Skyhilist
15th December 2013, 04:11
I wrote this a little while back. Maybe some people will find it interesting. If not, I'm very sorry.
Well, here it is:
I've be straight up about this, I've come to think that the strategy of prohibiting firearms by law as a means to lower murder rates is a bit flawed. The problem really goes beyond guns itself. The problem is gun culture. Gun culture is the obsession with machines that were only designed to kill. It's similar to rape culture, I feel in a way. Rape culture hasn't gone away by simply making rape illegal and doing nothing else. It still exists. Similarly, gun culture is more complex then whether or not guns are legal, and would likely still persist without legal firearms. Now, this isn't an endorsement of groups like the NRA or libertarian party who suggest everybody be armed to the teeth. Those groups are actually part of the problem - they perpetuate gun culture the same way a misogynist perpetuates rape culture. However, when we look at the statistics, 95% of gun-related murders are from weapons that are already illegal. Given that, I question that more regulations on what is legal is really the best first step to take to solve the problem.
Now, this isn't to say that the other 5% isn't significant. They are. Many massacres and shootings have been parts of this 5% and it accounts for hundreds of deaths each year. However, look at the composition of the people who commit these crimes. Usually they're mentally ill. So, given that, wouldn't regulations such as mandatory gun locks, training/tests on firearm use, and mental assessments be better than simply making a gun illegal? I mean given the other 95%, what's that tell us about the way criminals think? Does the person who would put a bullet into a few dozen children really care whether his/her weapons are legal? Maybe a few would, but the vast majority wouldn't. So it seems like first and foremost we should be pushing for gun locks, training/tests on safe gun use and mental health checks, as opposed to regulating the guns themselves if we want to reduce this problem in the most effective way possible.
There's still a valid point to be made in saying that criminalizing these weapons might help to some small extent. Suppose in a given year, 200 people in the US kill people with legal weapons (and no, that number isn't much higher, because remember, this is only 5%). Now suppose we require mental health checks, firearm training/tests, and gun locks. This number will certainly drop to 200? Will it drop to 0? Probably not. So lets assume that we have maybe, say, 100 people now who will bring about death with their guns. The number can really be any number between 0 and 200, but 100 is pretty reasonable. Now keep in mind, these 100 people all know how to properly use a firearm, they have all been deemed mentally sane, and they all are required to use gun locks so that if, say a family member who can own them goes a little wacko, they wont have access to them. Now, lets imagine that we make these weapons illegal. How many of these 100 people, who would have likely knowingly killed people with their weapons prior, are going to care about gun laws, despite not caring about homicide laws? Not very many. Will it be more than 0? Probably. A reasonable estimate is that it'll probably eliminate 0-40% of the people who would've still committed these crimes. So, a good estimate might be around 20 people. The rest will resort to getting guns from a black market. And of course, as anyone with common sense can tell you, the increased prominence of black markets is never a good thing.
So that's 20 fewer killers as a result of these measures. So, if we judge based on this alone, there's certainly some validity to this. After all, saving any number of lives is better than saving none. However, we have to place this number into context. These 20 people are absolutely minuscule when compared with the number of people that would be saved by other measures such as mental health checks and training/tests that are required like they are with driving (also see my later paragraph about the ATF). So, even we were looking at this by itself, it should be obvious that while this might be helpful later on, it certainly should not be prioritized at the level that these other measures should be that save far more lives.
When we look at the larger scheme of things in fact, I don't think it should be a priority at all. Now, if you're anything like I once was in terms of this issue, you're probably thinking "What an asinine position to take. Getting those 20 killers off the streets still matters a lot." You're coming from the position that harm in any form should be reduced as much as possible. That's laudable, but in fact is the same angle I am coming from.
Let me elaborate. Each year, forces such as global capitalism kill large numbers of people each year. Millions die of hunger and poverty merely because our economic system allows the third world to exist. To change this, we're eventually going to have to eventually take revolutionary action. While the more progressive leaders of this country ostensibly care about these issues, it's evident by their band-aid solutions and corporate endorsements that most of their support is a facade and will in fact do little to nothing to undermine the greed that the capitalist system depends on. It should therefore be obvious that we cannot elect our way out of trouble. We need to fundamentally change society's structure. That means revolution.
