• 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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
 
If it's a violent crime they committed with a gun, sure. Sounds logical to me.
 
Going to go with a soft yes, as even showing repentance for the misdead would be a tough sell. There's just too much risk for giving second chances.
 
It's already the case for the most part, since most gun-crimes are felonies and felons are prohibited from owning firearms.
 
It's already the case for the most part, since most gun-crimes are felonies and felons are prohibited from owning firearms.
Except for that suddenly enraged individual who catches a spouse cheating.
 
I assume that you meant a felony was commited (as an adult), a conviction was obtained for it and a sentence of at least one year in jail/prison was imposed. The way you stated the question leads me to believe that a "trick" may be comming. ;)
 
Just depends what the crime is. If someone carries concealed without a permit like a lot of women do, probably not. If they use a gun in a crime that involves a victim, then yes.
 
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

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.

Besides that the weapon used should be irrelevant to your punishment.Being killed with a gun does not make you any less or more dead than someone killed with a knife,pencil, or some other tool.
 
I voted yes, but there will be cases in NY or IL where a citizen kills an intruder in their home and is charged which is bull crap
 
No...they should be forever imprisoned.
 
Anyone who has committed a violent offense should be banned form owning a gun.
 
It's already the case for the most part, since most gun-crimes are felonies and felons are prohibited from owning firearms.

You can get a felony for popping a wheelie on a motorcycle or driving over a hundred miles an hour.

But stripping gun rights from violent offenders, especially gun crimes, at least is a direct cause effect relationship.
 
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

As stated, the proposition is far too open to abuse.

If I were to walk out my door carrying a loaded gun, I'd be committing a “crime”. Never mind that the Constitution explicitly affirms that I have a right to keep and bear arms; I live in a state that utterly refuses to obey the Constitution, and would treat me as a criminal for exercising this basic Constitutional right.

So, if I commit this “crime” with a gun, do I deserve to be denied this Constitutional right for the rest of my life? I suppose it's rather moot, since the state—as a matter of routine policy—already openly violates the Constitution by denying me this right in the first place.

Now, if someone uses a gun to commit murder or attempted murder, then that person should either be put to death, or else spend the rest of his life in prison without any chance of parole. No need to have any separate law to deny someone convicted of such a crime the right to keep and bear arms, since being dead or in prison, he wouldn't be able to exercise that right anyway.

The same is exactly true if he committed murder or attempted murder, without using a gun.

So really, the only circumstance under which I would acknowledge the legitimacy of permanently denying someone his Second Amendment rights is a circumstance under which the Second Amendment is irrelevant anyway.
 
Last edited:
No...they should be forever imprisoned.

Make the punishment hard as smashing your right testicle between two cinder blocks and it will make the perp think twice. Life in prison if not a deterrent will remove a criminal willing to use a gun off the streets.
We have too many fatalities by guns in this country.
If you can't do the time , don't do the crime. Easy as that.

Don't want to divert thread but would also give prison time for drunk driving but that is another subject.

To make room in the prisons remove the drug offenders from prison. That would empty a lot of beds.

On Dec. 31, 2011, there were 197,050 sentenced prisoners under federal jurisdiction. Of these, 94,600 were serving time for drug offenses, 14,900 for violent offenses, 10,700 for property offenses, and 69,000 for "public order" offenses (of which 22,100 were sentenced for immigration offenses, 29,800 for weapons offenses, and 17.100 for "other").

Prisons & Drug Offenders | Drug War Facts
 
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.

Besides that the weapon used should be irrelevant to your punishment.Being killed with a gun does not make you any less or more dead than someone killed with a knife,pencil, or some other tool.

I agree, but I would add this:

Absent significant mitigating circumstances, I do not consider murder to be a crime for which anyone can ever “pay their debt to society”; and I think that all convicted murderers should be permanently removed from free society, either by putting them to death, or by keeping them in prison for life with no possibility of parole or other release. And, as I previously mentioned, doing so renders moot any question of the right of such criminals to possess a firearm.
 
As stated, the proposition is far too open to abuse.

