• 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
You have to live with the consequences of your actions, you did something irresponsible you have to live with it. Just to prove it I'm going to use something said earlier, what if someone was convicted of child molestation should they be allowed to adopt children "because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future"?

That is not any kind of example. You are trying to compare something that is a known character flaw that cannot be treated with simple irresponsibility or bad judgement. No comparison at all.
 
You have to live with the consequences of your actions, you did something irresponsible you have to live with it. Just to prove it I'm going to use something said earlier, what if someone was convicted of child molestation should they be allowed to adopt children "because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future"?

That analogy does not correspond to your argument. You've clearly and explicitly stated that anybody convicted of any violent crime should never be allowed to own a gun. The analogy above would be more equatable to the argument others have made (which makes much more sense than yours), that anybody convicted of a violent crime in which they used a gun should never be allowed to own one.

A better analogy for YOUR idiotic argument would be, "If somebody were convicted of child molestation should they be denied the ability to run on a high school track after the students have departed for the day?"
 
No it's just a different punishment you'll just have higher insurance later in life. You still have to live with the consequences of your actions.

I'm sorry, but I can't possibly debate against such stupid double standards and idiotic statements.
 
Last edited:
That is not any kind of example. You are trying to compare something that is a known character flaw that cannot be treated with simple irresponsibility or bad judgement. No comparison at all.

Fine how about the car crash example previously mentioned you have to live with higher insurance rates, if your convicted of a violent offense you cannot but a gun. You have to live with the consequences of it.
 
No it's just a different punishment you'll just have higher insurance later in life. You still have to live with the consequences of your actions.

No you will not depending on your driving record since that time. I had an accident several years ago and it does not affect my rates at all, nothing. I had one not 4 years ago that was my fault, guess what.. My rates did not go up because I have a long standing good reputation with my insurance company. One mistake should not make you liable for life.
 
Fine how about the car crash example previously mentioned you have to live with higher insurance rates, if your convicted of a violent offense you cannot but a gun. You have to live with the consequences of it.

You don't have higher insurance rates forever. You might have them temporarily, but you don't get "punished" for life.
 
Fine how about the car crash example previously mentioned you have to live with higher insurance rates, if your convicted of a violent offense you cannot but a gun. You have to live with the consequences of it.

Already covered.
 
Good now say you killed or badly injured someone in that accident.

So what? We call them "accidents" for a reason. And someone was injured in the other accident. Again no change in my rates, nothing.

No one should be punished for life because of an "accident."
 
As many here have stated, I say felonies, yes. Incidental stuff where there was no criminal intent involving the gun, no. I'd also be willing to allow exceptions for rifles wanted for home protection only (can't leave home with it) especially in high crime or isolated rural areas where more than the person in question resides in some cases.
 
So what? We call them "accidents" for a reason. And someone was injured in the other accident. Again no change in my rates, nothing.

No one should be punished for life because of an "accident."

A car accident doesn't carry any legal action (sometimes it does though) and you can be convicted. Let's make it certain there will a criminal charge and punishment, say you drunk driving and got in an accident and killed someone. Does that person still get a gun? I also hope your pro-choice.
 
A car accident doesn't carry any legal action (sometimes it does though) and you can be convicted. Let's make it certain there will a criminal charge and punishment, say you drunk driving and got in an accident and killed someone. Does that person still get a gun? I also hope your pro-choice.

You know what? Stop moving the goal posts. You are wrong here, just except you have typical liberal totalitarian views on anything you disagree with and move on please.

Nice strawman at the end there. :roll:
 
You know what? Stop moving the goal posts. You are wrong here, just except you have typical liberal totalitarian views on anything you disagree with and move on please.

Nice strawman at the end there. :roll:

Just accept that people need to live with their consequences, Conservatives seem to like, to use it a lot when discussing abortion.
 
Just accept that people need to live with their consequences, Conservatives seem to like, to use it a lot when discussing abortion.

Now you are trying to compare the right to own a gun to abortion?? ABORTION???

OK we are done here.
 
So if I got convicted of battery when I was 18 because some guy got a little too fresh and I kicked him in the balls repeatedly until he vomited, I should never, ever, ever be allowed to have a gun?

Well that would be self-defense but you took it too far so yes you should not be allowed to have a gun.

That is absolutely ridiculous. The world is not black and white.

No, that is a valid charge that shows you are far too violent to be able to own a firearm.

That is a narrow and flawed world view. Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.

No it's perfectly valid anyone convicted of a violent offense should not be allowed to own a gun. It shows you are a violent person. Extremism would be forbidding anyone convicted of any charge to own a firearm.

