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.

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

Yes, this is the truth. Although I'd replace "vast swaths of" with "almost all".

I'd like to add to frown's reply to this with the following consideration (edit: yikes to this sentence, you'll have to forgive me, it's still early):
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?

1. Second-Class Citizenship.
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

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.

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:

I’m sure they’ll happily oblige.

:laughing:

It's a broad definition since it's a broad category, much like felons.

There are alternative platforms that they can use, very different from having rights restricted by their government. It also makes it difficult to immigrate to a country where you feel you'll be treated right. It's also not like you can assume a new identity to evade legal restrictions like you can with an online platform (not that this applies to boo boo or anything...:shycouch:)

Though you can say that Twitter's rising (maybe?) social role is approaching government level. That fold makes it an interesting question sort of along the same vein of whether or not internet should be a human right given how central it is to modern success.

If the government that restricted them does not provide an alternative for them to lead an otherwise normal life, then yes.

I can get down with the case by case approach but think that refining gun laws to exclude people with a history of inciting violence (felon or no) or something along those lines would be a better measure. Getting people to recognize that the gun fetish is a form of cowardice would be a good extralegal approach.

Maybe mine and others' stances might seem extreme but the disconnect might be cultural. None of the below is about your stance, it's just what's influenced mine.

In the US, taking away gun rights isn't just one thing that felons have to deal with, it's one of thousands. To begin with, most of our laws are made to protect the upper class from the lower class since the upper class makes the laws. As a result, many acts of desperation create felons who struggle with their criminal status for life while widereaching upper class crimes such as embezzlement or the longterm violence of illegally poor working conditions are often punished with fines that the perpetrators can afford.

Our probation system is designed to punish slip ups typically not even related to the crime in question, which extends what could be a two year prison sentence to decades of struggling just to get to "normal". Felons face obstacles when looking for work that often resigns them to lower class positions that create desperation. They can't rent from many places on the assumption that they're violent. They (non-pedos!) can't be involved with their children's schools. They're required to be ready to explain themselves to get people to accept that they won't be violent where others are given the benefit of the doubt until they act like they're going to be violent.

I went into it before because it's a huge element of it, but the psychological toll of being told that you're inferior because you can't be trusted not to be violent in so many ways creates more criminals than it deters. It's similar to abused children being told that they're nothing or evil by their abusers' violence or words. They start to believe it and they act accordingly.

Lastly, Europeans think we're obsessed with race, but I think if you asked americans what a felon looks like it would be pretty telling. Our civil rights laws simply widened the pool to impact more poor people on top of the black people that were already being oppressed by our justice system.

If we had a functional legal system I'd probably be closer to your stance but I've seen it **** up too many lives and our repeat offense/probation violation statistics reflect that anecdotal evidence.

Of course they make sure those fees and fines are almost impossible to get paid off

That looks like yet one more example of the GOP's blatant policy of voter repression to me.

Thanks for fleshing out a bit of much-needed context about what it means to be have a criminal record in the USA. :thumb:

It is but it’s still a part of the same racist capitalist structure.

I think you’re looking at a micro section of the oppression and a lot of the response you’re getting is how it applies to the big picture. It might be unfair because it may seem like I and maybe we are kind of associating your opinion with the overall structure of oppression that we know you oppose. It’s hard for me to see it piecemeal because it’s like this hurricane force of virulent ultra toxic oppression. At this point I’m just done with the whole ****ing thing.