On gun control

What's your opinion on gun control?
In the past I held the position that gun ownership is needed so that in case of movements like the Black Panthers guns can be used to further our purpose.
However, I have come to the conclusion that guns in liberal societies are more and more used for individualist terrorism and are concentrated by mostly middle class right wingers.

Attached: ak-12.jpg (1486x991, 71.56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=gun_control
aol.com/article/news/2017/12/11/2017-deemed-deadliest-year-for-mass-shootings-in-modern-us-histo/23298797/)
cnn.com/2018/01/26/europe/london-acid-attacks-2017-intl/index.html)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeosu–Suncheon_rebellion
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
youtube.com/watch?v=8P5BWwnuOOI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Reactionaries owning guns is an economic function. If the state funds arms for the working class, this can easily be compensated for. Better yet, levee en masse.

In all honesty, under no means should workers surrender their arms nor ammunition.

Yeah I've started thinking that more and more as an American these past few years. Honestly I think they should be treated like cars where people who aren't mentally capable of using them responsibly (ie PTSD) shouldn't have them.

Bearing of arms is very ethically complex in modern times, especially due to the advent of nuclear weapons, but there is no reason small arms should be denied to the common populace since gun ownership has nearly zero significant correlation (positive or negative) with crime rates.

Free guns and ammo is as essential as free healthcare. The people who need guns the most are the ones who will be hit hardest by gun control, which is always de facto a reactionary policy.

RECREATIONAL NUKES

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x562, 195.93K)

I only hope you are forced to watch as your unarmed family are raped by the very people you're trying to destroy us with, you brainless fucking parasite

Sure is kiked in here, huh Shlomo?

OP here.

Marx's quote reefers to a revolutionary situation. I'm pretty sure that when the revolution comes, access to guns is not gonna be the problem.

I wouldn't think they do, however a criminal having easy access to guns can cause much more damage.

Need guns for what?

Do you need an assault rifle to defend your family?

Attached: a11e3e1bb4eab3adea2b5674592105399c95582d5f57d8d2470b024d0b80b6ed.jpg (552x577, 44.82K)

Marx didn't think we would reach late capitalism.

As I stated, Marx was describing a revolutionary situation. This is quote digging.

How can you start a revolution without guns?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (350x350, 247.67K)

By using the army

The correct question is how do you start a revolution with all the reactionaries owning guns

By arming class conscious proles.

If you don't get the army on your side you can't start a revolution. The whites win.

Holy shit a few months ago 90% of people here were pro gun now 90% of people itt aren't, when did all the liberals get here, did someone link us on Twitter?!

The bolscheviks did not have the entire support of the army when they start the revolution, but they had guns.

Not a liberal. I don't say "guns kill people" or "killing people is bad". My position is that gun ownership empowers those who are willing and able to buy them, the reactionary middle class.

Zig Forums, if you want people with I Q above room temperature to care about hat you say, you have to get over your impulsive need to screech about Jews in literally every conversation. It is not even relevant to this thread.

Restricting the rights of regular people to inconvenience criminals is pointless and unfair. The state wants to curb the power of political dissidents, not to save you from spree killers that will just buy guns illegally or make their own weapons.
Crime is a complicated and difficult issue to tackle. Gun control is only the popular solution because it is easy and cheap for legislators that don't want to waste precious time and money that could be used on getting re-elected.

Workers can buy and do buy guns. Where do you think the guys at Blair Mountain and Ludlow got them? Fuck I’m a poor as shit uni student and even I have several guns. The problem is that the American Left isn’t interested in guns because they’ve been cucked by liberalism.

lefty.booru.org/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=gun_control

I need to further research this, if you have anything relevant post it.


The thing is, it is not everyday people that own most guns. Being against individual terrorism I don't see the use of individuals having access to guns, especially if that means that dangerous right wingers get that option.


So, do you think you'll be using them for revolution or is it to protect "muh individual rights"?

restriction on access to guns is a tool of the bourgeoisie in order to keep the masses in the system of reformism and stay in the system itself

Honestly though guns aren't as necessary as you make it sound. I personally don't own any and nothing bad has happened to me. You guys sound super paranoid to me. When the revolution comes there will be millions of people flooding the streets we won't need guns for anything. The only thing that is dangerous to the revolution are private arms in the hands of right-wingers.

…yes, it is. In the US at least, it is much less weird than you seem to think. I can literally walk up to a counter and ask to purchase a new rifle or shotgun at the same store I buy my groceries at.
Who the fuck are you to decide what people do or do not need? An assumption of bad faith is mental poison to any radical.

