Would you find it alarming?

[Nittespanker]

Would you find it alarming if when a person was released from prison the former inmate was given a firearm for self defense?

If alarmed what steps would you take for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?

If not alarmed do you support the right to bear arms unconditionally? Simple yes answer would be appropriate for this opinion and no explanation needed.

The released inmate served their time. It doesn't matter what that crime was. They have paid their debt to society according to the court and are not on parole or probation.

[Spats McGee]

I don't think your questions lend themselves to simple yes or no answers. For what crime was this hypothetical person convicted? How long did he spend in prison? The answers to these questions may well change my answers to yours.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Nittespanker

If alarmed what steps would you take for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?

Released on parole, or released after having completed his sentence? (In other words, having "paid his debt to society" in full?) It appears to me that you regard someone who has completed his prison term as a criminal -- I don't really think the law regards him that way.

I am all in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. I don't know that I'm willing to subscribe to the notion that someone who served a sentence for a non-violent felony should be considered a "criminal" after having served his prison term, and deprived of his right to defend himself.

[AllenJ]

Would you find it alarming if when a person was released from prison the former inmate was given a firearm for self defense?

Yes I would. Prison is a place for serious offenders, people who pray on others. Arming them is probably not in the best interest of the people.

[Nittespanker]

Spats McGee

I don't think your questions lend themselves to simple yes or no answers. For what crime was this hypothetical person convicted? How long did he spend in prison? The answers to these questions may well change my answers to yours.

So don't give a yes or no answer. Feel free to explain your reasoning.

[Spats McGee]

I thought my reasoning was clear from my questions, but I'll play: Whether I would be alarmed by an inmate being given a firearm would depend on the nature and severity of the offense.

[Brian Pfleuger]

In the current world? Violent people should not have legal access to firearms. Having been in prison doesn't make them nonviolent.

In the world as I think it should be? Violent people should not be let out, so the question is moot.

[Spats McGee]

Having been in prison doesn't make them violent, either. Think: tax evasion.

Originally Posted by Nittespanker

. . . . It doesn't matter what that crime was. . . .

It does to me.

[Nittespanker]

Whether I would be alarmed by an inmate being given a firearm would depend on the nature and severity of the offense.

Ok so your in the it depends on what type crimes they committed to be sent to prison "camp"

Since its difficult to keep a person from obtaining a firearm from getting one how would you make it more difficult or keep the "other" criminals that you would be alarmed if they had a firearm from obtaining a firearm?

[Alabama Shooter]

Recidivism being what it is we don't do that anymore. We don't give prisoners guns anymore and expect them to act as guards either. These are ideas that never worked particularly well in the old world and are recipes for disaster in the current one.

[lamarw]

It would bother me if a convicted Felon, a severly mentally ill person and/or a person with a Bad Conduct Discharge from the military were allowed to own or possess a firearm.

[Nittespanker]

Today, 06:02 PM #7
Brian Pfleuger
Staff

In the current world? Violent people should not have legal access to firearms. Having been in prison doesn't make them nonviolent.

In the world as I think it should be? Violent people should not be let out, so the question is moot.

So if you get in a fight and hurt somebody but its ruled a felony you should be locked up forever? Don't you think that's harsh?

[Nittespanker]

So far no one has given any ideas to how we can keep guns out of the hands of people who we think shouldn't have them.

I'm certain we could come up with a few good ideas if we try. What do you guys think?

[deepcreek]

More then half of the people in prison in the USA are their for non-violent crimes.
I would not feel very alarmed if a tax fraud guy had a shot gun or a grower of illegal flowers had a .22 rifle.

[Pahoo]

Simple yes answer would be appropriate for this opinion and no explanation needed.

Yes, your point of departure and agenda troubles me but I also accept your 1A right to express it. ....

Be Safe !!!

[pathdoc]

If the crime was one of violence - unprovoked assault, robbery with violence, break & enter (with occupants home), rape, murder, child abuse, etc. - dealing in hard drugs or illegal guns, or something which might come under the general umbrella of treason or terrorism, I would be extremely alarmed.

If it was a stupid and unlucky kid who got themselves arrested, charged and convicted because they belted someone else in the schoolyard at the height of a name-calling session which referenced his mother's honour & stuff like that, perhaps not so much.

[Nittespanker]

Quote:
Yes, your point of departure and agenda troubles me but I also accept your 1A right to express it. ....

