Who should be restricted from owning a gun

I'm an old artilleryman. I engaged the bad guys miles away. My rifles are all 308 because they shoot further than most. The key is to not let the bad guys close enough to make it a knife fight.

 

Apparently not to liberals

Are you sure those scary looking black guns don’t fire like a million bullets at once? They sure do look like they could.

I never thought of any of my firearms as weapons of mass destruction, he’s funny

 

The 'formula' isnt as important as the trend- most violent crime is committed by people with a history of violent crime. If violent crime carried longer prison sentences, there would be less violent criminals outside prison, and thus less violence.

Theres things we can/should do to prevent law abiding citizens from becoming violent, but treating everyone as potentially violent is not one of them if we value a free society.

 

I don't know how you jumped from the first paragraph to the last sentence.

My point is not to advocate treating everyone as potentially violent. If you think it is, I will need you to quote me as having said or implied that.

My point is every single person that is a criminal was NOT a criminal at some point prior to a decision (or several) made by them or for them. As such, the ONLY people that can be cattle-herded into longer prison sentences and gun ownership/possession laws are those ALREADY known to the police and prison system.

Now, with that piece of information, look up statistics on violent crimes and how many of them are committed by first time offenders. Keep in mind that "first time" offenders usually aren't people that haven't committed any crimes. Statistically, they probably have and just weren't caught prior to their first arrest. It is also common for people with criminal records (and restrictions such as the proposed ones in the OP) to use those without those legal restrictions to procure their weapons and/or drugs and or to commit crimes because they would receive a lesser sentence than a repeat offender for the same crime.

Once you crunch those numbers, can you tell me how any of BB's poll options address that issue?

 

I'm glad I left my native New York and later California where I lived for a couple of decades. In my wonderful medium sized town in the midwest we don't lock our doors or worry about violent crime. Our kids play all over the neighborhood unsupervised and say "Yes Sir" and "No Ma'am" when talking to an adult. I had some heart trouble some years ago and walk a lot. I can walk around here safely any time of the day or night.

I can't imagine trying to raise a family today in an environment where violent criminals go free at the drop of a hat, drugs are rampant, and there is no faith in the justice system.

I spent my life in a world where we generally trusted each other, knew our officials at least tried to do the right thing, and we had too much fun in life to whine and complain, let alone loot and riot.

I had my share of hard times, but they were mostly pursuing worthwhile goals, like defending freedom in Iraq, separation from family while stationed in various other places, or working hard to support a family... (my own, not that of an illegal immigrant).

I feel so sorry for younger folks who are so unhappy, so fearful and consumed with unhappiness.

 

anyone not in jail, prison, on probation or parole....

be like asking who should be restricted from free speech or religion

 

Letting a dangerous person get close enough to you to engage in fisticuffs is asking for trouble. Bringing a gun to the fight precludes the need for a knife or kung fu fighting.

 

I can partially agree with some of the things on your list, but I cannot totally agree with any of them enough to be willing to check any of those boxes.

For this reason, I was unable to vote in your poll.

I would take away rights only from those who committed the most serious crimes: Murder, robbery with a gun.
In the case of rape, I do not believe men should have their rights permanently taken away for the rest of their life based only on the allegation of one woman. There needs to be strong evidence. I mean the evidence to put them in prison for a few years does not need to be as strong as the level of evidence to automatically permanently take away their rights for the rest of their life.

I am also totally against men permanently losing their rights for domestic violence, unless the woman suffered severe bodily harm that is so great that there's no realistic possibility the woman inflicted it upon herself to blame the man. A man should never permanently lose his rights when it is based only on the accusation of the woman. And I strongly do not believe "domestic violence" should be seen as worse than regular "violence" done to a stranger. I don't see why it should be in a separate category for loss of rights.

As for children, that's not an all or nothing thing. That would probably take another long discussion.

 

Not all persons who have a history of "violent crime" committed a crime anywhere near approaching the seriousness of bank robbery.
And not all persons who are "sex offenders" have committed a crime anywhere near approaching the seriousness of rape.

I think we need to be really careful that we don't fall into the error of overgeneralizing.

