I support gun ownership, and gun control.

**Robot Jesus** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 11:31am

That being said, the question is how far should gun control go.

Lets start the discussion on some neutral ground. Should violent offenders be prevented from owning firearms?

**broken fingers** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 11:35am

I
HATE
RobotJesus

***Plasma*** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 11:36am

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

That being said, the question is how far should gun control go.

Lets start the discussion on some neutral ground. Should violent offenders be prevented from owning firearms?

Yes, IMO being a convicted felon specially one of violent crime such as murder forfeit their right to own firearms as they forfeit their right to vote.

**Anna Kovacs** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 11:46am

If someone serves their sentance then they've served their sentance. If they're still a danger to society why are we letting them out in the first place?

**Neildo** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 12:01pm

So we can shoot them.

**Southpaw** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 12:09pm

Originally Posted by KageKaze

Yes, IMO being a convicted felon specially one of violent crime such as murder forfeit their right to own firearms as they forfeit their right to vote.

I also believe that a convicted violent felon shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun...but I think they should be allowed to vote.

It doesn't make sense to me that after someone pays for their crime...they still aren't allowed to participate in our policital system. Should we be surprised that many released felons never enter fully back into society?

**Southpaw** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 12:11pm

Originally Posted by AnnaTrocity

If someone serves their sentance then they've served their sentance. If they're still a danger to society why are we letting them out in the first place?

Prison is not rehab...it is punishment for a specific crime.

**saturnjunkie** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 12:41pm

Let's not forget that in the eyes of the british government, that those pesky american upstarts who MADE this country were all 'criminals'. Violent criminals at that.

The problem with making it illegal for a criminal to own a gun is that laws can be manipulated to strip 90% of the populace of said guns. I vote for a better method. I don't claim to know what it is but I do believe every school should have a gun safety course at like... age 5, with a refresher every 2 years until the kids are out of school.

Yeah sure, I know I'm twisting the issue - but that's what the second amendment is all about - ensuring people (IF NECESSARY AND HAVE NO OTHER RECOURSE) have a means of overthrowing their respective government should it fail. Not that I would ever advocate such a thing (sorry but a .45 is nothing against a 155 mortar round fired from 7 miles away) but I do agree with the principle.

I'm not sure if this counts as threadjacking, since the purpose of the thread didn't seem clearly defined. So I'm going to say what I saw: argue why gun control should exist, and if it should exist modify it to a useable fail safe.

In the end though, I think gun control is purposeless. People will still find ways to commit violent crimes. Removing guns simply removes non criminals abilities to defend themselves. Same arguement you've heard before.

*steps down from soapbox*

**Truculent Sheep** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 12:42pm

And once that punishment is over, the perp goes back into society. What then? Rehabilitation is needed to wean them off the behaviour patterns that got them there in the first place. Most criminals tend to be educationally and socially inept, so mandatotory education would be a step forward.

**Lights Out** · Posted On: 4/29/2006 1:16pm

Originally Posted by saturnjunkie

In the end though, I think gun control is purposeless. People will still find ways to commit violent crimes. Removing guns simply removes non criminals abilities to defend themselves. Same arguement you've heard before.

Then why should jails exist exist? Since there are gonna be people sho would commit a crime despite the imprisionment threat, jails ara pruposeles... see where this argument leads ya?

Look, if you drive under the influence, you get your driving license forfeited, at least for a period (in my country, I mean, I think there is something similar in yours, am I correct).

People who have a record on violent crimes shouldn´t be allowed to own firearms becuase it would meake harder for them to get one, and probably it would be harder for them to commit a violent crime which may be fatal in nature. i mean, it´s easier to kill or seriously maim somebody with a firegun than with a knife.

Of course, someone determinde to do something, won`tt be stoppes just because he can´t legally buy a gun, but that doesn´t mean we should make it easier for them to get one and commit a crime.

Let´s see if I can make myself clearer. I´m pissed that my country has stripped me of the right to protect myself, and I´m not just talking about guns.

It is illegal to carry knifes larger than certain blade lenght, swithcblades, bras knucles, maze, extensible clubs and the like. Why? because gangs and assaulters use them. So now, I, a legal-avidign citizen I´m unarmed against would-be assaulters. But since such stuff is available in the black market, criminals have some degree of access to it. Do you think that somebody determined to stab somebody would be stopped by the fact that carrying that stuff is illegal? No, but since they know that law-aviding citizens, such as myself, do not carry blades, maze o, much less, guns, they are encouraged to carry and use that stuff.

Now, if it was hard for them to get a gun, a switchbaled, maze, bras knicles or the sucha, and they knew that people like me could pe packing a 9 mm. well, maybe they would think twice before starting ****, or trying to rob me.