Be Safe !!!

I have no agenda and I appreciate your honesty. Oh and you did play by the "rules" you gave an honest answer. Yes you support the 2nd amendment unconditionally. Thank you,there are no wrong answers here.

[MLeake]

I don't really think we can keep weapons out of their hands. This does not bother me, as I generally do not favor prior restraint.

However, should they be caught committing another crime, and using a firearm in commission of said crime, I would have no heartache with mandatory imprisonment enhancements.

Hey, wait, we have those... they just don't seem to get used as often as they should.

[Corrections Cop]

It's illegal in MI for a convicted felon to be in possession of a fire arm, so if they had one I would call the cops. They lost that right when they committed their crime and were sentenced to prison.

[Shane Tuttle]

If two major items were addressed, most of the concerns at hand would be largely alleviated.

1. Simplify the current laws. Notice just how exponentially thicker the rule book from the IRS gets every stinking year? Same thing.

2. Enforce the laws to begin with. If a convicted felon receives 15 years for armed robbery, then he/she receives 15 years. Not 10. Not 5..... FIFTEEN.

Would you find it alarming if when a person was released from prison the former inmate was given a firearm for self defense?

Sorry to burst your bubble. Buts as Spats said, it makes all the difference in the world the reason why one serves time. Give us some specifics so we're not making more convoluted answers and we can give a more accurate assessment to your question.

If alarmed what steps would you take for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals?

If the convicted felon served the time given, then I believe steps should be taken to have his/her rights restored, generally speaking.

[Nittespanker]

If the convicted felon served the time given, then I believe steps should be taken to have his/her rights restored, generally speaking.

So it doesn't matter the crime if the convict completely served their time no strings attached or does it matter the crime?

Your last two paragraphs could be perceived as conflicting.

I have no bubble to burst and no one has to answer at all if they choose not to.

[Shane Tuttle]

I think you need to go back and reread my statements. It appears to me you're not understanding the context. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have answered with a loaded question demanding absolutes in a vacuum.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I've always been confused by this "served their debt to society" business.

Fact is, they haven't.

If the price of a pizza is $20 and you pay me $15, can you just decide that you've paid your debt and take the pizza?

No. You didn't. The price is $20 and you paid $15.

Society has decided that the price of being a felon is prison time AND lifetime loss of firearms. That's the price. It's not prison. It's not no firearms. It's prison AND no firearms.

We, society, could CHANGE the debt but the debt is currently both, not one.

Now, on the matter of violence. Yeah, I think being in a felonious violent crime marks you as a violent person and violent people don't just magically become "unviolent".

I've never been in a physical altercation in my life. Not one punch, given or taken. I avoid people who do such and places and times where such things occur. I do not provoke and I disengage/deescalate.

Seems to me that minor altercations, "mutual combat", sorts of things aught not be felonies. Couple soldiers, about to be deployed, go and and get a little fuzzy, get in fisticuffs over a girl. No big deal.

You beat your wife, you attack some guy in an alley, you rob somebody, yeah. Sorry. That's not something that's just "a mistake".

[Nittespanker]

I think you need to go back and reread my statements. It appears to me you're not understanding the context. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have answered with a loaded question demanding absolutes in a vacuum.

Well yes that is correct I don't understand the context so that's why I asked for clarification. If you do not want to answer that's ok.

I'm not demanding anything. If you read the entire thread your more than welcome to state your opinion and follow up with any reasoning you wish.

If you do not wish to do that then that's fine. Maybe I posed the question wrong initially but I followed up with basically answer how you wish.

You seem irritated for some reason. It's just a thread and no one is twisting arms or wanting to argue.

I will assume that your for not letting violent offenders have firearms at all ever and if they have committed no violent crimes then you are for them being able to restore their rights. I think that's what you meant between quoting me.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by Nittespanker

Would you find it alarming if when a person was released from prison the former inmate was given a firearm for self defense?

I would find it severely annoying. If the government, or even a private agency, can afford to give away firearms to felons, they can afford to give me one as well, and I am far more deserving.

That said, I'd like to see several changes to the current system: make it easier for felons convicted of non-violent crimes to have their rights restored; lower the bar for a temporary loss of rights to include some violent misdemeanors; and impose stiffer sentences for crimes committed with firearms. There are plenty of others, but that'll do for now.