights of humanity. It's been considered a massive success by everyone. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:08 Yongwang wrote: You're joking, right? The right to carry is one of the fundamental civil rights of humanity. It's been considered a massive success by everyone. *in the United States | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:05 Candadar wrote: So being caught for an ounce of pot is equal to stealing $50,000 from your boss to you and should garner similar punishment? Whether you like it or not, holding an ounce of pot is usually illegal. It shows you are willing to disregard rules set forth by society, simply because you disagree with them. That, in my book, should be sufficient to strip a right such as gun ownership. Also, you must remember: You need to commit a FELONY to lose this right. Not a misdemeanor. And you really f'd up if you can't get the prosecutor to plead you to a misdemeanor. | ||
|
Karliath
United States2214 Posts
As such, as much as I would love for ex-cons not to be able to own weapons, it would be unjustified to take away ex-cons' ability to protect their natural born rights. | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
However, I also believe that when someone commits and is convicted of a crime, we have a justice system in place to punish them, and once that punishment is completed, they are then subject to all of the rights that anyone else should receive. If you're not going to give them their rights back, then you're basically contradicting your justice system and tacking on additional punishments which last for a lifetime. I'm similarly very against the whole "registered sex offender" idea. You do your crime, you do your time, nothing more and nothing less. | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Meanwhile, you could focus on more important things. | ||
|
VashTS
United States1675 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Now at least they are willing to make exceptions. What would be the reason for not allowing ex cons to bear arms? I cant find anny good fundamental reason beside a statistical one. Ex cons are more likely to use the weapon for crimes (not sure if this is true but i can imagine this to be or people thinking this) If that is the reason then there are manny other groups wich should be forbidden to own arms Man are far more likely then women to use a firearm to commit a crime, so by using the same argument one could argue that only women should have the right to bear arms, wich is something no american will ever take seriously. Then why forbid it for ex cons, whats the reason? One could even argue that ex cons have a higher need to own arms as they are probably living a more dangerous live/in a more dangerous social environment. | ||
|
Yongwang
United States196 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:38 masterbreti wrote: The easy and only possible answer should be "noone should be allowed to carry guns," As only then can we auctally have a peaceful society. Wrong. An armed society is a polite society. An unarmed society is a society of sheep. | ||
|
wunsun
Canada622 Posts
| ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10344 Posts
Now, society pretty much devalues rehabilitation (unless you're famous or really good at a major sport, then you're worth money or worshiped), so most of the ex-cons probably won't find good jobs or a good place to live, so they'll need a gun in case they need to rob someone to get by, or if they get really, really, angry, they need an outlet for their rage. Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works? | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
The most common argument by pro-gun activists is that, if you're walking along and someone starts waving a gun around your family, you would hope that you have a gun too to take him down. Let me tell you this: If someone is waving a gun around you or your family, you're not wishing you had a gun so much that they DIDNT have a gun. | ||
| ||
