Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TITAN308]

You are willing to violate their right to due presses?

What? / 1234

[Felya]

Titan, you are arguing that you should take away rights of criminals by keeping them in jail, just to argue that their right to own guns is available when they are free.

- - - Updated - - -

There are some good reasons not to allow some convicted felon to ever have a gun. A person is convicted of armed robbery, injures a another person in the process and they should be allowed later to have a gun? They lost their right to ever have a gun when they tried to use one in committing a crime. Endangering others in the process. Some rights we forfeit forever when we disobey the law by committing a felon.

The alternative is to violate their rights by keeping them in jail, not for the time they are due to serve, but a time when they are deemed safe to own a gun. The goal of our justice system is to make sure people are safe to own guns. /facepalm

[TITAN308]

No I am saying if they are to dangerous to have their rights restored, then they are to dangerous to be allowed outside of a jail.

Edit: Hey smartguy... there are more to rights than gun ownership... holy derp

[Felya]

No I am saying if they are to dangerous to have their rights restored, then they are to dangerous to be allowed outside of a jail.

Keeping them in jail past their sentence is taking away a lot of rights.

Hey smartguy... there are more to rights than gun ownership... holy derp

You mean like due process? You are the one arguing to keep people in jail until they are safe around guns. I'm the one saying felons already lose the right to vote and keeping people in jail indefinitely is a violation of rights.

[TITAN308]

Jeez you are dense. I'm not sure how to better clarify to you without you putting words in my mouth.

O_o

[Felya]

Jeez you are dense. I'm not sure how to better clarify to you without you putting words in my mouth.

O_o

Try replacing every instance of insults with a coherent reply.

[petej0]

Titan, you are arguing that you should take away rights of criminals by keeping them in jail, just to argue that their right to own guns is available when they are free.

- - - Updated - - -



The alternative is to violate their rights by keeping them in jail, not for the time they are due to serve, but a time when they are deemed safe to own a gun. The goal of our justice system is to make sure people are safe to own guns. /facepalm

I think what he is trying to argue, and I would agree to a certain point is that, why are we releasing people if we cant trust them to follow the laws of society.

[Tinykong]

I think what he is trying to argue, and I would agree to a certain point is that, why are we releasing people if we cant trust them to follow the laws of society.

If someone has served their time and been released, they shouldn't be considered a criminal anymore. That's my biggest beef with the sex offender registry, it's a punishment that never ends.

[Felya]

I think what he is trying to argue, and I would agree to a certain point is that, why are we releasing people if we cant trust them to follow the laws of society.

Because they served the time they were convicted for. Not trusting someone with gun ownership, shouldn't inhibit every other right. Gun ownership is not paramount to an individual's release, their jail sentence is.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone has served their time and been released, they shouldn't be considered a criminal anymore. That's my biggest beef with the sex offender registry, it's a punishment that never ends.

What's the alternative? Indefinite detention?

[Tinykong]

What's the alternative? Indefinite detention?

Prisons that actually rehabilitate people instead of just housing/creating career criminals. That'd be a start.

[Felya]

Prisons that actually rehabilitate people instead of just housing/creating career criminals. That'd be a start.

What do we do until that happens?

[Tinykong]

What do we do until that happens?

Leave things as they are? The problem isn't with keeping criminals away from guns, its with keeping people uninterested in crime.

[TITAN308]

Pfffft....

We all know addressing an inanimate object will deter crime.

[petej0]

Because they served the time they were convicted for. Not trusting someone with gun ownership, shouldn't inhibit every other right. Gun ownership is not paramount to an individual's release, their jail sentence is.

I understand that, but what you are saying is they cant have guns because they could commit another crime with a gun. The point is not that they could commit a crime with a gun, the point is they are willing to commit a crime period! So release is not dependent on gun ownership, it is dependent on their willingness to revert back to a life of crime.

What's the alternative? Indefinite detention?

