The War on Guns: Does Denying Guns to 'Prohibited Persons' Ensure Public Safety?

The War on Guns: Does Denying Guns to 'Prohibited Persons' Ensure Public Safety?

I am late getting to this item, but it is important enough to bring to your attention.

I have been a gun owner for thirty years, but I have been an activist for only a few. Once I became activist, I started reading and thinking on the subject pretty regularly. One of the things that bothered me was that felons (and as it turns out, other too) are denied their rights to own and carry guns, but are none the less allowed out to roam freely. Now, a true hardened criminal will not obey a law if it interferes with his plans. In the old days, such a micreant would have been hanged, and no prohibition was needed. But over the years, more and more infractions have been made into felonies, despite the fact that these people are not violent. Are we perhaps allowing our views on their behavior to cloud our judgement? Is it just that prosecutors want an extra tool in their arsenal? But why is that a problem for which a free people should give up some of their rights?

In the end, I tend to agree with David here that if a person can not be trusted with a gun, he should not be allowed out. All others should have available the means of self defense.