Unfortunately, the capitalist class doesn't like that idea very much. When the masses do organize and attempt to wage a revolution, the ruling class will do everything in their power to undermine it. They will intervene violently when the workers refuse the authority of their rulers. In order to protect ourselves from direct physical harm, we're going to have to use force. Violence should always be a last ditch option. However, when someone psychically attacks you, and physically threatens your wellbeing violence can unfortunately become necessary for self defense. When the ruling class controls the government and has tanks, and B-52s at their disposal, fighting with fists and knives aren't exactly going to work for self defense.
Now you may be thinking that automatic weapons even are still nothing compared to the technologies that the government has. You're right. But consider this. Revolution requires a class conscious majority, or at least a very large minority. That means that what a successful revolution might lack in technology, it can make up for with stealth and sheer numbers. A few people against the government are no match. A few people armed with only primitive weapons like knives, and their fists are more formidable, but still no match. An armed populace with automatic weapons, however, stand a fighting chance of self defense against even the most destructive of systems.
I can't overstate how unfortunate this is. It really is sad; but it's not our decision. It the decision of the ruling class, who would never allow the peaceful overthrow of capitalism. This doesn't mean that we should worship and idolize automatic weapons. They are tools of destruction and should be seen as part of a depressing reality that requires such violence to counteract the violence waged by the ruling classes and the systems they prop up. But, unfortunate as it may be, guns will likely be necessary at some point to wage self defense during a revolution.
This revolution, mind you, will effectively save millions each year if done correctly by completely removing most of the economic incentives to do harm. Please don't reference the Soviet Union's internal failures or something like that at this point; because as a libertarian socialist, that is not the type of revolution that I am advocating at all.
At any rate, the millions of lives saved through the elimination of harmful economic forces (which will likely require easy access to firearms) will have a great impact. Now, due to the likely necessity of self defense using firearms during this revolution, inhibiting access to firearms for capable revolutionaries would certainly push back any revolution. Lets imagine that it would push it back only one year.
If more difficult access to firearms pushed revolution back only one year, millions more would die due to the economic forces that allow things like poverty and starvation. Lets compare this to our original estimate of how many killers on the streets would be stopped by more stringent regulations... 20. Even if we made the number something other than 20 - something as high as physically possible like a few hundred or so (which, as I've explained earlier is not going to happen), this number would still be dwarfed compared to the millions more who would be killed by the economic forces of capitalism as a result of such restrictions. So, while those probably ~20 people on the streets are tragic, the result of imposing restrictions on firearms themselves in the long run has a harmful net impact in the long run, and should therefore be avoided.
Now, as I mentioned earlier these ~20 people are a slim (though of course non-insignificant) minority to begin with. Even when we enlarge this number up to about 200 without helpful measures like mental health checks, training/testing, and gun locks, this group still accounts for only 5% of gun deaths. The most significant group is the 95% of gun deaths in the US that occur from illegal weapons.
With the thousands of total gun deaths each year in America, you might wonder how so many people get so many guns illegally so easily. Well, it's been shown that the majority of the time they get them from licensed arms dealers actually. So, that raises another question: how do so many arms dealers get away with that?
I mentioned much earlier on that I was going to mention the governmental agency the ATF. The ATF (short for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) is responsible for regulating these arms dealers. Now, I'll try not to get into too much detail, but thanks to the ruling class influence in Congress, the ATF has been effectively handcuffed, and restricted in what actions they can take and how often they can take them. This means fewer inspections and investigations of arms dealers, which enables the high sales of of illegal weapons in the first place. You might might recall me mentioning how groups like the NRA actually exacerbate the problems associated with gun culture earlier. Well, unsurprisingly, the NRA has played no small role in the crafting of legislation that limits the ATF and increases illegal gun sales. If you'd like to read more about this issue, this is a pretty good link: http://www.vnews.com/opinion/7804871-95/editorial-firearm-fanaticism-how-congress-handcuffed-the-atf
The short-term solution to this problem is painfully obvious. Stop limiting the ATF so much. Allow them to investigate arms dealers when necessary to stop the illegal gun sales that are leading to the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in this country. This will help vastly more than simply criminalizing guns. And, while allowing the ATF to conduct more investigation could make it harder for revolutionists to gain access to firearms when the time comes, it carries a much larger payoff in terms of the number of people saved and would serve as much less of a roadblock. Unsurprisingly, this is not an issue that most people are aware of. Making people aware of it does nothing to serve the interests of the ruling class and therefore is seldom mentioned by the mainstream media.
This might sound like an odd appeal - an anarchist who wants more government intervention? It's important to place this in perspective. There are long term solutions and short term solutions. This is clearly a short term solution. It's something practical that can be implemented until revolution becomes practical. Of course the long term solution is revolution and the elimination of the economic conditions that lead to gun culture and unnecessary violence in the first place. We always need to advocate that and keep in mind that simply giving more power to a governmental agency will not solve all of our problems and will not stop the capitalist system from bringing about unnecessary violence. It is a practical short term solution, but certainly not a panacea - we must make that clear.
Some would respond to this long post in a pretty simplistic manner. They would reference gun crime in European countries that tend to have more gun restrictions. Unfortunately things aren't that simple. Unlike in the US, these European countries don't have such a pervasive gun culture, nor do they have guns deified by groups like the NRA that make existing gun culture in the US even worse. The fact that so many people are armed to the teeth even when it statistically makes their home a more dangerous place is a result of gun culture - it's a result of being told that guns will solve all of our problems and that we should live in fear. Guns can be used for good in specific situation - but we shouldn't be armed to the teeth. No one needs an M-16 in their house for the purposes of fending off a robber. European countries realize this. The US does not, because our citizens are so brainwashed into thinking otherwise. The brainwashing and illogical attitudes associated with gun culture will continue regardless of the legal status of guns. In this manner, the US and European countries vary greatly. The strength of gun culture in Europe is minuscule compared to the United States. So while criminalizing weapons might work in Europe, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution that can be applied to the US due to fear-mongering groups that perpetuate our already pervasive gun culture.
I understand that my posts often contain unneeded verbosity - this is probably the biggest flaw in my persuasive writing. However, when a post is this long, it should be obvious that is is not a simple issue. It is very complex and I want to explain myself at every step to account for these complexities. Allow me now however to summarize. The goal should be to eliminate gun culture. This can be best be achieve in the long term via revolution. This can best be achieved prior to revolution through a few measures: allowing the ATF to better investigate arms dealers, requiring mental health checks, requiring brief training/testing, requiring gun locks, and eliminating the "gun show loophole". These measures will eliminate the vast majority of gun crime in America. Regulating the weapons themselves more heavily on the other hand in addition to this, however, will have a relatively low impact and is greatly outweighed by the need for weapons in defense of a global revolution that will liberate millions from poverty, illness, and early death.
Well, here it is:
I've be straight up about this, I've come to think that the strategy of prohibiting firearms by law as a means to lower murder rates is a bit flawed. The problem really goes beyond guns itself. The problem is gun culture. Gun culture is the obsession with machines that were only designed to kill. It's similar to rape culture, I feel in a way. Rape culture hasn't gone away by simply making rape illegal and doing nothing else. It still exists. Similarly, gun culture is more complex then whether or not guns are legal, and would likely still persist without legal firearms. Now, this isn't an endorsement of groups like the NRA or libertarian party who suggest everybody be armed to the teeth. Those groups are actually part of the problem - they perpetuate gun culture the same way a misogynist perpetuates rape culture. However, when we look at the statistics, 95% of gun-related murders are from weapons that are already illegal. Given that, I question that more regulations on what is legal is really the best first step to take to solve the problem.
Now, this isn't to say that the other 5% isn't significant. They are. Many massacres and shootings have been parts of this 5% and it accounts for hundreds of deaths each year. However, look at the composition of the people who commit these crimes. Usually they're mentally ill. So, given that, wouldn't regulations such as mandatory gun locks, training/tests on firearm use, and mental assessments be better than simply making a gun illegal? I mean given the other 95%, what's that tell us about the way criminals think? Does the person who would put a bullet into a few dozen children really care whether his/her weapons are legal? Maybe a few would, but the vast majority wouldn't. So it seems like first and foremost we should be pushing for gun locks, training/tests on safe gun use and mental health checks, as opposed to regulating the guns themselves if we want to reduce this problem in the most effective way possible.
