- 29 Mar 2018 18:39
#14900992
Think there's unpacking to be done on the comparison, because I think they seem more comparable when we consider what did they violate.
My impression is the comparison is that making drink driving illegal is based on it's increased risk for harm, so that even if you don't hurt someone driving, you are still punished. Similarly, one might impose restrictions on accessing guns under the premise of reducing the risk of harm so that people are restricted even though they do no harm.
So I think you have to be more clear on what the violation is here. Someone who violates a gun control law would be comparable to someone violating a drink driving law where they may not have done any harm, but are restricted for perceived risk of doing potential harm.
Rather than a dismissal that they're uncomparable, I think point would be stronger to emphasize what restrictions are overbearing or unjustifiable. A difficulty though is that because it's a 2nd amendment right, there is a kind of principled position irrespective of the circumstances. So that impositions are wrong in a moral sense unconcerned with the empirical reality. Although, I think can challenge the premise easily enough what certain gun restrictions are meant to do to reduce harm and in what way specifically rather than it being left implied by intuition. Because it seems odd to me that mass shootings are particularized against say automatic weapons being restricted, it seems a sudden leap that I don't follow except in some argument that one can shoot more with an automatic weapon and thus do less damage. Which doesn't seem to really stop shootings then, it's just damage control at best for how many people are perhaps shot, not stopping shootings in themselves.
One Degree wrote:Drunk driving laws and gun control have nothing in common. Drunk driving laws only punish the violator. Gun control punishes everyone, because you aren’t satisfied with just punishing the violator.
Think there's unpacking to be done on the comparison, because I think they seem more comparable when we consider what did they violate.
My impression is the comparison is that making drink driving illegal is based on it's increased risk for harm, so that even if you don't hurt someone driving, you are still punished. Similarly, one might impose restrictions on accessing guns under the premise of reducing the risk of harm so that people are restricted even though they do no harm.
So I think you have to be more clear on what the violation is here. Someone who violates a gun control law would be comparable to someone violating a drink driving law where they may not have done any harm, but are restricted for perceived risk of doing potential harm.
Rather than a dismissal that they're uncomparable, I think point would be stronger to emphasize what restrictions are overbearing or unjustifiable. A difficulty though is that because it's a 2nd amendment right, there is a kind of principled position irrespective of the circumstances. So that impositions are wrong in a moral sense unconcerned with the empirical reality. Although, I think can challenge the premise easily enough what certain gun restrictions are meant to do to reduce harm and in what way specifically rather than it being left implied by intuition. Because it seems odd to me that mass shootings are particularized against say automatic weapons being restricted, it seems a sudden leap that I don't follow except in some argument that one can shoot more with an automatic weapon and thus do less damage. Which doesn't seem to really stop shootings then, it's just damage control at best for how many people are perhaps shot, not stopping shootings in themselves.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf#page90
-For Ethical Politics
-For Ethical Politics