I'm not convinced private gun ownership is significant in a revolution. Raid the armories. Agitation inside a conscript army is where the real action is.

Nothing bad has happened to me either, but at least one SocDem moron I knew got literally beaten to death by Right-wingers. Spoiler alert: he wasn't armed.

You seem super-retarded.

They'll get weapons from army and police. That's where they always get them.

While unarmed. Great idea.

Op here, I was convinced by that gun control is bourgeois control.


If by what people need you mean what is sold at the market, I can judge for myself. People are not autonomous, they are acted upon by the very system they live in.

I am for gun control. Hunting weapons etc. are OK, automatic weapons and such I'm against.

The only thing that used to bother me about this stance was that if the people could not easily get their hands on arms, they could not revolt quite so easily. But I've come to some conclusions regarding that viewpoint.
a) Armies today are so advanced the ordinary people would have no chance anyway,
b) In the contemporary world (that is, before socialism is achieved), weapons cause more suffering than reduce it,
c) Non-violent revolution is preferable to violent revolution anyhow.

Attached: problems.jpg (240x181, 9.55K)

Gun ownership is good as long as Americans are not allowed to own them.

Guns, really any implements of harm, become threatening to our proletarian brethren when they are forced to live in a society that quite literally drives people, in large numbers, to homicidal/suicidal insanity while those individuals have relative access to the implements of harm.

However, as I bring up to the libs that I have discussed the topic with, we can take a look at just the city of London, which has very strict gun control legislation, and see that the terror that they are trying to manage by outlawing guns simply manifests as different forms of violence.

For example, in 2017, in the US, there were something like 345 mass shootings (aol.com/article/news/2017/12/11/2017-deemed-deadliest-year-for-mass-shootings-in-modern-us-histo/23298797/)
Making it the worst in US history.

However, in the same year, the CITY of London experienced 465 instances of 'acid attacks'. (cnn.com/2018/01/26/europe/london-acid-attacks-2017-intl/index.html)
The worst in their history.

Violence of this nature is increasing in the west (violence globally is increasing, but this is the kind that 'normies' care about - the kind you'll actually hear about in the media, which is, I presume, the kind that OP is referring to), regardless of the ultimate form that the ennui and desperation and hopelessness and anger of the sufferer manifests.

We can mine for examples like this all over the world, but I find this contrast between the US's love of guns and London's distaste for them to be telling in this example with regard to the relative levels of this kind of violence these nations see within their borders. Both nations are cameras-on-every-corner police states (The U.K. is even a bit more prolific, even if only because they have less space to cover) and this makes no difference - the security state exists to protect itself, not the people. That's a point most people here probably understand, but I've found most libs are just as prone to bootlicking as their conservative counterparts when it comes to 'support our troops' and 'blue lives matter'.

What I tell people is that even if it was possible to outlaw firearms in the US, for one, that would only create a black market, increased prices, increased crime, increased police authority, etc - but it wouldn't even decrease the homicidal/suicidal tendencies of the populace who are forced to labor ceaselessly for their late-capitalist overlords - indeed I don't doubt that the increased restriction in 'freedom', the surrendering of what is seen by many as an essential right, and the increased aggressiveness of heavily armed police presence necessary to carry out that transition would likely only make the situation that much worse.

Attached: Atchison_TaxiDriver.PNG (1797x737, 277.14K)

Humans, as tool users, solve our natural shortcomings by inventing tools to compensate. Guns are just the modern humans equivalent to claws or horns or thick skin in other animals, things to allow us to express violence. Removing guns from humans therefore is removing part of what makes them human. You would look suspiciously on a lion trying to have the rest declawed, or a hawk wanting the rest to have their wings clipped. This would give them a huge advantage over the rest. So too a human wanting other humans to be disarmed, can only be wanting to gain an advantage over them.

As a rule, during civil unrest, you are not fighting with military, but with poorly-armed gangsters. Guns help a lot.

So is magic kingdom of flying horsies that shit rainbows. Both are just as real.

Not quite, plenty of those have happened in the past in democratic countries. I don't think there's one single path to socialism. Of course there are varying levels of violence a revolution can have though, and I guess it's hard to make one without any violence at all, but it is, in my opinion, preferable to strive to keep the violence to a minimum.

The US hasn't won a war in almost 75 years

How are you so brainwashed that you believe this meme, the Taliban won ffs.

I'd support gun control on manufacturers but not on people. That would never happen, the most gun control you can get is putting more black people in jail, so if you support gun control you're a liberal.