By your logic, anyone who is a victim of an attempted crime, and who resorts to violence in order to defend himself against that crime, can easily be deemed “…a violent person…far too violent to be able to own a firearm”.

In the conflict between criminals and victims, it is clear which side you are on.

I disagree with Tessa's statement that “Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.” Sometimes, the “extreme” position is correct. In your case, however, it is very clearly not.
 
Now you are trying to compare the right to own a gun to abortion?? ABORTION???

OK we are done here.

So living with ones consequences only appliers to women who get pregnant, I get it. Now that is done I admit the car example is horrible, but you wouldn't accept the other one. You have to live with consequences, I don't care if you were 18 and drunk and you stated that fight and now it permanently stains your record. You should have made a better choice.
 
By your logic, anyone who is a victim of an attempted crime, and who resorts to violence in order to defend himself against that crime, can easily be deemed “…a violent person…far too violent to be able to own a firearm”.

In the conflict between criminals and victims, it is clear which side you are on.

I disagree with Tessa's statement that “Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.” Sometimes, the “extreme” position is correct. In your case, however, it is very clearly not.

No that's self-defense. Self-defense is not a violent offense. Like I said before extremism would be banning anyone who has a criminal record form owning a gun this is just the logical conclusion.
 
if its say

Poaching a deer with a rifle

carrying without a license but with no intent to use the gun against someone criminally

refusal to register a weapon in states with socialist gun laws

smoking weed while possessing a gun

All of those are great examples of irresponsible gun ownership and I'm absolutely OK with those people being prohibited from owning firearms. as far as I'm concerned, anyone who demonstrates such irresponsibility relinquishes their rights to own a weapon because their irresponsibility causes their right to own a weapon to infringe on everyone elses right not to have an idiot with a weapon nearby.
 
So living with ones consequences only appliers to women who get pregnant, I get it. Now that is done I admit the car example is horrible, but you wouldn't accept the other one. You have to live with consequences, I don't care if you were 18 and drunk and you stated that fight and now it permanently stains your record. You should have made a better choice.

#1 This issue has nothing to do with abortion, nothing at all. Nice Red Herring for the money though.
#2 Yes the car example is horrible and the red herring abortion thing is worse.
#3 Yes because 18 year old's often make good choices. :roll: So why should it be 18? how about 12 or 11? Why stop there if you are going to pick an arbitrary number to deny someone a right.

Outside of a bunch of bad examples and fallacy arguments you got nothing. I mean really, nothing. :peace
 
Just accept that people need to live with their consequences, Conservatives seem to like, to use it a lot when discussing abortion.

Don't people live with the consequences of their actions by going to jail?
 
As many here have stated, I say felonies, yes. Incidental stuff where there was no criminal intent involving the gun, no. I'd also be willing to allow exceptions for rifles wanted for home protection only (can't leave home with it) especially in high crime or isolated rural areas where more than the person in question resides in some cases.

Just about everything in Florida in a felony.

How many on this forum committed a felony - specifically a drug felony - in the past? Yet I would not be surprised that most hypocritically answered this question "yes" - yet think THEY should still be able to own a firearm.
 
After they have served the time for the crime, and met the states requirements for release. They should be allowed to have all the rights previously taken away reinstated. So I voted NO.

I think it should rather be the opposite. After all time is served, etc, all rights should be once again recognized. If the government wishes to further punish beyond that, it must make its case as to why. Felons can petition to have their rights observed again; but I think that for our system of limited government, it makes more sense that the government would need to justify its infinite force against the individual.
 
Just about everything in Florida in a felony.

How many on this forum committed a felony - specifically a drug felony - in the past? Yet I would not be surprised that most hypocritically answered this question "yes" - yet think THEY should still be able to own a firearm.

No drug crime at all here. Plenty of misdemeanors though, lol. I don't agree with you though. Drug use is actually down I think in the US.
 
A car accident doesn't carry any legal action (sometimes it does though) and you can be convicted. Let's make it certain there will a criminal charge and punishment, say you drunk driving and got in an accident and killed someone. Does that person still get a gun? I also hope your pro-choice.

What does a DUI accident have to do with owning a gun?
 
I think it should rather be the opposite. After all time is served, etc, all rights should be once again recognized. If the government wishes to further punish beyond that, it must make its case as to why. Felons can petition to have their rights observed again; but I think that for our system of limited government, it makes more sense that the government would need to justify its infinite force against the individual.

I would have no problem with that either.
 
Back
Top Bottom