There's still a valid point to be made in saying that criminalizing these weapons might help to some small extent. Suppose in a given year, 200 people in the US kill people with legal weapons (and no, that number isn't much higher, because remember, this is only 5%). Now suppose we require mental health checks, firearm training/tests, and gun locks. This number will certainly drop to 200? Will it drop to 0? Probably not. So lets assume that we have maybe, say, 100 people now who will bring about death with their guns. The number can really be any number between 0 and 200, but 100 is pretty reasonable. Now keep in mind, these 100 people all know how to properly use a firearm, they have all been deemed mentally sane, and they all are required to use gun locks so that if, say a family member who can own them goes a little wacko, they wont have access to them. Now, lets imagine that we make these weapons illegal. How many of these 100 people, who would have likely knowingly killed people with their weapons prior, are going to care about gun laws, despite not caring about homicide laws? Not very many. Will it be more than 0? Probably. A reasonable estimate is that it'll probably eliminate 0-40% of the people who would've still committed these crimes. So, a good estimate might be around 20 people. The rest will resort to getting guns from a black market. And of course, as anyone with common sense can tell you, the increased prominence of black markets is never a good thing.
So that's 20 fewer killers as a result of these measures. So, if we judge based on this alone, there's certainly some validity to this. After all, saving any number of lives is better than saving none. However, we have to place this number into context. These 20 people are absolutely minuscule when compared with the number of people that would be saved by other measures such as mental health checks and training/tests that are required like they are with driving (also see my later paragraph about the ATF). So, even we were looking at this by itself, it should be obvious that while this might be helpful later on, it certainly should not be prioritized at the level that these other measures should be that save far more lives.
When we look at the larger scheme of things in fact, I don't think it should be a priority at all. Now, if you're anything like I once was in terms of this issue, you're probably thinking "What an asinine position to take. Getting those 20 killers off the streets still matters a lot." You're coming from the position that harm in any form should be reduced as much as possible. That's laudable, but in fact is the same angle I am coming from.
Let me elaborate. Each year, forces such as global capitalism kill large numbers of people each year. Millions die of hunger and poverty merely because our economic system allows the third world to exist. To change this, we're eventually going to have to eventually take revolutionary action. While the more progressive leaders of this country ostensibly care about these issues, it's evident by their band-aid solutions and corporate endorsements that most of their support is a facade and will in fact do little to nothing to undermine the greed that the capitalist system depends on. It should therefore be obvious that we cannot elect our way out of trouble. We need to fundamentally change society's structure. That means revolution.
Unfortunately, the capitalist class doesn't like that idea very much. When the masses do organize and attempt to wage a revolution, the ruling class will do everything in their power to undermine it. They will intervene violently when the workers refuse the authority of their rulers. In order to protect ourselves from direct physical harm, we're going to have to use force. Violence should always be a last ditch option. However, when someone psychically attacks you, and physically threatens your wellbeing violence can unfortunately become necessary for self defense. When the ruling class controls the government and has tanks, and B-52s at their disposal, fighting with fists and knives aren't exactly going to work for self defense.
Now you may be thinking that automatic weapons even are still nothing compared to the technologies that the government has. You're right. But consider this. Revolution requires a class conscious majority, or at least a very large minority. That means that what a successful revolution might lack in technology, it can make up for with stealth and sheer numbers. A few people against the government are no match. A few people armed with only primitive weapons like knives, and their fists are more formidable, but still no match. An armed populace with automatic weapons, however, stand a fighting chance of self defense against even the most destructive of systems.
I can't overstate how unfortunate this is. It really is sad; but it's not our decision. It the decision of the ruling class, who would never allow the peaceful overthrow of capitalism. This doesn't mean that we should worship and idolize automatic weapons. They are tools of destruction and should be seen as part of a depressing reality that requires such violence to counteract the violence waged by the ruling classes and the systems they prop up. But, unfortunate as it may be, guns will likely be necessary at some point to wage self defense during a revolution.
This revolution, mind you, will effectively save millions each year if done correctly by completely removing most of the economic incentives to do harm. Please don't reference the Soviet Union's internal failures or something like that at this point; because as a libertarian socialist, that is not the type of revolution that I am advocating at all.
At any rate, the millions of lives saved through the elimination of harmful economic forces (which will likely require easy access to firearms) will have a great impact. Now, due to the likely necessity of self defense using firearms during this revolution, inhibiting access to firearms for capable revolutionaries would certainly push back any revolution. Lets imagine that it would push it back only one year.
If more difficult access to firearms pushed revolution back only one year, millions more would die due to the economic forces that allow things like poverty and starvation. Lets compare this to our original estimate of how many killers on the streets would be stopped by more stringent regulations... 20. Even if we made the number something other than 20 - something as high as physically possible like a few hundred or so (which, as I've explained earlier is not going to happen), this number would still be dwarfed compared to the millions more who would be killed by the economic forces of capitalism as a result of such restrictions. So, while those probably ~20 people on the streets are tragic, the result of imposing restrictions on firearms themselves in the long run has a harmful net impact in the long run, and should therefore be avoided.
