[Brandonmos]

Originally Posted by PHXLT1

So you think a hug would have made it a different outcome? I seriously doubt it. Life is a challenge for everyone. There is not one person on this site that has not gone through some tribulations in life but we don't go killing people who had nothing to do with your troubles. No, I think he was just a weak minded individual who, although was going through issues, had no excuse to do what he did. My prayers go to the families of the victims.

1,000,000x this. Individuals like this would not have had the means to take so many lives OR get the media attention they crave so easily 100 years ago and would have died in a hole alone.

It's the sensationalist media that's feeding the beast.

Ps. Been overseas, saw a lot more killing and brutality evreyday then ever seen here. Murder is the oldest crime. It's sad but will happen.

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

See, I agree with you on this in theory, but in practice I'm more hesitant. In a perfect world, if a person commits a crime, they are punished accordingly. But there are plenty of cases that go through the system and, even though the person was convicted, they are effectively given just a slap on the wrist (in the relative sense) depending on how good their lawyer is or who the judge was or how lenient the jury was.

How many child molesters are out there that are repeat offenders? They were convicted, registered, and served their time. But then they were let out of prison, supposedly "rehabilitated," and then they commit the same crime (or some variant) again.

So, in this particular instance, until we get criminal punishments standardized here, I have a problem with assuming a person is "rehabilitated" just because they "paid their debt" to society. That's why I think there are some crimes that, even if you serve your time, should completely exclude you from ever owning a firearm for the rest of your life. Granted, it would likely be a short list, but it would still need to exist, at least with the way the current system is setup.

You're right, and like I said the system is broken. That should probably be addressed before anything. But it is still reality that there is no such thing as a person who is too dangerous to have a firearm, but not so dangerous that they should be locked up. That's a classic example of blaming the gun isn't it? They can be free as long as they don't have a gun, because with a gun they will do bad things. Without it, they won't.

That goes for all kinds of crime. And why does being convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with a firearm ban you from owning one? If say I go to prison for touching a child, what sense does it really make for me to not own a gun? I didn't use one. What about drugs? What about assault without a weapon? My brother actually has a felony on his record because he got caught with pot. He can't own a firearm because it's a felony. There are many things broken with this system.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by kalimus

You're right, and like I said the system is broken. That should probably be addressed before anything. But it is still reality that there is no such thing as a person who is too dangerous to have a firearm, but not so dangerous that they should be locked up. That's a classic example of blaming the gun isn't it? They can be free as long as they don't have a gun, because with a gun they will do bad things. Without it, they won't.

As I showed above, there actually are instances of people who actually are too dangerous to own guns that are out free because somehow their punishment did not fit their crime. Granted, I sincerely hope this kind of thing is rare, but it does happen.

I think if you commit a crime and in the process you use a firearm, then that should be the type of felony where you should get life without the possibility of parole. If someone dies because of that felony, you should be executed. That would clear up the majority of the debate. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could come up with a scenario to muddy this issue, but it's a solid starting point.

Then I think that for all other felonies (where a firearm is not used), and assuming you get out of prison after a fair sentencing, then I would have no problem with restoring all rights (including the 2nd amendment right) to that individual. Again, I'm sure someone could come up with a scenario to make this more complicated, but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by kalimus

That goes for all kinds of crime. And why does being convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with a firearm ban you from owning one? If say I go to prison for touching a child, what sense does it really make for me to not own a gun? I didn't use one. What about drugs? What about assault without a weapon? My brother actually has a felony on his record because he got caught with pot. He can't own a firearm because it's a felony. There are many things broken with this system.

I was using the child molesters as an example completely unrelated to guns, purely to show how the "system" will allow someone who is dangerous back out onto the street. The fact that drug possession felonies supercede your 2nd amendment rights for the rest of your life goes to my earlier point that I think the system needs to be reworked to allow certain "lesser" felonies to retain all of their Constitutional rights once they serve their fair sentence.

It's a complicated issue. And I'm glad people on Camaro5 can have a level-headed discussion about it without getting all stupid like I've seen on so many other threads before. This has definitely been interesting to read and participate in

[kalimus]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

As I showed above, there actually are instances of people who actually are too dangerous to own guns that are out free because somehow their punishment did not fit their crime. Granted, I sincerely hope this kind of thing is rare, but it does happen.

Yes, I understand that it happens haha. I'm saying that's how the system is broken. That person who is too dangerous to own a firearm also must be too dangerous to be free. I wasn't speaking to the broken system, only speaking to the fact that no such person actually exists, where you can trust them in public as long as they don't own a gun. Those people who get punishments that don't fit the crime are not trustworthy just because they don't have a gun. The fact that somewhere in the broken legal system, someone thinks that kind of person exists (because they release them), is broken beyond all comprehension. They SHOULD still be locked up.

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

It's a complicated issue. And I'm glad people on Camaro5 can have a level-headed discussion about it without getting all stupid like I've seen on so many other threads before. This has definitely been interesting to read and participate in

No. You're a big stupid face.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by kalimus

Yes, I understand that it happens haha. I'm saying that's how the system is broken. That person who is too dangerous to own a firearm also must be too dangerous to be free. I wasn't speaking to the broken system, only speaking to the fact that no such person actually exists, where you can trust them in public as long as they don't own a gun. Those people who get punishments that don't fit the crime are not trustworthy just because they don't have a gun. The fact that somewhere in the broken legal system, someone thinks that kind of person exists (because they release them), is broken beyond all comprehension. They SHOULD still be locked up.

Well, anyway, we need to make the punishments that are on the books consistent and uniform (and make sense). After that point, I agree with you that if a person serves their time and is released back into the world, they ought to be given back every right that they gave up when they were incarcerated.

And honestly, if a person serves their time, I would argue that their record should be expunged of the charge after a set amount of time, similar to how traffic tickets don't show up on your driving record after 7 years (or however long in different states). I mean, if you "paid your debt" then why should it follow you around for the rest of your life, right?

Originally Posted by kalimus

No. You're a big stupid face.