If I were to walk out my door carrying a loaded gun, I'd be committing a “crime”. Never mind that the Constitution explicitly affirms that I have a right to keep and bear arms; I live in a state that utterly refuses to obey the Constitution, and would treat me as a criminal for exercising this basic Constitutional right.

So, if I commit this “crime” with a gun, do I deserve to be denied this Constitutional right for the rest of my life? I suppose it's rather moot, since the state—as a matter of routine policy—already openly violates the Constitution by denying me this right in the first place.

Now, if someone uses a gun to commit murder or attempted murder, then that person should either be put to death, or else spend the rest of his life in prison without any chance of parole. No need to have any separate law to deny someone convicted of such a crime the right to keep and bear arms, since being dead or in prison, he wouldn't be able to exercise that right anyway.

The same is exactly true if he committed murder or attempted murder, without using a gun.

So really, the only circumstance under which I would acknowledge the legitimacy of permanently denying someone his Second Amendment rights is a circumstance under which the Second Amendment is irrelevant anyway.

I mean violent or terrorizing crime like using a gun to rob a liquor store or shooting someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others. I don't mean forgetting to renew your carry permit or hunting out of season.
 
I mean violent or terrorizing crime like using a gun to rob a liquor store or shooting someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others.

Why should these crimes be treated different if someone used a knife or some other weapon to rob a liquor store or stabbed someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others? Armed robbery is still armed robber and assault with a weapon is still assault with a weapon.
 
I mean violent or terrorizing crime like using a gun to rob a liquor store or shooting someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others. I don't mean forgetting to renew your carry permit or hunting out of season.

You should have included that in the original question. As you stated it, it would have to apply to any “crime” involving a gun; which would even include carrying a weapon without a permit (never mind that the Constitution explicitly affirms this as a right, and does not allow any level of government the authority to require such a permit) or possessing an outlawed “assault weapon” (again, never mind that the Constitution does not allow government the authority to define anything as an “assault weapon” and on that basis to prohibit its possession).

As originally stated, your question amounts to asking whether government should be allowed to deny you a right for life, for the “crime” of exercising that right.
 
Last edited:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

depends, if its a crime of violence such as armed robbery-intimidating a rape victim with a gun or premeditated murder etc absolutely

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

NO
 
Why should these crimes be treated different if someone used a knife or some other weapon to rob a liquor store or stabbed someone not in self defense or defense of your home or defense of others? Armed robbery is still armed robber and assault with a weapon is still assault with a weapon.

The big difference would be the deck is stacked rather higher for a firearm killing whomever the shooter is trying for and from a distance greater than arm length. There maynot be a difference after the fact as dead is dead, how some ever, but the effort between stabbing and tussling with your victim vs the squeeze of a trigger...

I'd agree with you if we were talking DUI with a mini car, truck, or bus but the lethality of a firearm vs a knife tends to lean the argument away from being similar.
 
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

This will probably shock a lot of people around here, but YES I do believe that anyone who is convicted of a crime with a firearm should be permanently banned from continued ownership of any firearm.

However, I would suggest that we need to make sure that the act that was committed was actually a crime and that the firearm was a significant portion of the criminal act. Speeding or jaywalking while carrying a firearm should not revoke their second amendment privileges. In fact no crinimal act in which the firearm was not a major factor should revoke the gun owner's rights. Likewise, any use of the firearm in a defensive manner which is considered as self-defense should not revoke the right, even if a civil finding is made against the gun owner.
 
The big difference would be the deck is stacked rather higher for a firearm killing whomever the shooter is trying for and from a distance greater than arm length.
It still doesn't make you any less of a victim if someone uses a knife,baseball or the threat of just physical force to rob you or someone attempts to take your life. This basically amounts to charging a drug dealer in Oklahoma with failure to get a tax stamp of Marijuana even though pot is illegal in Oklahoma. Its just a bull**** charge to use in order to slap on extra time.

Should someone who stabs someone with a pencil be permanently banned from ever using pencils,pens and other pencil shaped objects?
Should someone who stabs someone or robs someone with a knife be permanently banned from ever touching a knife?
 
Anyone who has committed a violent offense should be banned form owning a gun.

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom