Of course, and they're as old as the hills. But think about it for a bit (which was the purpose of the aphorism), if a person cannot discern rightly or cannot control themselves sufficiently to handle deadly force, should we TRUST them in public without supervision? The idea was to give you sufficient pause to consider whom and how.
Should certain acts have much stiffer penalties, ones that can’t be severely discounted? I believe so.
Should we be allowing a guy to walk out of prison one day and own a weapon the next day? I don’t think so.
IMO, under no circumstances should a person be released from prison without having made full restitution AND virtual certainty they pose NO threat. Else we should detain them in a lower security facility performing said restitution.
Note, I didn't say "weapon." People possess deadly force in their hands. What I am effectively saying is that the cost to society in liberty and wealth posed by all of us locking up our possessions and ducking for cover is so high that we should reconsider the entire paradigm. Needless to say, I know that won't be popular at first, but I really don't think we rightly understand the price we're paying.
I’m sure you realize how the parole boards work today. Can you see a time when they would work better than they do today? Hey, if so you may have a point. I just don’t see this happening. You’ll always have the left trying to get people out two days after they are incarcerated for violent crime. That’s the reality of it.
I agree that the costs are high today. You won’t see me advocating violent people be released prior to them serving their whole sentence. In many instance you’ll see my saying they should have served more time. One thing that neither of us has addressed, is the fact that the worst of these people can and will arm themselves, even if not allowed to do it legally.