• 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:
A Katana would be better than a crossbow too, but would take a bit more skill to wield in a closed space such as a home.
Click to expand...

That's just stupid. A projectile weapon has greater range than a melee weapon and thus lowers one's odds of being harmed during combat.
 
Henrin said:
You will be shot in the head 10 times out 10 before you get a shot off.
Click to expand...

And you'll be shot in the head 9 times out of 10 before you get a shot off with your AR-15, ergo it's only slightly better.

Lets try a little game. I will load my AR-15 and you load your crossbow. Lets see who gets shot the most times. Want to play? No, because you and I know you would get shot every time we play the game.
Click to expand...

We're not talking about stupid games under improbable circumstances, we're talking about home defense. Big difference. And some crossbows can be loaded faster by a trained person than a revolver can be loaded by an amateur. Training is always key.

And you'll note, I've never said they were identical. That's just something that people incapable of understanding my argument because of paranoid delusions about this being a second amendment/gun control issue have made up in their heads to justify their paranoia.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You've never actually used a crossbow, have you? I have. It's a powerful weapon, but very slow to operate, making it nearly useless as a defensive weapon. It's difficult to imagine a defensive situation, in which the use of deadly force would be justified, in which an attacker wouldn't easily kill me long before I could get a shot off with my crossbow.
Click to expand...

Long ago, the Chinese invented a self loading, repeating crossbow.
A semi auto crossbow, if you will.

Pretty easy to operate too.

2e7451d24f25aee7a79b82638225e286_image_750x499.jpg
 
ecofarm said:
This might be the dumbest anti gun rights argument I ever encounter.
Click to expand...

It isn't an anti-gun rights argument, silly. It's an anti-criminal rights argument. It's been very specific, and if you geniuses thought about it for one minute, instead of chasing your own paranoid delusions about it, you'd see three things:

1. It's actually a call for less restrictions than what currently exists on felons because it is limited to felons charged with gun crimes.

2. It does in any way restrict law-abiding citizens

3. By arguing that we should allow gun-wielding criminals to continue to legally wield guns with no regard for recidivism, you do more to guarantee that universal gun restrictions that inhibit peaceful, law-abiding citizens from owning certain classes of firearms weapons will be put in place.


My argument is actually a call for fewer gun restrictions than exist today (but y'all never thought about that because that would require thinking about what is being said before reacting to it instead of reacting in lieu of thinking.) My argument is entirely limited to criminals who commit crimes with guns, a.k.a the group of people that law-abiding gun owners should despise most (far more than the gun grabbers and slightly more than law-abiding, but irresponsible, gun owners), as they are the primary causal factor on the majority of anti-gun legislation (the only other primary causal factor for anti-gun legislation is law-abiding, but irresponsible gun owners). While y'all have decided to pretend that I am arguing against gun rights, you've consistently done more to harm a pro-gun rights position than my argument -which is not even about gun rights, but is instead about criminal sentencing- ever could have.

To me, any argument that will be guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite of it's desired goal is a phenomenally retarded one, and everyone arguing against my sentencing argument has certainly done exactly that.
 
Gipper said:
I'd agree with this if crime recidivism rates weren't what they were, or even if prison was a valuable tool of "rehabilitation".
Click to expand...

Why though is the recidivism rates so high? Is it just because they're bad people? Or is it because society is designed around permanent punishment of mistakes and continueally degrades that person combined with a penal system that doesn't even try to rehabilitate?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It's difficult to imagine a defensive situation, in which the use of deadly force would be justified, in which an attacker wouldn't easily kill me long before I could get a shot off with my crossbow.
Click to expand...

First, there are many different kinds of crossbows. A personal defense crossbow (say a 50lb pistol crossbow) is not very difficult to operate, typically. Second, you either do not have a very good imagination or you do not have a very good understanding of the different types of crossbows available if you do not think it can work for personal defense.
 
I guarantee if you give a mandatory of 20 years in prison for having an unregistered weapon, criminals would think twice about using guns while committing a crime.
 
People should have their weapons registered or they're not abiding by the rule of law.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Long ago, the Chinese invented a self loading, repeating crossbow.
A semi auto crossbow, if you will.

Pretty easy to operate too.

2e7451d24f25aee7a79b82638225e286_image_750x499.jpg
Click to expand...

There are also 50lb draw crossbows that would do a good deal of damage to an attacker which you can load and fire in about the same time it would take the average, untrained person to load and fire something like a single action revolver.

That being said, there's no way I'd ever try to argue that crossbows would be an adequate substitute to firearms for the law-abiding population. Only those who relinquished their right to own a gun by virtue of committing a gun crime would have to seek out suc alternatives for self-defense.
 
Tucker Case said:
So you want to make registering one's weapons a law?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tucker Case said:
There are also 50lb draw crossbows that would do a good deal of damage to an attacker which you can load and fire in about the same time it would take the average, untrained person to load and fire something like a single action revolver.

That being said, there's no way I'd ever try to argue that crossbows would be an adequate substitute to firearms for the law-abiding population. Only those who relinquished their right to own a gun by virtue of committing a gun crime would have to seek out suc alternatives for self-defense.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
I figure though, that if you adapted one of those crossbows with modern materials, it would be pretty deadly.
The main downside to a crossbow, is having to have it restrung, probably yearly.

I've seen what a faulty limb on a regular bow does to people, the string would cause a deep laceration.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why though is the recidivism rates so high? Is it just because they're bad people? Or is it because society is designed around permanent punishment of mistakes and continueally degrades that person combined with a penal system that doesn't even try to rehabilitate?
Click to expand...

I think they're just bad people. The whole "permanent punishment" thing isn't true. Would I prevent you from ever carrying a gun again if you previously used one to commit a violent felony? Yup. Do I feel it justified that you may not be able to go out and get any job you want? Yup. As far as I'm concerned, the heavy and the onus is on you. You have to earn your rights back, your privileges back, your freedoms back. You need to show society, at an inclining rate, that you can be trusted with what Americans take for granted on a daily basis. It's better than serving some arbitrary prison sentence that will do no good and then cross your fingers that they're not violent idiots upon release.
 
The "prevailing wisdom" is that once a criminal, always a criminal..
Of course, this is not always true.....
These words and phrases need definitions...
IMO, the betrayal of trust is not necessarily a crime..... there has to be "more".
Prevailing wisdom .....nearly an oxymoron, there is not nearly enough of this...
The pursuit of happiness, the welfare of society is , or should be number one..
Difficult for this to be with the half-mad neighbor owning assault weapons...
Even a "regular/normal neighbor" AND with a prison record, owning guns....this makes me a bit nervous.
IMO, its better that they, including me, do not owns guns..
 
Gipper said:
I think they're just bad people.
I question the existance of "bad people"
The whole "permanent punishment" thing isn't true. In your opinion, I believe it is all too true
Would I prevent you from ever carrying a gun again if you previously used one to commit a violent felony? Yup. Do I feel it justified that you may not be able to go out and get any job you want? Yup. And here we have the man being forever condemmed
As far as I'm concerned, the heavy and the onus is on you. You have to earn your rights back, your privileges back, your freedoms back. You need to show society, at an inclining rate, that you can be trusted with what Americans take for granted on a daily basis. It's better than serving some arbitrary prison sentence that will do no good and then cross your fingers that they're not violent idiots upon release.And this , to a degree I agree with..
Click to expand...
I am against the idea, the concept of lethal protection...for nearly anyone.
 
Gipper said:
I think they're just bad people. The whole "permanent punishment" thing isn't true.
Click to expand...

Like hell it isn't. Sorry for the language but that really is BS. I committed and got convicted of a non-violent felony 18 years ago. Haven't committed a crime since and yet I still can't get hired at good paying jobs. People take one look at my record which I am required to put on the application and throw it in the trash. Literally. I've seen it happen. So don't tell me that society doesn't permanently punish people.

Gipper said:
Would I prevent you from ever carrying a gun again if you previously used one to commit a violent felony? Yup. Do I feel it justified that you may not be able to go out and get any job you want? Yup. As far as I'm concerned, the heavy and the onus is on you. You have to earn your rights back, your privileges back, your freedoms back. You need to show society, at an inclining rate, that you can be trusted with what Americans take for granted on a daily basis. It's better than serving some arbitrary prison sentence that will do no good and then cross your fingers that they're not violent idiots upon release.
Click to expand...

I've done my time. Paid my dues. And then some. I've proven that I am no longer a criminally minded. Why can't I have my full rights back?

Btw, your post here proves that society permanently punishes people. You are not willing to give back a persons rights or give them a chance on the basis that they might commit another crime due to something that happened in the past.

Now I'm not stupid, I also agree that someone should prove that they are reformed. Which is why I suggest setting aside a certain time frame in which they must prove themselves beyond that of prison. 10 years without committing a crime should be plenty to prove that. It is not so long that it seems hopeless to accomplish and gives an incentive for a person to not commit a crime again. 10 years also will give them time to develop new habits which because of those new habits will help prevent them from committing a crime again. After 10 years their crime should be completely wiped from all databases kept by the government and full rights restored.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Like hell it isn't. Sorry for the language but that really is BS. I committed and got convicted of a non-violent felony 18 years ago. Haven't committed a crime since and yet I still can't get hired at good paying jobs. People take one look at my record which I am required to put on the application and throw it in the trash. Literally. I've seen it happen. So don't tell me that society doesn't permanently punish people.



I've done my time. Paid my dues. And then some. I've proven that I am no longer a criminally minded. Why can't I have my full rights back?

Btw, your post here proves that society permanently punishes people. You are not willing to give back a persons rights or give them a chance on the basis that they might commit another crime due to something that happened in the past.

Now I'm not stupid, I also agree that someone should prove that they are reformed. Which is why I suggest setting aside a certain time frame in which they must prove themselves beyond that of prison. 10 years without committing a crime should be plenty to prove that. It is not so long that it seems hopeless to accomplish and gives an incentive for a person to not commit a crime again. 10 years also will give them time to develop new habits which because of those new habits will help prevent them from committing a crime again. After 10 years their crime should be completely wiped from all databases kept by the government and full rights restored.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Depends upon the crime. If a person commits a very minor felony with a firearm, this person shouldn't be prohibited from owning something that's often an effective means of self defense. But yeah, there's a limit to that.
 
Kingleo702 said:
People should have their weapons registered or they're not abiding by the rule of law.
Click to expand...

No.

“The rule of law” certainly has to include the Constitution, which is the highest law of this land, and which explicitly forbids government from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.

If government is requiring people to “register” their arms, or to comply with any other silly restrictions on their right to do so, then government is not obeying the Constitution, and is therefore not abiding by the rule of law.

Nothing about any rational definition of “rule of law” calls for citizens to submit to any violations of their basic Constitutional rights.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's just stupid. A projectile weapon has greater range than a melee weapon and thus lowers one's odds of being harmed during combat.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom