| sundin13 said: 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? |
1. In that case for me it is a matter of spending political capital, first, on the holistic methods of crime reduction. Largely because you can kill about five birds with one stone with the holistic solutions and the political capital goes much further by doing that. This isn't to say I don't support the licensing policy, as I do, but I support decriminalization as a mechanism of the reduction of violence more. It seems very clear to me that the Peelian Principles that the U.K adopted are probably more significant in its lower homicide rates than their gun laws, given that there already was a sharp difference in murder rate before the U.K implemented strict gun laws. And if it is a matter of forming a broader political coalition that addresses these holistic issues and discarding gun policy, it seems clear to me that that is the route to go, because these other solutions can be just as effective.
Personally my view on anti-fascism is that it always has to include some kind or degree of violence. Guns (or some other weapons of some kind) were part of the solution in almost every effective and successful anti-fascist movement. I am not like right-wingers distorted in my view that guns are a sufficient condition of maintaining freedom, but they are definitely part of maintaining freedom in the context of fascist creep. Fascism is itself a violent movement and can not be tolerated through non-violence. And since in the United States there are pretty strong limitations on the government's capacity to crack down on fascists, and in fact many fascists are in positions of authority such as in police-forces (look at how many cops or former cops attended Jan 6th), this means that the regular people are ultimately the ones that have got to solve the problem. Nobody else will. Now of course I am not advocating for paramilitaries, but community and/or American state organized militias of the kind that exist in much of Europe to combat fascism are definitely needed in my opinion.
2. No, I think we are in broad agreement on this.
3. A. Reduce a bulk of murders by eliminating the incentives to murder. B. There will still be some murderers, provide options for rehabilitation if they show remorse. What that rehabilitation looks like depends on the specific circumstances of the murder. C. Separate the unrepentant murders from society, just as we do now, and construct mutual-aid institutions of community defense that don't depend on a specialized policing force that does patrols but involves the citizenry as equally responsible for protection. Murders would still happen, but they still happen in our current society too.
Last edited by sc94597 - on 26 May 2022
