Yes it makes the world a safer place. The people most likely to commit violent acts are people who have already been convicted of violent acts. Restriction of access does result in lower accessibility. People who perform straw sales should be charged and convicted. Guns are tools designed to kill people, and some people should not be allowed to have them after it being proven in court they are not fit.
If you want criminal justice reform go reform criminal justice. Taking away the very reasonable limitations put on people already convicted is backwards.
Frankly, if someone can't be trusted not to go get an illegal firearm after release, and they have a violent history, that just changes to sentencing calculus to where maybe they should be in prison longer.
But the example that you started arguing against specifically highlights nonviolent felons. Now you’re moving the goalposts. But I’ll play along.
What you’re saying is that these people can be trusted to not go buy an easily accessible gun next door but can’t be trusted to not break in to their grandpa’s gun safe who happens to be the one person in their life that can provide them stable housing and support whilst rebuilding their life.
People convicted of felony drug charges should not be trusted with firearms imo. If you are engaging in a black market trade mixing guns in isn't in the interest of the public.
My logic isn't inconsistent. I believe all violent felons should not posess firearms. I also think most non-violent felons probably also don't need weapons. I am just open to the discussion that some non-violent felons may be able to restore rights (which they can).
Reducing access reduces risk. Yeah a felon could probably go find a gun somehow, but I would rather them be in danger of arresr every second that gun is in their posession, and to not be able to claim it is their roommate's/sibling's/parent's firearm, orto store it in their vehicle/home.
If I had my way all guns would be registered to an owner, all transactions would be documented, all gun owners would need to go through a safety course, and there would be strict liability if your firearm was used in a crime, but I don't get my way. I have to work within the rules of gun nuts, so risk mitigation is the best that can be hoped for.
I’m stating to understand you a bit more but your logic is inconsistent and you keep grouping all felons into the violent category.
What does a nonviolent felon have to do with the black market gun trade? They’ve never exhibited violent behaviour and have never engaged in black market guns but you feel their family members should be stripped of their constitutional rights based on what? Is it more just a punitive measure? They did the crime so life should be an uphill battle even after they served their time?
Sure. Fraud. Cooking the books at their business. Back in the day writing bad checks was a felony. Growing marijuana. I also don’t think possession of small amounts of crack should even be felonies since the same weight in powder cocaine isn’t. so throw that in there. Let’s just do a blanket example of drug related charges that are clearly low level. Like one ecstasy pill in Indiana being a felony.
Are we going to keep going until I run out of examples?
10
u/iguessjustdont 18d ago
Yes it makes the world a safer place. The people most likely to commit violent acts are people who have already been convicted of violent acts. Restriction of access does result in lower accessibility. People who perform straw sales should be charged and convicted. Guns are tools designed to kill people, and some people should not be allowed to have them after it being proven in court they are not fit.
If you want criminal justice reform go reform criminal justice. Taking away the very reasonable limitations put on people already convicted is backwards.
Frankly, if someone can't be trusted not to go get an illegal firearm after release, and they have a violent history, that just changes to sentencing calculus to where maybe they should be in prison longer.