Anyway, if you want to put real power in the hands of the people, give them ATGM's. It's been the battlefield revelation of the last decade.

Attached: cxi2bsawsaewhwo.jpg (390x393, 37.4K)

I'm no supporter of gun control but that's a dumb argument, guns make it much easier to kill people than knives or acid.

Someone studied suicides in Britain after heating fuel switched to gas from coal. The most common method of suicide was breathing in exhaust fumes from furnaces when coal was popular (a nice, easy peaceful way to kill yourself), but after the switch it wasn't possible anymore. Hanging suicides went up shitloads but the overall suicide rate went down a bit. Taking guns away lowers the violent death rate (which is majority suicide) a little bit for the same reason.

3D Printed ATGMs and SAMs now!

We might have different ideas on what the term "revolution" means. I'm being exceedingly polite here.

Which is best accomplished by outgunning the other side.

Some lumpen owning a machine gun to shoot watermelons for his YouTube channel doesn't have much impact on "the system". Planned killers will always find a way, unless you have 1984-tier control over everyone's personal life.
From a practical perspective, permission to bear arms instills trust in constituents.

I agree with having an armed populace, but American gun culture is stupid and must be eliminated at all costs. A person's weapon should be an item that is only taken out in extraordinary situations, not something you use to feel safe day to day.

My general thrust is more to the effect that the this kind of citizen-violence within a society doesn't really change based on whether or not there are guns available, but is rather a reflection of the general health of the nation. Guns don't cause violence, they are a tool of the violent - so to speak.

That is to say, that when most libs (at least the ones I've talked to) speak about gun control, their concern boils down to, almost without fail-

"I don't want to worry when I drop my kid off at school."

My point is that an unhealthy society, like the US, an empire with massive inequality in terminal decline, will have people lashing out as the hopes and dreams they were programmed to hold so dearly become more and more obviously out of reach and impossible to attain. The current availability of weapons makes the consequences of that societal sickness worse, I think this is the point you are making and I don't necessarily disagree in this regard, however my analysis is that attempting to remove the guns from this equation doesn't take away the stress of living in these societies, which is the root cause of this violence. Additionally, the social strife that an attempted gun ban or confiscation program in the US would engender would undoubtedly make the will-to-do-violence we see in this country increase.

To boil that point down to another point I make to the liberals that I know - pushing tough gun laws is typically not what the democrats in contended districts pursue because they know the way that this kind of policy brings out conservative voters. Guns in the US are, at least as I understand it, biggest demographic for single-issue-voters. That is to say, gun bills bring out people who otherwise don't vote. To spin that a bit differently, (and note: this is a point I make specifically to the liberals I know because they still believe that voting for democrats means they'll actually get universal healthcare eventually. I don't think this is true, but let me state the point regardless) that running on gun control means less democrat seats gained in aggregate - that is to say more/longer/deeper republican control. Less democrat seats means universal healthcare is pushed back that much further. The lack of universal healthcare kills way more people than gun homicides and contributes to the general un-wellness of the people in the US, both regarding mental healthcare, medial debt, medical debt bankruptcies, all of the negative things that go with a private healthcare system.

My hope is to make this point more clear. An unhealthy society will lash out violently using any means at hand. Attempting to remove firearms from the equation ultimately makes the societal health worse, which causes more people to lash out. The desire for gun control stems from an attempt at terror management, to worry less about ones self and ones family members. This legislation fails to provide them the peace of mind that they won't be attacked by someone driven insane by their society, but also provides the ruling class and their security apparatus more power and control over the populace at large, further increasing societal un-wellness.

I hope that helps clarify my position because I think we agree - guns cause death - that's their purpose, however, societal health is a bigger factor in the overall 'safety' of the people of a nation, and that isn't achieved through gun control, at least as I see it.

Attached: 1515086263082.jpg (1280x1920, 410.12K)

Both.

Attached: 855DD9F7-4C19-4BAF-A6AE-63D7AFBEC022.png (1024x682, 107.68K)

I swear most of these "anti-gun/armed revolution wont succeed in current year" types only started appearing here after the Three "Jews would've made it worse for themselves during the Holocaust if they had guns" Arrows video.

It can succeed with the right circumstances, but acting like you're a revolutionary because your grandad gave you a shotgun and because your family is entirely Rs is pretty much the same thing as thinking voting is the ultimate political act.

Like a few million meteorites falling from the sky and all of them simultaneously killing anyone who could resist Revolution.

