Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
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.
|
this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at stake imo
You don't only have to demonstrate a statistical deviance... You have to demonstrate a direct casual link that justifies suspending rights for the sake of public health
E.G. black people are much more likely, statistically speaking, to commit a gun crime. Banning them owning guns would be an obvious infringement on their civil rights. Males ages 20-40 are also statically much more likely to commit a gun crime than other demographics. Same story.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Again that's an argument against the 2nd amendment not against removing the rights of felons.
But as long as you're here, you can also lead a good and active life without voting. A gun is actually more useful than voting is for vast swaths of Americans