The whole conversation is about evil. You posed “negative” costs. Your question is by nature subjective. Replace evil with “negative” if it makes you more comfortable.
Sure, but like it or not it’s the contract you and I are party too. It seems a reasonable standard, but I’d be open to hearing a better one in the situation.
If we are ok with rehabilitation I’m assuming that should go for their gun rights too.
I agree. That’s why I think evidence-based policies (like the ones outlined in the article I posted) are a decent place to start.
Just to illustrate the complexity of the issue, even this isn’t as directly true as you would like it to be. You are assuming in this case that the gun is always a critical link in the chain for every given gun death. It isn’t. In a gun death it is not necessarily true that the person would not have died had there been no gun. I’m sure there are situations where that is true but there are also situations where the presence of a gun saved lives. More importantly there are many many situation where the gun is just the chosen means. Even Asian countries have mass stabbing attacks. Is a mass stabbing “better” than a mass shooting? Probably, most of the time. But that’s a tough calculation to make. Without guns in the US, but with the same issues of evil, driven people wanting to kill school children you might just end up with far more bombings.
This is not an accurate assessment of my views. I simply think that when it comes to regulating or limiting rights, you need to consider the direct and indirect consequences of doing so to the best of your ability. I think the negative indirect consequences of limiting voting rights to be more significant than the negative indirect consequences of limits gun rights (in the ways outlined in that article, at least).
Here’s a relevant article that I think you’ll appreciate (I certainly do):
HAH. I disagree with Sam on almost everything, but for some reason I still love to hear from him.
He’s very hit or miss for me, but I think he does a great job articulating the complexity of this particular issue.
Have you considered it from the individual side instead of the population side? Restricting the vote of one person has virtually no impact on the life of the person. Restricting arms can literally be life or death (or in the instance of gun control regulation prison). On the individual level your direct/indirect reasoning reverses itself.
That’s a great point. Which of those perspectives should drive public policy though?
(We’re getting dangerously close to “trolly problem” territory if we choose to follow this line of discussion…)
I agree with this.
I am not sure if you think I am in favor of more regulations on guns? I don’t think I am. More so just placing additional taxes on them to pay for costs associated with them (which would be unconstitutional to specifically use the tax to combat gun violence).
I am for sure against poll tax though. Or any type of test to determine if a voter is informed well enough. It just seems too subjective to be fair, and I can see ways of doing it that could favor one side or the other depending on how it is done.
Both. Considering each isn’t mutually exclusive.
You don’t think this is true of gun regulation? Hell modern gun control was largely started to prevent blacks from getting arms. Many left wing states still use the old jim crowe “may issue” wording to prevent people they don’t like from getting guns. Who do you think is disproportionately affected buy the increased cost for guns and permitting. Who do you think ends up in jail for improperly transporting a gun. Mostly poor people who can’t afford 200$ for a permit. Largely from communities where having arms for protection is a very reasonable argument.
I (think) I am mostly against those type of gun control measures. I think that is consistent with my thoughts on vote control measures.
My opinion on the situation in regards to guns is that there are too many of them out there already that further measures are not going to do a whole lot to lower gun violence.
I think about the only practical thing we could do is put higher taxes on them and use that money to fund stuff like protecting schools (which we can’t legally say that is what the money is for).
I guess one more thing we could do, which we are already doing to an extent is change sentencing rules or create different laws to distinguish crimes that involve guns. An example of this is robbery vs armed robbery. The latter has a higher penalty. I support that sort of thing too.
Agreed. The threat of an idiot with a gun is more urgent and should be addressed first.
My point is that to even believe there is a comparison to be made between the two is meaningless.
And for how many posts was there meaningless discussion attempting to pit one against the other?
That was what caught my attention.
IDK, ask the folks trying to equate the two.
I suppose you are correct. I only asked one of them.
Leftist DAs and legislatures that are getting rid of this kind of enhancements are examples of the harm stupid voters can do.
I equated them? Where. Thought I was doing the opposite.
Voting for either side can do harm. Voters who are “intelligent” or “informed” can also vote for a party that has a policy that does harm.
I agree with you that those examples are stupid, but if right wing politicians were in charge, there would be some policy that caused harm as well.