Citing wikipedia only to mention certain events, it is up to you to observe the pattern.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeju_uprising
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodo_League_massacre
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeosu–Suncheon_rebellion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War


With very limited access to guns to ordinary people and when the reactionaries have the monopoly on violence, they use guns to violently suppress any opposition, no matter how peaceful or organic it is.

The forces of capitalism have in above examples, been very methodical and successful in eliminating the opposition. Should any opposition to their oppression rise up once again, similar methods will be used. Assasinations, imprisonment, torture as an tool of wide scale terror.


Regarding c), what would be your method? Kidnapping the bourgeoisie and chemically inducing in them a sense of compassion and reasoning to adopt a collective responsibility of living in classless society? Even if brainwashing was possible, it would still require violence.

What is so hard to grasp the reality that the capitalism and its servants and bootlickers already are using guns and violence, with less regulation than what is applied to common people.

Open Source Hardware ATGM and SAMs at github.com.
Download your plans, load up FreeCAD and KiCAD to study the plans and start with the production.
Run simulations in OpenFOAM and so on and so on…


Or we could have some means of production and make the guns.

"If the opposition disarms itself, all is well and good.
If it refuses, then we shall disarm it ourselves."

good advice

While guns are not the root cause of the reasons liberals propose regulations and bans, America has an enormous problem with gun ownership as gun ownership is comically large

(me)
Though i guess their police has military vehicles and such, making it less extreme in context

I thought only like 1/3rd of Americans owned guns, but that gun owners typically owned several guns, meaning that there are a ton of guns in the US in private hands but they aren't owned by the plurality of people.

I'm not sure what qualifies as comically large in this context though.

Attached: 884561dc68edbfac8408515b3044b91208cc6791e58cde6ad85fe0842c21070d.jpg (862x659, 215.66K)

Something close to half of all guns are owned by a small (relative to the overall population) group, but still, most Americans have shot or have experience with a firearm. A lot of people own for example, a shotgun or handgun

This. I find it interesting that the socdems here seem to think that if a revolution comes, individuals won't need firearms themselves because the army and police will take care of us. Besides this being a ridiculous assumption, I'm worried about counter-revolutionary militias taking control locally. Shit, I'm worried about that happening without a revolution. And another thing, if and when America goes full fash instead, I'd really like to have something to help escape.


Firearms instructor here. Most of the folks I know personally have little to no experience with firearms. At least a third of those that come for their CHL certification have never fired a gun before. This isn't to say that you're wrong, but my experience contradicts this. Do you have a source?

You could be right, but it's just something I swear I remember reading. I could say that the region I'm from (Texas), a good chunk of the population has experience with firearms. Maybe not a lot, but at least fired one at some point. Source on that: just being here

Of all the things to shit on America about, 2A is the least of the problem. It’s about as big a gift any nation has given its descendants. You don’t have to die on your feet, the police WILL NEVER save you and more likely to kill you anyway, and the breakdown of society is so inevitable hinging in such points of failure, with such racial animosity, that the second Amendment is a living miracle in a pool of shit.

I'd say this is the truest point raised in the thread.

Attached: 1493508458635.png (753x803, 621.88K)

I was with you for a minute but you went full Zig Forums right there.

That's not just a polyp concern. Many a leftist is anxious about white nationalism and the racial animosity it stokes.

How so? He's right, racial tensions are high here and people are getting hurt over it. That user isn't saying 'the nogs are gonna glorious uprising and shoot us all' or I don't think he is as I wouldn't agree with that, but the US is a place where pigs think everything looks like a gun and that's a problem for everyone, but in the country's context it's also a racial problem in particular and if you think that's not gonna come to a head you got another thing coming.

I'm fucking dying. Based word filter.

Racial identity politics are a major issue in the US, but fears of anything resembling an actual race-war are FUD by media that has a strong financial incentive to make people angry and fearful. The cops are an issue that affects the entire working class, and arguably an opportunity for white and nonwhite proles to find common ground in the US.
Right wingers that actually organize violence are mostly the "sovereign citizen" types, people that may be spooked about race, but not primarily concerned with it. Identitarian violence tends to be carried out sporadically by individuals whose political views were only an outlet for their mental imbalances, since even ideological white nationalists know that shooting up a synagogue will not achieve anything.

