• 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
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

IMO, no. Once someone has completed their punishment period, including parole, the full of their rights should be recognized once again.
 
It totally depends upon the crime. IMO, if someone is using their second amendment rights to victimize others, and take their rights away from them, then yes they should be banned from owning a firearm.
 
I'm not voting because there should be an "other" option.
 
jamesrage said:
Nope.Once someone serves their sentence they should have all their rights reinstated. If they can't be trusted to have their rights then they should be let out out in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this if crime recidivism rates weren't what they were, or even if prison was a valuable tool of "rehabilitation".

You give a gun to a guy that just got of jail on a gun felony, and you know 3 things:

1) He's seriously pissed off.
2) Mentally speaking, he's no better off now than he was when he got in.
3) He has documented history of firearm misuse.

I understand the concept of rights and not wanting to infringe upon them, but you would do the public a major disservice to allow for this.
 
I would also like to add this question for people who say they would allow it:

Would you allow someone who was convicted of child molestation to adopt?
 
tessaesque said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well that would be self-defense but you took it too far so yes you should not be allowed to have a gun.
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

It really depends, Luna. If it's something as a simple as carrying a firearm without a permit, no, they shouldn't be banned. Also it depends on the nature of the crime. If it was murder, rape, and robbery, you betcha. Also, how young was the perpetrator? If it was a much younger person that committed a less-serious crime, they shouldn't be banned for life, either.
 
0bserver92 said:
Well that would be self-defense but you took it too far so yes you should not be allowed to have a gun.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely ridiculous. The world is not black and white.
 
0bserver92 said:
No, that is a valid charge that shows you are far too violent to be able to own a firearm.
Click to expand...

That is a narrow and flawed world view. Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.
 
tessaesque said:
That is a narrow and flawed world view. Extremism has absolutely no place in debate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
0bserver92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mitigating circumstances.
Age of the offender.
History of the offender.
Offender behavior post-conviction.

All legitimate, logical, sound reasons that your idiotic black-and-white bull**** conviction means absolutely nothing in the real world.

But please, keep posting asinine opinions. It's rather entertaining.
 
tessaesque said:
Mitigating circumstances.
Age of the offender.
History of the offender.
Offender behavior post-conviction.

All legitimate, logical, sound reasons that your idiotic black-and-white bull**** conviction means absolutely nothing in the real world.

But please, keep posting asinine opinions. It's rather entertaining.
Click to expand...

If you want a gun don't get charged with a violent offense. It's that simple, it you are convicted of a violent offense it shows that you could never possibly handle a firearm and are a danger to society.
 
0bserver92 said:
If you want a gun don't get charged with a violent offense. It's that simple, it you are convicted of a violent offense it shows that you could never possibly handle a firearm and are a danger to society.
Click to expand...

Oh look, more unjustified absolutes.
 
tessaesque said:
Oh look, more unjustified absolutes.
Click to expand...

No, why is it unreasonable to think that someone who has been convicted of a violent offense, someone who has been shown to be a danger to society be allowed to purchase a firearm.
 
0bserver92 said:
No, why is it unreasonable to think that someone who has been convicted of a violent offense, someone who has been shown to be a danger to society be allowed to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

Did you ignore the factors listed in my previous post?
 
0bserver92 said:
No, why is it unreasonable to think that someone who has been convicted of a violent offense, someone who has been shown to be a danger to society be allowed to purchase a firearm.
Click to expand...

Because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future.
 
tessaesque said:
Did you ignore the factors listed in my previous post?
Click to expand...

Why should being under 18, not convicted of anything else, or what you for afterwards change anything you have still shown you are violent have been convicted. Your self-defense argument also doesn't hold water since if yous till got convicted you clearly didn't convince the judge very well that it was self-defense.
 
My answer is no, of course not.

Everyone has committed a crime. Everyone on this forum has committed a crime. I have absolutely no doubt of that whatsoever. We are all criminals. Its just most of us were never caught in a provable way and prosecuted.

Everyone is a criminal. Most people have never been caught.
 
Henrin said:
Because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future.
Click to expand...

Say you were convicted of an assault charge years ago you were irresponsible so how can you be trusted with a firearm, and also you have to live the consequences of your actions.
 
If it is a felony conviction, yes. If it is a misdemeanor that does not involve domestic violence, no.

PS 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.
 
Last edited:
0bserver92 said:
Say you were convicted of an assault charge years ago you were irresponsible so how can you be trusted with a firearm, and also you have to live the consequences of your actions.
Click to expand...

So you are saying a 50 year old is no more responsible than a 21 year old? I mean that is pretty ridicules on any level. As we mature most people (not all) by nature become more responsible on some level.
 
0bserver92 said:
Say you were convicted of an assault charge years ago you were irresponsible so how can you be trusted with a firearm, and also you have to live the consequences of your actions.
Click to expand...

Let's say when you were 18 you wrecked a car. Should you never be allowed to drive a car again, since you've clearly shown you cannot drive safely?
 
Henrin said:
Because past actions are not necessarily a reflection of the future.
Click to expand...

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"?
 
tessaesque said:
Let's say when you were 18 you wrecked a car. Should you never be allowed to drive a car again, since you've clearly shown you cannot drive safely?
Click to expand...

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