Convicted felons owning guns
- Thread starter SalchaketJoe
- Start date
- Status
By that logic, we should have no laws, since anyone serious about committing a crime will not be be hindered by any law. Is that what you had in mind?fireside44 said:
In any case --
[1] Laws stripping a person of certain civil rights (e. g., the right to vote or possess a gun) upon conviction for a felon increase the cost to the erstwhile criminal. Whether or not, or to what extent, that helps deter criminal conduct is difficult to assess, but we often argue that increasing the potential cost to the criminal of criminal conduct does help reduce crime. Isn't that what we argue when we say things like, "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed" or point to John Lott's work, in support of the right of honest folks to carry guns?
[2] And barring convicted felons from lawfully possessing guns increases the risk and the cost to them of acquiring a gun for a possible future criminal endeavor.
In general, I think it's a good thing to make criminal behavior risky and expensive for those who engage in it.
Interesting. So folks who disagree with you are undeserving.jon_in_wv said:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
No but don't you believe that when a law is passed there needs to be SOME kind of proof that it actually did some good?
And, when a law is passed don't you think that law should actually be ENFORCED?
60,000 felons have attempted to buy a gun which is by itself a crime, but only 74 of them were convicted.
So what we have here is a law that is enforced 1/1000th of 1 percent of the time. (roughly, I didn't spend much time on the math)
You're OK with that? I have to ask, why?
As for this:
That one is not true. Stolen guns sold illegally are nearly always priced well below the legal market price for the same gun. There was an FBI report on that several years ago if you want to look for it. Increased risk maybe, but not cost.
Arguing the impact of these laws is fruitless, the evidence shows that.
No one ever posts any evidence to the contrary. I'm still looking if anyone has any (other than published by Bloomberg/UC Davis since those were all fabricated).
So we're back to the "feeling" thing. It "seems like" these laws should help so we just tolerate them. No proof they do any good at all, yet so many are ready to defend these laws as necessary. I just wish someone could explain that to me.
Last edited:
Not that I keep seedy company but I have friends and aquaintences and I even work and hunt with people that have done time in the bighouse for whatever reason that are felons. As far as I'm cocerned these people paid there price and are out of jail workin and living in society with all of us. I could'nt imagine not having the right to own a gun of anykind for protection. There should be a time and a way for these people to get there rights back at some point and not be a "Branded Man" anymore. When has a man paid the price. I'm sure some of you know some people like I'm speaking of...Just my opinion
mljdeckard
Member
Is there a reason these people can't go through the process to get their records expunged?
What kind of proof and what kind of good? We know that laws are violated, so they are never 100% effective at preventing crimes. So on one level, the best we can hope for is that laws help us punish those who violate them. We will never know how many people a law may deter from engaging in the conduct.TexasRifleman said:
Yes.TexasRifleman said:
But 59,926 of them were at least denied the purchase. That is also a form of enforcement.TexasRifleman said:
There are "costs" other than monetary costs. Possession of a gun by a convicted felon is itself a felony charge in addition to any other crime with which he may be charged. That is a "cost." If you want to classify that as part of the risk, that's fine too.TexasRifleman said:
What kind of proof are you looking for? What proof do you have that any law "works"?TexasRifleman said:
I don't know if laws barring convicted felons from possessing guns are necessary. But they are our current reality, and they don't bother me. I'm inclined to see them as part of the price someone will pay for engaging in, and being convicted of, felonious acts.
Don't know? but I would'nt think they could have these types of offences expunged from there records,but at some point there should be a way to apply for there rights to guns and even voting rights. I know its a sore subject and thats the understatement of the day. Some of these men have earned there way back and should get a second chance.
I agree and understand that people can change and turn their lives around. But I also think that anyone who wants his rights restored and be expected to apply and show that he has turned his life around. I don't think that rights should simply be restored automatically.Hunt480 said:
As I understand it, almost 70% of convicted felons commit a crime within 3 years after they're released. Let's not make it an easier for them by allowing them to own firearms. Someone just needs to come up with a away to determine which of them will constitute the other 30%.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
fiddletown said:
Not really. What that tells us is that 59,926 felons wanted a gun and were willing to attempt to break the law to get one. Remember, that in itself is a crime, proving that these 59,926 people should probably not have been out of prison to begin with.
You can't possibly believe that as soon as they were turned down at a dealer that their search stopped can you?
Illegally sold guns account for over 80% of guns used in crimes.
You don't think it's a good bet that most of those 59,926 who wanted a gun got one anyway?
fiddletown said:
There are all kinds of laws that are passed that have a measurable impact.
The UCR gives pretty detailed statistics on crimes. If a gun law worked there should be a noticeable and sustainable drop in whatever gun crime it was meant to address.
Gun Control Act of 1968: No net change in the gun crime rate
Brady Act: No change in gun crime rate
Assault Weapon Ban: No change in gun crime rate. Heck, there WASN'T any crime with those types of guns to begin with, so what was that law supposed to do?
And in fact we see the opposite, that gun laws don't really change anything at all and in some cases just move the criminal to other areas.
A good example of that was the Brady Law's waiting period for handguns. When that went into effect the gun suicide rate dropped dramatically.
But, the OVERALL suicide rate stayed exactly the same. What does that tell us? That tells us that the gun is simply a tool. A criminal, or someone who is suicidal, will either obtain his tool of choice illegally or simply use another tool.
Yet, the Brady Bunch went ape over that, hailing their law as a "success".
It's not and has never been a gun control problem. No gun law has ever been proven to have had any positive impact on gun crime.
Yet here we are with so many people absolutely convinced that all these laws "help" and are willing to accept that without question.
Even today we have people that believe the Assault Weapon Ban was good for the country and should be reinstated to stop all of those crimes that don't exist.
