The "No Guns for Cons" Proposal
I believe this proposal (found on page 1 of proposals) is too broad. I believe that it is too harsh that released convicts that were arrested for "violent crimes" (defined as crimes that harm other people) cannot own guns. The proposal should be changed to only affect convicts that were convicted for crimes that involve guns.
It is my and my nation's opinion that once you have been tried, convicted and served your sentance for a crime you no longer owe any debt to society.
This proposal may also open the gates to increased vigilante vengeance and increase crime in the long run.
:? If criminals have been successfully rehabilitated once they've served their time, then why make them second class citizens? If they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because they're too dangerous, shouldn't they still be in prison?
The Republic of Essexshire restores full rights to former felons who were convicted of non-violent crimes. The right to vote is restored one year after punishment has ended, and after five years the right to own firearms is restored. Recidivism for these individuals for violent crimes and/or crimes involving firearms is no greater than the rest of the population. Therefore, statistically speaking, they are no more likely to abuse their right to own firearms than anyone else, and in fact they are slightly less likely!
Felons convicted of certain violent crimes are considered for rights restoral on a case-by-case basis after ten years. Convicted murderers, rapists, and robbers are never allowed to own firearms again.
This policy is successful in Essexshire, but we recognize that cultural and political differences may complicate the situation elsewhere in the world.
Collaboration
20-11-2003, 15:25
The Republic of Essexshire restores full rights to former felons who were convicted of non-violent crimes. The right to vote is restored one year after punishment has ended, and after five years the right to own firearms is restored. Recidivism for these individuals for violent crimes and/or crimes involving firearms is no greater than the rest of the population. Therefore, statistically speaking, they are no more likely to abuse their right to own firearms than anyone else, and in fact they are slightly less likely!
Felons convicted of certain violent crimes are considered for rights restoral on a case-by-case basis after ten years. Convicted murderers, rapists, and robbers are never allowed to own firearms again.
This policy is successful in Essexshire, but we recognize that cultural and political differences may complicate the situation elsewhere in the world.
We can agree with this as a most rational and measured approach, but the prohibition against rapists is bothersome.
Who likes rapists? But this is almost never a crime involving firearms. There may be knives, or brute force, but seldom a gun. They will be no less dangerous unarmed.
A potential unaddressed issue is that these prohibitions may in fact be encouraged a black market in forbidden firearms, just as drug laws boost the prices and distribution of illegal drugs.
It's hard to believe that you are contemplating allowing *anyone* to have guns, unless for a very good reason. Look at New York - however many murders a day they have, and it's all to do with gun laws being ridiculous.
???
NYC has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the United States. I hope you're trying to be funny. Or simply Quixotic.
"Who likes rapists? But this is almost never a crime involving firearms. There may be knives, or brute force, but seldom a gun. They will be no less dangerous unarmed."
Respectfully, this is like handing an convicted arsonist a Zippo because he used matches previously. The solution in either case is to give the intended victim a firearm and let her decide whether or not her attacker is less dangerous unarmed.
If criminals have been successfully rehabilitated once they've served their time, then why make them second class citizens? If they shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because they're too dangerous, shouldn't they still be in prison?
That's a good point; however, I still think that people who demonstrate that they cannot be trusted with firearms should have tight restrictions placed on their ownership, if they are allowed to own them at all. I guess that means I don't really think a person can ever truly be completely rehabilitated, but I'd rather err on the side of caution when murder is on the line.
Then again, most murders don't involve guns. *shrug*
It's hard to believe that you are contemplating allowing *anyone* to have guns, unless for a very good reason. Look at New York - however many murders a day they have, and it's all to do with gun laws being ridiculous.
That you didn't quote us the numbers of GUN RELATED murders leads me to suspect that you really haven't researched your opinion.
Who likes rapists? But this is almost never a crime involving firearms. There may be knives, or brute force, but seldom a gun. They will be no less dangerous unarmed.
I would tend to agree with Collaboration, there. Although I'd also question more specifically whether the ban on rapists would extend to those who committed statutory rape ("consentual" sex with a minor).
You all must live in some sort of virtual reality world, because allowing people who have committed violent crimes in the past to buy guns is one of the easiest ways to start a crime wave. Statistically, 64.37 percent of the people who have committed a crime in the past will commit a similiar crime in the future. You are enabling the cycle of death to continue.
Statistically, 64.37 percent of the people who have committed a crime in the past will commit a similiar crime in the future. You are enabling the cycle of death to continue.
Similar crimes? You mean people who don't commit crimes involving guns will continue to be unlikely to commit crimes using guns? I think you answered your own argument.