• 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 police take guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?

Should police take guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?


  • Total voters
    26
Not just "no" but, oh, "HELL NO!!!"

"Suspicion" is a rather nebulous term. Just what constitutes “suspicion”?

This is something that can be taken advantage of by the state very easily.

Remember, it was only very recently that the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano labeled “those individuals that are proponents of ‘States Rights’ or those that oppose the growth of the Federal Government as ‘Right Wing Extremists’. Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

She also said that, “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.”

Apparently, not being a member of the proper, politically-correct group can have you labeled as “suspicious”.

My sentiments exactly. "Oh look right-wingers lets take their weapons they are a threat to someone". If the person did something illegal then take them to jail charge them with a crime in question and try them in a court of law.
 
Are you assuming there is a law?

Read the article linked in the OP. There is in fact a law. Reading saves asking stupid questions.
 
If there is reasonable evidence, then maybe. But not off of suspicion.
 
The problem lies in trusting the government not to abuse this power.


What am I saying? Of course they will abuse it, like they abuse every power they've ever had.

If this is to be done at all, it needs to be hemmed in with strict legal language spelling out "probable cause" and the level of evidence required before it can be instituted...not on mere suspicion. I can suspect you of anything, that doesn't mean I'm right.
 
It could have gone the other way, with the man doing nothing at all.

You're right. But it didn't and my worst fears came to pass. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to reconcile something like that? Temporarily disarming a person until the situation can be resolved is not an unreasonable position to take.

Maybe my experience in actually seeing the damage done creates a bias on this issue. But if it had been you watching your father get his head blasted like a melon in your front doorway you might think differently about the idea of disarming mentally unstable people who might pose a threat to someone.
 
Seymour police used the law last year to take three guns away from a local man after his co-workers reported that he threatened to blow up his workplace. Police searched his computer and discovered he visited Web sites dealing with murders, violence and workplace shootings.

Yeah. I'm all for taking guns away from that retard.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. But it depends on the degree of suspicion. I would use the legal obligation that my profession requires me to use: intent/means. If someone tells me that they have intent and means to kill themselves or another, I am legally bound to report this. I would use the same determining factor for someone who owns a gun. If they state that they have intent to use the gun to harm themselves or another, the gun should be confiscated. No question about it.

Well put. Removing the option simply puts society at greater risk.
 
Read the article linked in the OP. There is in fact a law. Reading saves asking stupid questions.

It is STILL unconstitutional...
 
So that's what you served in the military for? I'm glad you are out.
I know one of the places friggers served, he knows where I did my bit.

Given a choice between you and him watching my back, its a no brainer!
 
Should police be allowed to confiscate firearms from people they suspect might harm themselves or others?



I say no.






2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law - wcbstv.com
2,000 Guns Confiscated Under Conn. Seizure Law
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.

I "Suspect" the Police now. :roll: The whole Story...

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) ― Police in Connecticut say they've now seized more than 2,000 firearms under a 1999 law that allows authorities to confiscate guns from people they suspect might harm themselves or others.

A report prepared for the state legislature says state and local police seized 2,093 guns from October 1999 to May 2009.

Seymour police used the law last year to take three guns away from a local man after his co-workers reported that he threatened to blow up his workplace. Police searched his computer and discovered he visited Web sites dealing with murders, violence and workplace shootings.

The gun seizure law was passed a year after a disgruntled Connecticut Lottery worker shot four top lottery officials and himself to death at the agency.

So,,,1 man "threatens" to "blow up" his "Workplace", he doesn't. The Police "steal" his Firearms...And " steal "2,,093" from other People.:roll:
 
Sorry you two...for some extreme hyper partisans here if you served in the military but are liberal you're apparently worthy of disdain and ridicule. Personally I find it rather sickening and pathetic.

As far as this I agree mostly with WI, CC, Lerx, Gosh, etc. JUST on suspicion, no I don't think so. Reasonable probability based on threat/means for a short term time, especially with those with impaired mental falicies? Yeah, in some cases such as that I could be accepting of it.
 
LOL.

On a serious note, and I wont do serious too often, having been in the US military I have had guns pointed at me and I have pointed guns at others.

Both conditions are disturbing.

Guns and idiots do not mix, the US needs gun control.




One much less so than the other, at least for me. :shug:
 
Back
Top Bottom