I agree with all of the above, except, a released convict has not served their time, most get out on parole and that means that are not done paying their debt.
Sorry it is what I meant by their debt is paid. Parole is still serving part of the sentence. May I phrased it wrong.
Once done and keep out of trouble then I can see a court giving them back their rights, which they themselves threw away.
Actually no the right was never stripped from them and this would require due process. In prison they are denied access to guns as they should be in serving out any parole. The right may only be exercised without criminal conviction after they they served the complete sentence. It is the principle if government is willing to inflict society with people it knows for certain will commit another crime that is where the problem lies. Denial of a legal purchase of a gun is not going to solve it.
You did not address the tricky question of mental illness, do you or not believe that if someone has been diagnosed as having a severe form of mental illness where if not taking their medication the could likely become violent?
Ooops let me do it now.
Most the crimes committed by mentally disturbed people who are well known and are ongoing over a period of time. What this points to is that identification of such people is difficult in the current system. It is the system that is faulty and once again short of restraint how do you prevent the acquisition of firearms or other weapons.
I simply cannot believe that we as supposedly intelligent people think telling a person willing to commit murder they cannot buy a gun is thought to be of some use. This applies to both released felons and the mentally disturbed. About which we really don't know enough except most of these problems are due to social pressures. That applies equally to crime.
What can be said with absolute certainty is that as long as we have some sort of induced love affair with guns the social problems will increase. We cannot expect to redirect and distract attention from the root causes and go chasing instrumentality as some kind of magical cure without suffering the consequences of that stupidity.
A simple yes and no answer, the arguments on how it would be implemented and yes the courts would have to be involved, are simply the rules, but plain and simply should they have access to firearms while still deemed a highly possible threat?
Can you tell me how you intend to stop anyone acquiring illegal drugs? I asked this way to remove any notions about guns becasue if one cannot be stopped neither can the other.
Yes we need to evaluate our thinking on these two subjects and consider we are barking up the wrong tree. If guns cannot be shown to cause either why are we wasting time money and valuable resources chasing fairies?
Do you have an answer?