4 ms·
No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have acce
by ethbr1 2y ago
No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have access to due process.
The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions.
> So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices.
Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them.
As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc).
Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}.
Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?
- giantg2 2y agoYeah, that's going to be a tough sell considering the problems with the driving test being a joke and the history of requirements in some areas just being a pretext to deny rights to specific groups or individuals (still to this day). The main problem I see is that a safety course isn't going to prevent violent crime. It could prevent use of force issues or accidents, but those tend to occur at an extremely low rate already (for civilians). The background check part is already implemented depending on jurisdiction. The way the current system is set up, it's supposed to weed people out before they get access to the more dangerous stuff. As juveniles, if they get convicted of certain offenses, they will be prohibited, at least until 35. We have eroded various aspects of this with selective enforcement, plea deals, and the promoting the continuation of childhood with delays in freedoms and responsibilities. Then for the of-age group we have stuff like conspiracy, voluntary/involuntary commitment, terroristic threats, and all manner of prohibiting offenses. There's certainly some room for improvement, but it hard to say what an effective improvement would be.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]