Should criminals be allowed to buy or own guns?

[QueSi]

Do you think that criminals should be allowed to buy or own guns?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Depends on the nature of the crime to some extent (if it's non-violent, then allowing the person to have a gun probably isn't a threat to anyone else), but violent criminals, major drug offenders, and people arrested with known membership in a gang or other illegal organization shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

They already own guns.

 

[QueSi]

Depends on the nature of the crime to some extent (if it's non-violent, then allowing the person to have a gun probably isn't a threat to anyone else), but violent criminals, major drug offenders, and people arrested with known membership in a gang or other illegal organization shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms.

But breaking a law shows that the person does not respect the laws and might therefor break any of them. If you can't obey the simple petty crimes, can you be trusted at all?

 

[QueSi]

They already own guns.

Right, some of them do, but should they be allowed to?

 

[QuiltAngel]

Felons can not legally purchase a gun.

 

[QueSi]

Felons can not legally purchase a gun.

So what do you think about other people who can't follow more simple laws, should they be allowed to own guns?

 

[rambot]

Only for the purposes of their militia membership

 

[QueSi]

Only for the purposes of their militia membership

Where does militia membership require a gun?

 

[Schneiderman]

If a particular individual who has been convicted of a crime can not be deemed trustworthy enough to have a gun... why let him out of prison in the first place?

If he's too dangerous to have a gun he should not be released back into society.

 

[EdwinWillers]

If a particular individual who has been convicted of a crime can not be deemed trustworthy enough to have a gun... why let him out of prison in the first place?

If he's too dangerous to have a gun he should not be released back into society.

...at the very least he should be prevented from taking the helm of that society, not to mention prevented from taking everyone else's guns away once he's at the helm.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Do you think that criminals should be allowed to buy or own guns?

What's a criminal - the guy who does 26 in a 25 mph zone, or the girl who shoplifts a scarf on her way home from school? Is it the waiter to didn't report 20 bucks in tips? The housewife who works as a prostitute in her spare time, or the man who murders 26 children - or those who forgive him but blame it on his gun?

It's not a rhetorical question because we're all "criminals," to some degree. There are so many laws now that it's virtually impossible NOT to violate one or more of them inadvertently at some point.

So, define "criminal" as it pertains to your question.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Do you think that criminals should be allowed to buy or own guns?

If we say we believe in rehabilitation, full civil rights should be restored after a reasonable time of life after incarceration, that is the intent of parole. After someone has "paid their debt to society" wouldn't it make sense to restore full civil rights? To put it another way, if we don't trust them to legally posess a gun or to not posess a gun until legally allowed, how does it make any sense to release them to where they can buy a gun illegally?

 

[EveryTime]

If we say we believe in rehabilitation, full civil rights should be restored after a reasonable time of life after incarceration, that is the intent of parole. After someone has "paid their debt to society" wouldn't it make sense to restore full civil rights? To put it another way, if we don't trust them to legally posess a gun or to not posess a gun until legally allowed, how does it make any sense to release them to where they can buy a gun illegally?

I agree, if multiple rapists and mass murderers can be forgiven and allowed into heaven who on earth has the right to stop a reformed criminal from owning a room full of guns, after all don't they need to protect themselves as well?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Right, some of them do, but should they be allowed to?

It doesn't matter if they're allowed to. They're criminals for a reason.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

But breaking a law shows that the person does not respect the laws and might therefor break any of them. If you can't obey the simple petty crimes, can you be trusted at all?

Have you ever driven 1 kilometer faster than you were allowed?
If so, you are a criminal.

 

[morningstar2651]

If we say we believe in rehabilitation, full civil rights should be restored after a reasonable time of life after incarceration, that is the intent of parole. After someone has "paid their debt to society" wouldn't it make sense to restore full civil rights? To put it another way, if we don't trust them to legally posess a gun or to not posess a gun until legally allowed, how does it make any sense to release them to where they can buy a gun illegally?

This.

 

[rambot]

Where does militia membership require a gun?

It doesn't, but being as how the 2nd ammendment justifies bearing arms for the purposes of a well regulated militia, and clearly notes that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (suggesting, for that purpose), I can't see a constitutional reason to keep them from having guns. I am NOT a scholar on the matter, just someone who reads English and I am open to a better understanding.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Only if it was a violent or major crime. Just cause someone messes up and gets a dui or popped with weed doesn't mean they should lose their right to properly defend themselves.

 

[SolomonVII]

What's a criminal - the guy who does 26 in a 25 mph zone, or the girl who shoplifts a scarf on her way home from school? Is it the waiter to didn't report 20 bucks in tips? The housewife who works as a prostitute in her spare time, or the man who murders 26 children - or those who forgive him but blame it on his gun?

It's not a rhetorical question because we're all "criminals," to some degree. There are so many laws now that it's virtually impossible NOT to violate one or more of them inadvertently at some point.

So, define "criminal" as it pertains to your question.

It is rather insidious to realize this actually, that the laws that govern us have become so all-pervading and intrusive that we often do not realize whether or not we are breaking any laws.