sc94597 said:
1. Yeah, I really don't think violent crime is going to go low until the material incentives of violent crime are solved first. It is interesting that the Emma Goldman essay I cited is about 100 years old, and even then she references a statistic that isn't much different from the statistics we see today. "The most horrible aspect is that our national crime is murder, not robbery, embezzlement, or rape, as in the South. London is five times as large as Chicago, yet there are one hundred and eighteen murders annually in the latter city, while only twenty in London. Nor is Chicago the leading city in crime, since it is only seventh on the list, which is headed by four Southern cities, and San Francisco and Los Angeles. In view of such a terrible condition of affairs, it seems ridiculous to prate of the protection society derives from its prisons." I suspect the difference is the fact that London (and the U.K in general) has had policing by consent since the early 1830's, making theft, robbery, and rape just as prevelant as in the U.S cities, but murder less desirable due to crime not necessarily needing to organize as rigidly to confront and capture aggressive police forces. And with less organized crime, there are fewer "gang wars." My main support for Class 3 is that having well-trained state militias could be useful given the current rising threat of fascism and fascist coups in the U.S. I am not really confident the U.S is going to last the next half-century and having a tradition of state-militias could mean protection from more fascist post-U.S republics. It could also embolden the fascist republics, but there isn't much that can be done in that hypothetical situation other than take in migrants and have strong militias against the fascist republics. That is why access to Class 3 is conditioned on one's membership with a state (organized) militia or certified gun club. 2. Typically the restrictions due to mental illness are if somebody has in the past shown that they are a threat to themselves or others by being involuntarily institutionalized. Most data I have seen on this is that mentally ill people are not necessarily more dangerous, it is only when they self-medicate or don't seek treatment that there is a strong predictor of violence. If a mentally ill person never showed themselves to be a threat to others or themselves, and they are regularly seeking treatment (such as through prescribed medication) it isn't clear to me that they should be restricted. Same thing for substance abusers. If a substance abuser sought treatment and is continuing their treatment, then likewise they shouldn't be restricted. Usually the people who are most vulnerable to gun violence are the mentally ill and substance abusers, and since they can't rely on police (because of ableism and the criminalization of drugs) it isn't clear that we should make them more vulnerable. This is why decriminalization of drugs and the defunding of police are really important parts of gun reform as well, in my opinion. You can't make the people most vulnerable to gun violence even more vulnerable without giving them alternative mechanisms of seeking help without significant costs. 3. I am personally a prison abolitionist and see the prison systems as incapable of being fixed. At this point they are organized slave-labor so that certain corporations can get cheap labor for a few dollars rather than pay workers minimum wage (or a market wage) and so that former criminals are limited in their employment options and therefore will work for low wages upon release. But again, this position only makes sense when one thinks the majority of crimes are for material reasons and that if the material reasons are solved people won't commit as many crimes (rape and sexual assault being an example of a not quite material crime.) I do have the caveat about restricting the right for highly likely recidivism cases though. Maybe during the probation/parole period one doesn't have their full rights, but after that they get them back? I am not comfortable with the current status-quo where judges may (and not shall) issue a restoration of rights upon asking. Of course these are all minor details really, compared to the general principal. |
1) Again, I am more than comfortable with pushing holistic crime reduction measures. My only argument is that gun control should be part of that, and until we reach a point where we are able to control crime, we shouldn't allow ownership of certain types of weapons.
As for the argument regarding militias, I simply don't think that this could ever go well. If we are to task the citizenry with violence in certain circumstances, then we are leaving it up to them when violence is necessary. I feel that the greater damage of fascism is something like January 6, where an anti-government group is able to exploit that expectation of violence to create terrorism. It seems much less likely that guns will somehow be used to protect freedom and process and much more likely that guns will be used to stifle freedom and process.
2) I think both of these ideas (mental illness and substance abuse) come back to the idea of demonstrating non-recidivism. If someone is committed, they shouldn't get to walk out of the institution and purchase a gun. They should have to demonstrate for a period of time that they are mentally stable and are managing their mental state to a reasonable extent. The same should be true of substance abusers. They should need to demonstrate for some time that they are no longer dependent on substances before they are restored their firearm owning privileges. You say "If a substance abuser sought treatment and is continuing their treatment, then likewise they shouldn't be restricted", but this seems to imply that they need to demonstrate continuing treatment for a reasonable period of time before full restoration of rights, so I'm not entirely sure what the argument is here unless I'm misunderstanding you.
As for your point regarding firearms for protection, there is generally little evidence that firearms are particularly good at this. Often, firearms increase the likelihood of being victimized by a crime, not reduce it. As such, I don't feel that it is accurate to state that these laws would make people more vulnerable.
3) Out of curiosity, in a post-prison society, what should be done with murderers?