It's "feel good" legislation only, and I wish people would just be honest enough to admit it.
Last edited:
Maybe, but we don't know for sure and we don't know how many. All we really know for sure is that they didn't get a gun at a dealer and that if they did get a gun, they committed another felony.TexasRifleman said:
Like what, exactly? What law when enacted had a measurable effect as measured by the UCR? Certainly crime rate varies, but it doesn't seem sensitive to the passage of new laws. So we're back to "let's have no laws because laws don't prevent crime."TexasRifleman said:
Hunt there is a process a person can go through to get their rights restored. I know a few folks that are in the process right now. One is using a lawyer. I think the others went down to their sheriffs office & got the paperwork to fill out.
At this time I don't know of anyone who has successfully completed it. I do know of one that was denied. He said that Georgia would have restored him but his crime was in Arkansas & they wouldn't sign off on it. He was convicted of & did time for vehicular manslaughter.
I do not believe someone should be banned from arms for life because they burglarised a video store when they were 18 years old. Most of the folks I know in this situation have been out of trouble & living responsible productive lives for the last 20 years.
At this time I don't know of anyone who has successfully completed it. I do know of one that was denied. He said that Georgia would have restored him but his crime was in Arkansas & they wouldn't sign off on it. He was convicted of & did time for vehicular manslaughter.
I do not believe someone should be banned from arms for life because they burglarised a video store when they were 18 years old. Most of the folks I know in this situation have been out of trouble & living responsible productive lives for the last 20 years.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Not quite true -- there is a strong negative correlation between sentence length and crime rate. Which is logical -- keep 'em locked up and they can't crimes on the street.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Vern said:
This is the right answer.
It's not about guns or gun laws and any time we start having that discussion we play right into the anti agenda.
Is not now, and has never been, a gun problem.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Bingo. Guns don't commit crimes, criminals commit crimes. And the very people who want to take our guns also want to let the criminals out.
True, if they're in jail, they're not on the street committing crimes. But correlation isn't the same as causation.Vern Humphrey said:
For an interesting perspective on why the crime rate fell so dramatically from the mid 1970s to the 1990s, see Steven Levitt's book, Freakonomics.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I think in this case, keeping them locked up can be considered as contributing to the decline in crime.
Come on, Vern, I acknowledged that. But there's more going on than just longer sentences. That, as well as other, commonly considered, factors can't account for the entire decrease in crime rate from the 1970s to the 1990s. And that's Steve Levitt's point.Vern Humphrey said:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Are you saying that you believe gun control has contributed to that?
Not sure if that's what you are saying so I don't want to put words in your mouth. The GUN crime rate, the percentage of crimes involving the use of a gun, has not changed.
So I still can't see how anyone gets to a point where they believe all of these gun laws have helped anything.
The criminal justice/crime/punishment/deterrent discussion simply can't involve gun control since gun control laws didn't do anything.
If people had a genuine interest in lowering the crime rate there wouldn't be so much time spent on the nonexistent "demon gun" problem.
This just depends on the situation, it's really hard to call on a general basis.
My buddy has 2 felonies but they were from when he was young (under 19). He's grown up now and knows better, but yet with the laws he can never own or even touch a firearm.
My buddy has 2 felonies but they were from when he was young (under 19). He's grown up now and knows better, but yet with the laws he can never own or even touch a firearm.
Nope, it of course has not. And any effect of increased carrying of guns by private citizens was also probably minimal. Read Steve Levitt. You'll be very surprised.TexasRifleman said:
Now we're getting pretty far afield. I think people have a genuine interest in seeing less crime. But I don't think anyone has any good ideas about how to go about it, except possibly at a social cost that would be unacceptable. I suspect that crime rate is a function of a complex aggregation of social, economic and culture factors that aren't easily adjusted. But that discussion would be off topic for this thread.TexasRifleman said:
I agree with you ...Its amazing how we can trust these people enough to let'm out of jail to work and make a living like the rest of us after they have served their time but will not let them have guns or the right to vote even after all these years. The gun did not commit the crime or may not have envolved a gun to start with in a lot of these cases.
I'm out...rant over
Badlander
Member
The government wants All of us disarmed. They are not about to give back gun rights to anyone once they lose that right. A friend is A felon for poaching A Gator 25 yrs ago.
Many locals here consider that sport! There is An abundant supply of gators. I fenced my yard to keep them out
Many locals here consider that sport! There is An abundant supply of gators. I fenced my yard to keep them out
First it was a felony and you lost your right to own a gun for life, then it was Lautenburg and a DV misdemeanor and you lost your right to own a gun for life. Also more and more crimes though enhanced penalties with a potential sentence of more than a year in jail and you lose your rkba for life, more and more felonies and you lose your right to own a gun for life. Anybody see a pattern here?
Unless it was a violent felony I see no reason for someone to lose their RKBA for life - once they have served their time and have completed parole or probation they should automatically get their RKBA back. If you feel all squeemish and worried about violent felons getting their rights back - then fine have an objective process for restoration of their RKBA and other rights - not the subjective at times impossible method they now have in various guises around the country.
Argue all you want but gun control doesn't work - even the kind you like. But then this is mostly about a "We don't want those kind of people to have guns." moral attitude.
Unless it was a violent felony I see no reason for someone to lose their RKBA for life - once they have served their time and have completed parole or probation they should automatically get their RKBA back. If you feel all squeemish and worried about violent felons getting their rights back - then fine have an objective process for restoration of their RKBA and other rights - not the subjective at times impossible method they now have in various guises around the country.
Argue all you want but gun control doesn't work - even the kind you like. But then this is mostly about a "We don't want those kind of people to have guns." moral attitude.
- Status