I don't think he's entirely wrong here… Unfortunately… If you're a minority in the US (colored, trans, gay) or you're just living in a poor neighborhood, why would you be willing to trust a police force in America to protect yourself or your family? That's not what they're there for. Full stop. If you're not sure on this, listen to Michael Parenti talk about policing, specifically in the US.

youtube.com/watch?v=8P5BWwnuOOI

I'd say this is to some degree true and to another degree false. Within the context of 'race-war', yeah, I don't think we'll see an open whites vs. anything-less-than-beige open in the streets warfare - but in the context of structural and systematic oppression of poor areas which include a plurality of black, Mexican, mixed race, etc. individuals, I'd say that's been ongoing since the country's founding. See any historical analysis by Howard Zinn.

Attached: 1491251384680.jpg (960x956, 152.49K)

You are not wrong, but the US's problem is not that tension will boil over. It's the opposite: Americans' inability to express their frustration effectively. False consciousness has become a fundamental aspect of American culture after decades of social isolation and alphabet-soup propaganda. People know they are being shit on, but they do not know how or why, so instead of organized violence we get aimless public discord. In the "great glorious uprisings" of 2015, for example, literally one person died and less than a thousand people were arrested overall. Many of the people involved meant well, or were at least right to be upset, but there was no revolutionary violence, only emotions being taken out on property.
Racial nationalists in the US are mostly either too cowardly for violence, or lacking in ideological conviction. Generally they only care about feeling like special snowflakes and whoring for attention from angry liberals.

I'd say that is a fair point in most cases. In the past we have seen outliers like McVeigh, or the Weather Underground, (going back further we might include groups like the Klan or the Black Panthers) groups or individuals angry enough to do something but perhaps not able to communicate past the false consciousness of the average American enough to establish a lasting movement or engender more towards praxis, or to communicate a truth succinctly enough for average folks to wake up to it.

I would wager that to some degree this is because the bread and circuses are still quite fresh, and the vast majority of folks in the US (though it sounds like this is starting to decline now) still believe that they have a bright future ahead of them, that they'll be millionaires someday, that their dreams will come true and they won't need to slave their entire life away. As you point out American cultural propaganda is quite good at getting people to accept this unquestioningly, and indeed there are powerful psychological components in the human mind that gear us to bias in favor of positivity, so people want to believe the lie and likely will for as long as is possible.

However, we cannot say that this placated peace of mind will last eternal in the American psyche. Indeed, I would wager that the 2020s will see America, along with the rest of the world's markets, go through a worse and more prolonged market crash than 2008, and if all other indications are to be believed there will likely be the beginnings of global oil shortages starting at around this time as well. The US may be able to hedge itself against this for a while, but increasing global instability doesn't tend to stay localized. Not only that, but at the same time the annual record breaking fires, hurricanes, droughts and floods, etc. will continue to get worse. Areas once prosperous will not be rebuilt because their aren't the resources available to rebuild them. This will be compounded by more South Americans attempting to migrate to the US/Canada - not because the refugees are themselves bad for social cohesion, but at a time when everything else is collapsing in the US the people you are talking about now that are still so placated and unable to express their frustration might be considerably less so after losing their jobs, their homes and businesses, their communities shattered, their families broken from opioid overdoses and traditional suicides, and then they look around and see more and more foreign people. America in the 2020s is about the perfect powder-keg for main-line fascism by Western powers entering the global sphere because the people who you rightly point out as being unable to express their frustration effectively will immediately look to someone (daddy) that believe think has the answer - and I think we know what that answer sounds like. Remember too when I said that the human mind biases for positivity - people will WANT to believe that their lives can 'go back to normal', and that all they have to do is kick out the darkies and the queers and the communists, and then everything will be great again. People want to believe the lies - as you point out - and fascism will present itself as an immediately easy to understand lie that validates all of their positive beliefs about themselves which also perfectly funnels their rage towars the most vulnerable.

You might say that this also presents itself as a perfect time for the left to come together in the US in a way in which it hasn't since the great depression - to which I totally agree, and I suspect that this will happen to some degree. However, as Zizek likes to quote from Walter Benjamin, 'Behind every fascism, there is a failed revolution.' I think that the corporate state will maintain enough power to successfully quell (murder off/subjugate/smear) early revolutionary movements from the left while propping up the fascists that would protect their HQs, homes and businesses with the arm of the state.

That's my take on the future, anyway.

Attached: la-me-kkk-rally-anaheim-20160227-pictures-001.jpg (2048x1272, 789.54K)

US is a special case because theres so much guns everywhere, anywhere else it should be heavily regulated, because personal firearms are mostly useful for hunting, killing your wife/son by accident, and shooting yourself. No successful revolutions ever occurred thank to retarded gun nuts having guns.

You should be able to train with them though, just not have them at your house. Society is usually a lot safer without guns everywhere.