• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 78.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 22.0%
  • Total voters
    59
Rising Sun said:
What's stupid is using a field weapon inside a house. If a home invader or burglar does an Elmer Fudd impression with a crossbow inside my home, I'll have the advantage with a sword or knife since those are easier to use in hallway or near a door. In case you haven't figured it out yet, slick, range isn't as important when fighting inside one's home. Versatility is more important. If given the choice between a single-shot crossbow or a sword, I'll take the sword. However, my preferred weapon is a 12 ga. pump.
Click to expand...

How about I cast lightning bolt or cone of cold instead?
 
Gipper said:
Most applications I've seen where they ask about a criminal past will only ask if you've been convicted of a felony in the last X number of years (5-10 typically) and is not necessarily grounds for disqualification. Now, if you were guilty of some sort of fraud and you tried to apply to a position involving money or something of a sensitive/trust nature, that makes complete sense.
Click to expand...

Not all applications have X number of years. About half that I have seen don't have X number of years period. And the ones that I have seen that do typically go 7-10 years.

Gipper said:
I've interviewed people for jobs that involve felonies and I didn't automatically chuck the resume. I heard them out. Now, there are some crimes that I imagine you can't ever shed. B&E or most types of theft fall into that category. I'm not saying impossible, but people aren't going to willingly trust their money to people who have proven untrustworthy - and if it's a felony type of theft, it means that it's a large amount.
Click to expand...

A felony amount for theft equals $400-$500 dollars or more. Thats not really that large of an amount. About the cost of a TV. I noticed that again, you admit that people are predisposed to not give someone with a felony record a chance. And yet you are here argueing, or trying to, that society does not permanently punish people.

Gipper said:
If someone committed a rather bad crime, they could get out and work at...oh, let's say McDonalds. Put them on a drawer, which is a money trust job (very small amount, but still....baby steps). If they work there long enough and always get drawers closed out with proper numbers, they can be put in charge of better things.
Click to expand...

You know as well as I do that most people would not even look at that in that way. Most people will see the record first and that a distant 3rd at best.

Gipper said:
The real problem exists when you're being stacked against a pile of resumes with people who have NOT committed felonies. Would you hire someone coming out of high school for an accounting job when someone with a BA in accounting has applied, just because you feel sorry for them or "want to give them a chance"? Nope.
Click to expand...

And if that person that has a felony record has a BA in accounting? Who are you going to hire? What if the person with the felony had better test scores to get that BA than the one without the felony? You'll still hire the one without the felony and with the lower test scores. Why? Because people think "Once a felon always a felon". That is literally a saying.
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

I'm kind of late getting into this thread and I haven't bothered to read the pages and pages of posts. (half of them are off-topic anyway, I'd guess)

But to answer your poll: Yes, they should be forever banned. And to ensure they don't have any opportunity to get around their ban, put a bullet in their brain.

Problem solved.
 
Kal'Stang said:
A felony amount for theft equals $400-$500 dollars or more. Thats not really that large of an amount. About the cost of a TV. I noticed that again, you admit that people are predisposed to not give someone with a felony record a chance. And yet you are here argueing, or trying to, that society does not permanently punish people.
Click to expand...

You sure it's that low? I would think in the four digits at least. Anyway, neither here nor there. 500 dollars is still a chunk of money, and one could easily draw the parallel that it was a crime of convenience - meaning that they would've stolen more than that if they could have. After all, stealing several hundred dollars, cosmetically, isn't much different than stealing several thousand dollars, or even tens and hundreds of thousands.

And I'm stating an example of when the rules change. If you go to a bar and get in a fight defending your girlfriend from goons to the tune of a minor assault, I can't imagine an employer out there that's going to see you as some sort of bad egg.

And if that person that has a felony record has a BA in accounting? Who are you going to hire? What if the person with the felony had better test scores to get that BA than the one without the felony? You'll still hire the one without the felony and with the lower test scores. Why? Because people think "Once a felon always a felon". That is literally a saying.
Click to expand...

Once again we go back to the example. Accountants usually have to deal with money in some fashion. I, personally, don't handle physical cash all too often, but I'm in charge of bank accounts and lots of stuff done electronically. I could easily rob a business blind from the inside, so they have to do their due diligence to make sure someone in that kind of position is someone they can absolutely trust.

What I'm implying is that not all felonies are created the same. If you get nicked for assault, domestic violence, something involving a car and injury...hell, maybe even drugs to an extent - it is a whole other ball game than crimes related to theft, fraud, and embezzlement. If an employer wants to give that person another chance, then good for them. However, I surely won't slight them if they don't, because the cost-benefit ratio simply does not work out in their favor.
 
Gipper said:
How about I cast lightning bolt or cone of cold instead?
Click to expand...
Whatever works best for you!

I have a compound bow, which is easier and quicker to reload than a crossbow, but for inside a house, I'd rather have a sword if restricted to primitive/non-firearm weapons.
 
IMO, if the crime was something very minor, then after a waiting period the individual should be able to own a gun again. However, if the gun was used as coercion in a crime, then I think the individual should not ever be able to legally own a gun again. Kind of like once your right infringes on the rights of another . . .

There should be an "other" option.
 
Rising Sun said:
These were:

Click to expand...


"sticks were not designed....."
Not true...
The first use of sticks was for fighting (man defending himself).
But that was before our Constitution and before yesterday.
Basically, man has not changed....
He is a violent beast, but there are some who are civilized....more or less.
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...
That's generally a felony already, which means you are forever flagged in NICS, which means you can never buy a gun from an FFL, and if you are found with one from a private sale, you go back to prison.

Why not just ban that person from committing another crime?

Better yet, ban crime.
 
earthworm said:
"sticks were not designed....."
Not true...
The first use of sticks was for fighting (man defending himself).
But that was before our Constitution and before yesterday.
Basically, man has not changed....
He is a violent beast, but there are some who are civilized....more or less.
Click to expand...
I watched the "reality of a knife attack" vid connected to your stick fighting vid. Good stuff.
 
Kingleo702 said:
Some States have registration laws where you have to register your weapon or it's a crime. I would like that to extend to every State. And yes, I would love to make having an unregistered weapon a crime and make stricter laws to obtain one. While having stricter punishment for criminals who use weapons during a crime with a mandatory sentence of 20 years.
Click to expand...

So basically you want to create a class of gun crimes and then consider that class of gun crimes equivalent to, say, murder or robbery with regard to punishment. I disagree with such approaches as they are illogical and do nothing to curb real crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom