1. Second-Class Citizenship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frownland
You become a second class citizen in any country when one or more rights are limited in comparison to the general public, so yes.
|
This is a very broad definition of "second-class citizen" isn't it? I'd argue that it takes more than just one specific restriction to turn you into a second class citizen. Here are some rights that most of us have, though they also come with restrictions. Is everyone who is excluded a second-class citizens?
Freedom of expression: most people have this, but how about the guys banned from using twitter -or our very own booboo- are they second-class citizens?
The right to drive: blind guys don't get to exercise this right. Are they second-class citizens?
__________________________________________________ _________________
2. Slippery-slope Statistics
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marie Monday
Giving people different rights based on statistics is a very dangerous slippery slope that easily leads to discrimination. As far as I know, statistically back people in America are more likely to be felons than white people. Should black people not have access to guns? And men are definitely statistically more likely to be involved in violent crimes. Should men not be allowed to own guns? Where do you draw the line?
|
I accept this point that Frownland, Marie and jwb make: that restrictions based on statistics are a slippery slope that could lead, for example, to racially biased laws. I hope you all know that I am not supporting that.
( Strictly speaking, on your bolded question, Marie, isn't the European answer, "That's correct. They shouldn't be allowed guns - unless they are hunters or farmers who are willing to submit to unannounced home inspections to check that they are maintaining their gun-security cabinets.)
__________________________________________________ ______________________
3. My revised position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
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
|
Upon mature reflection, as they say, I would like to revise my earlier position. It's not fair to make a blanket restriction about gun rights and apply it to anyone convicted of a felony.
As jwb, above (and elph, I think) have also hinted at or suggested, I would support instead a system like this:
Case-by-case examinations: felons with only one conviction would not face a gun ban, but felons with repeated convictions, and especially of gun-related crimes, are banned from having guns if judged best for public safety. As such, they'd pretty much join the ranks of other people who carry life restrictions, the pedofiles, etc:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
in the case of pedophiles and schools etc there's an obvious added risk involved - to a certain extent they are dealing with psychological issues and it's best to avoid triggering a relapse into bad behavior, the same way alcoholics avoid bars.
|