I think we should explore detention until rehabilitated. Instead of a set time frame, maybe we should look at achieving specific goals before being released. The system we have does not work, it doesnt work by design. The for profit prison industry wants recidivism, its a good way to keep prisons full.

If someone has served their time and been released, they shouldn't be considered a criminal anymore. That's my biggest beef with the sex offender registry, it's a punishment that never ends.

Sex offender registry, those who commit crimes with computers arent allowed around computers anymore etc.. I agree, it is wrong. If these people are so dangerous that they cant be around kids anymore then why are we sentencing these people in a way that they could be free again?

[Mahourai]

you heard it here first, one guy can kill another with a vote o_O

You asked whether they're in the same category, not whether they are physically the same things. Yes, they're both Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Ask better gotcha questions next time.

you´re ok with mentally ill and criminals being armed?

Well, first of all, this is a bit of a silly way to phrase it, as gun control laws do not stop criminals from being armed. So whether or not I'm against gun control laws has nothing to do with my feelings about criminals getting access to guns.

But yes to both.

[Felya]

Leave things as they are? The problem isn't with keeping criminals away from guns, its with keeping people uninterested in crime.

When talking about convicted criminals, it's keeping people from doing something we already know they are capable and willing to do.

- - - Updated - - -

Pfffft....

We all know addressing an inanimate object will deter crime.

That's only relevant when you ignore what the inanimate object actually is.

[TITAN308]

Regurgitation. Over and over and over.

[Mayhem]

Prisons that actually rehabilitate people instead of just housing/creating career criminals. That'd be a start.

you have for profit prisons... i doubt rehabilitation is anywhere on the agenda

- - - Updated - - -

You asked whether they're in the same category, not whether they are physically the same things. Yes, they're both Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Ask better gotcha questions next time.

excuse my wording, mistakes happen when it´s not your first language, but i was under the impression that this was within the context, why else would you compare one to another right? just for the sake of mentioning that there are other rights?

Well, first of all, this is a bit of a silly way to phrase it, as gun control laws do not stop criminals from being armed. So whether or not I'm against gun control laws has nothing to do with my feelings about criminals getting access to guns.

But yes to both.

they don´t stop every criminal from being armed, but saying they don´t stop criminals from being armed is factually wrong

[Felya]

I understand that, but what you are saying is they cant have guns because they could commit another crime with a gun. The point is not that they could commit a crime with a gun, the point is they are willing to commit a crime period! So release is not dependent on gun ownership, it is dependent on their willingness to revert back to a life of crime.

The release depends on the sentence, not their willingness to revert back. It's more to do with removing inanimate objects that assisted them in commuting crimes they were convicted off. It's people who I used the right to end up in jail...

I think we should explore detention until rehabilitated. Instead of a set time frame, maybe we should look at achieving specific goals before being released. The system we have does not work, it doesnt work by design. The for profit prison industry wants recidivism, its a good way to keep prisons full.

Even if they are rehabilitated, why do they get back a right that they abused to end up in jail? They served their time and are free, but with limits directly set to the crime they committed. Don't want to lose your rights to owning a gun, don't commit the very crimes that make people want to ban guns for everyone.

Sex offender registry, those who commit crimes with computers arent allowed around computers anymore etc.. I agree, it is wrong. If these people are so dangerous that they cant be around kids anymore then why are we sentencing these people in a way that they could be free again?

Because they may be still be a danger due to the actions they already took. You don't take away all their rights by keeping them in jail indefinitely, but limit the rights as it pertains to a crime they actually committed. They are free, because outside of contact with kids, they have no predisposition to commit any other crime. Which is why instead of keeping them indefinitely to boost the coffers of for profit prisons, they are set free with limitations to protect from them doing what they have done before. With guns specifically, they need self defense from people like them selfs?

[Mahourai]

Because they may be still be a danger due to the actions they already took. You don't take away all their rights by keeping them in jail indefinitely, but limit the rights as it pertains to a crime they actually committed.

Right, which is why we cut the hands off thieves.