Now, as I mentioned earlier these ~20 people are a slim (though of course non-insignificant) minority to begin with. Even when we enlarge this number up to about 200 without helpful measures like mental health checks, training/testing, and gun locks, this group still accounts for only 5% of gun deaths. The most significant group is the 95% of gun deaths in the US that occur from illegal weapons.
With the thousands of total gun deaths each year in America, you might wonder how so many people get so many guns illegally so easily. Well, it's been shown that the majority of the time they get them from licensed arms dealers actually. So, that raises another question: how do so many arms dealers get away with that?
I mentioned much earlier on that I was going to mention the governmental agency the ATF. The ATF (short for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) is responsible for regulating these arms dealers. Now, I'll try not to get into too much detail, but thanks to the ruling class influence in Congress, the ATF has been effectively handcuffed, and restricted in what actions they can take and how often they can take them. This means fewer inspections and investigations of arms dealers, which enables the high sales of of illegal weapons in the first place. You might might recall me mentioning how groups like the NRA actually exacerbate the problems associated with gun culture earlier. Well, unsurprisingly, the NRA has played no small role in the crafting of legislation that limits the ATF and increases illegal gun sales. If you'd like to read more about this issue, this is a pretty good link: http://www.vnews.com/opinion/7804871-95/editorial-firearm-fanaticism-how-congress-handcuffed-the-atf
The short-term solution to this problem is painfully obvious. Stop limiting the ATF so much. Allow them to investigate arms dealers when necessary to stop the illegal gun sales that are leading to the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in this country. This will help vastly more than simply criminalizing guns. And, while allowing the ATF to conduct more investigation could make it harder for revolutionists to gain access to firearms when the time comes, it carries a much larger payoff in terms of the number of people saved and would serve as much less of a roadblock. Unsurprisingly, this is not an issue that most people are aware of. Making people aware of it does nothing to serve the interests of the ruling class and therefore is seldom mentioned by the mainstream media.
This might sound like an odd appeal - an anarchist who wants more government intervention? It's important to place this in perspective. There are long term solutions and short term solutions. This is clearly a short term solution. It's something practical that can be implemented until revolution becomes practical. Of course the long term solution is revolution and the elimination of the economic conditions that lead to gun culture and unnecessary violence in the first place. We always need to advocate that and keep in mind that simply giving more power to a governmental agency will not solve all of our problems and will not stop the capitalist system from bringing about unnecessary violence. It is a practical short term solution, but certainly not a panacea - we must make that clear.
Some would respond to this long post in a pretty simplistic manner. They would reference gun crime in European countries that tend to have more gun restrictions. Unfortunately things aren't that simple. Unlike in the US, these European countries don't have such a pervasive gun culture, nor do they have guns deified by groups like the NRA that make existing gun culture in the US even worse. The fact that so many people are armed to the teeth even when it statistically makes their home a more dangerous place is a result of gun culture - it's a result of being told that guns will solve all of our problems and that we should live in fear. Guns can be used for good in specific situation - but we shouldn't be armed to the teeth. No one needs an M-16 in their house for the purposes of fending off a robber. European countries realize this. The US does not, because our citizens are so brainwashed into thinking otherwise. The brainwashing and illogical attitudes associated with gun culture will continue regardless of the legal status of guns. In this manner, the US and European countries vary greatly. The strength of gun culture in Europe is minuscule compared to the United States. So while criminalizing weapons might work in Europe, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution that can be applied to the US due to fear-mongering groups that perpetuate our already pervasive gun culture.
I understand that my posts often contain unneeded verbosity - this is probably the biggest flaw in my persuasive writing. However, when a post is this long, it should be obvious that is is not a simple issue. It is very complex and I want to explain myself at every step to account for these complexities. Allow me now however to summarize. The goal should be to eliminate gun culture. This can be best be achieve in the long term via revolution. This can best be achieved prior to revolution through a few measures: allowing the ATF to better investigate arms dealers, requiring mental health checks, requiring brief training/testing, requiring gun locks, and eliminating the "gun show loophole". These measures will eliminate the vast majority of gun crime in America. Regulating the weapons themselves more heavily on the other hand in addition to this, however, will have a relatively low impact and is greatly outweighed by the need for weapons in defense of a global revolution that will liberate millions from poverty, illness, and early death.