Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
You didn't say it explicitly, but it was implicit in your logic.
They demonstrated themselves to be felons and thus incapable of ever fully retaining their rights and thus they are beyond rehabilitation in a certain regard. Correct me where I'm wrong.
A lot of the rest of what you said relies on the assumption that they pose a unique security risk if allowed to own weapons. I've already stated my case against this and am eagerly awaiting a rebuttal
|
Perhaps this doesn't rise to an actual rebuttal, jwb, so much as an alternative way of looking at the issue. Without any stats to back myself up, yes, I am assuming that a convicted felon is more likely to use a gun to commit a crime than someone without a felony conviction. Perhaps I should've researched that, but if it's true, then my argument is just a simple application of statistical probabilities:-
Motor cyclists statistically run a heightened risk of brain injury, therefore all of them wear helmets. It's not really saying to each individual cyclist, "I don't think you're capable of riding safely." In a similar way, I'm guessing that felons fall into a group that are statistically more likely to be involved in violent crime, so denying them access to guns should statistically lessen that risk to society.
And yes, there are cases of people who have been falsely convicted, and the people like the guy OH mentions who grew up in very tough circumstances. Those cases clearly support your position. Also, (again with no research) there are prob cases of felons who leave jail and subsequently shoot some innocent victim. Those victims would support my case by asking, " Why didn't the authorities do more to protect me if they knew the guy had a record of violent crime?"
Underlying my argument is also the assumption that you can lead a full and active life without owning a gun, that the lack of one doesn't make you a second-class citizen.