 

That would depend on who the child is.
There are some children who are only 11 who could be trusted to go off on their own hunting with a single shot rifle. There are other children who are 17 or even 18 who should not get a gun. (These are of course extremes)
The laws should and do vary by location, and the parent gets a lot of input into it.

Maybe there could different age limits for different types of guns. It doesn't have to be entirely an all or nothing thing.

The rules should probably end up being complex, and be a little bit different depending on area.
Maybe a person should have to be 20 years of age before they can have a semi-automatic handgun or a military style gun without direct parental supervision. Think that would be pretty reasonable. (By the way, I also think purchase of cigarettes and strong alcohol should be set at 20 years of age)

We've talked about this before in other threads. You'll have to forgive me if I decide it's not worth my time arguing about here, since that doesn't even seem to be the main topic of your thread.
You can't expect to argue too much in detail if the subject of your thread is too broad and covers too many things.

 

Guns are a fun topic though! Great hobby!

 

Some people are forced into pleading guilty to criminal acts even though they didn't do them. It's really not uncommon.

When we talk about automatically taking away lifetime rights based only on the existence of a "criminal record", I think that gets problematic.
The current criminal justice system is not well adapted to fairly impose that sort of thing.

We've talked about this before in a different thread. I presented an idea before that could fairly solve the problem. Where the gun rights would only be automatically taken away for a certain short time after release from prison, and then if the prosecutor wanted to pursue it they would have to hold a very short informal jury trial to see if that person's rights should be taken away. That would help ensure that the plea bargain had no bearing on this. In most cases the criminal would probably not even object because there would be no way they could win. So this extra jury process would only be required in a small minority of cases.

 

Or maybe there should be some law that uses some mathematical equation to decide how long someone should be denied their rights after being released from prison. Maybe one fourth of the prison time plus one additional year. So if someone had been in prison for 4 years, they would be automatically deprived of rights for only 2 years. But a judge could intervene and shorten it, if they decided.

And this should still only apply to certain categories of crimes.

You may not like this but at least this way the law would automatically restore their rights after a certain period of time, rather than automatically permanently taking away their rights unless a government official decides to intervene and change it.

 

Soooooo how do you tell the “bad guys” from the good guys”?

 

I think he's just being stupid.
Please don't let him reflect upon the side he represents.

Reality is we can't tell the "bad guys" until they commit a crime.

 

Bad guys sneak around in the dark. They try to get into other people's houses in the dead of night. They usually run when challenged. They are Democrats.

 

I disagree if you can't be trusted in public you shouldn't be released from jail.

but go ahead and get all the illegal guns you want this punishes people that obey the law and rewards people that don't.

It's not that I disagree or that I don't like this I just don't see the point. The people that are going to do crimes with firearms or going to get them. It's always been that way that'll never change.

If they can't be trusted in society they shouldn't be in society.

 

Bad guys that one guns have them they don't give a **** about your laws. If you want to be at their Mercy because you can't judge who is good and who isn't you should choose not to be armed.

 

I think I agree with you. Could you repeat that in a less confused manner so I can be sure?

 

I don't know what you mean about it being confusing but I'll try.

Bad guys that want guns have them. Such people do not care about laws.

If a person wants to be unarmed they are at the mercy of armed criminals. And if they want to be unarmed they should make that choice for themselves not for everyone else.

I hope that clears it up.

 

Yes it does. Notice my "like".

 

The only people I can think of are Bernie Sander supporters and previous felons. Other then that I think we are good.

 

I was about to answer you, MJ, but modernpaladin crystallized my thoughts in his reply most eloquently.

 

As a general statement, better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6.

I do not personally know anyone who changed from an easy going person, to a homicidal maniac or a violent person once they owned a gun, males, females, old and young.

Who should be 'restricted'? Those adjudicated for mental health, convicted violent felons, and under 18 for hand guns, under 16 for long guns. I strongly recommend training for anyone before being allowed to purchase a gun. Actually, it should be a mandatory class in high school, along with the basics of personal finance.

 

Well, that would kill two birds with one stone considering the number of violent crimes, even within families, over money disputes.