Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
Do you think the way your society operates it could handle everyone also being armed? Like, really? You've seen disputes escalate for no reason and you've seen insane people, people itching to hurt others... in a utopic land where everyone is both righteous and emotionally stable, sure, but in any other case it feels irresponsible and highly dangerous, IMO.
Yes, combined with a strong community focus such as in Rojava or Zapatista Chiapas you can see how this play out.
Such extreme acts as you are describing are rarities that most people will never experience or see in their life. Not having access to firearms has not prevented such acts in the past, nor have the police. Being able to protect yourself from them would be far more beneficial if that was a genuine concern of ones.
Not having access to firearms has not prevented such acts in the past, nor have the police
Yes it has and goddamn I'm tired of showing you morons the science you refuse to look for, (because you don't like it.)
First off, if a law which prevented someone from getting a gun did actually prevent a massacre, how would you know about it? You got some Minority Report precogs in a kiddy pool?
Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections
Do bacterial infections still happen? Yeah. Even really bad ones when antibiotics, for some reason, don't work? Yeah.
Does that mean antibiotics don't work and shouldn't be used? Ni ofc fucking not.
If you can't see how "gun control won't ever work" is garbage quality American gun lobby rhetoric, then you should never discuss politics, ever.
That's a really wrong assessment.
Extreme acts without gun: punches, maybe knifes. One person hurts one other person.
Extreme acts with guns: one person shoots down 35 other people.
Not having firearms DID in fact prevent such killings. See any country without mass gun ownership
Every country has mass gun ownership by the state, and every state uses guns to repress the population.
Those extreme acts happen because of social conditions. Having access to guns does make them worse but they shouldn't happen in the first place. The problem with mass shootings isn't guns, it's the people who malfunction. The solution isn't to ban guns but to improve social programs. The only thing banning guns does is make resisting the other people with guns, whether police or criminal, a lot more difficult.
People with knives can kill much more than just one person. I was reading a story a few days ago about a village somewhere in SEA where a man killed his family and neighbors long before anyone ever got to him.
Likewise countries with high gun ownership can also not have frequent mass killings. What you're really describing there is just America.
An armed populace can do more to resist a fascist or otherwise oppressive government than an unarmed one. As a minority who has historically (and contemporarily in other countries) been persecuted by my state and still is ac for the crime of existing, I don't feel comfortable leaving my life in their fickle hands.
An armed populace can do more to resist a fascist or otherwise oppressive government
And how is that going for the USA? haven't seen a single person resist with guns yet.
It also goes the other way, fascists could take control of a legitimate government.
What you're really describing there is just America.
The US is by far the exception in supposedly "developed" high-income countries. Literally not a single other one has anything even close to resembling the utter shitshow of gun violence that the US is brimming with.
With far more people dying of gun-related causes annually in the United States than in other high-income countries, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, M.D., officially declared firearm violence a public health crisis on June 25, 2024.
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates in the US are 33 times greater than in Australia and 77 times greater than in Germany.
Gun violence accounts for over 8% of deaths in the US among those under age 20.
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2024/guns-remain-leading-cause-of-death-for-children-and-teens
New Report Highlights U.S. 2022 Gun-Related Deaths: Firearms Remain Leading Cause of Death for Children and Teens, and Disproportionately Affect People of Color
But please, tell me how it's just minority teenagers in gangs and how that somehow makes it okay.
I was reading a story a few days ago about a village somewhere in SEA where a man killed his family and neighbors long before anyone ever got to him.
Anecdotes are neat.
You realize they're not actually data, though, right? You do realize this?
You realize that countries without gun-freaks also have far, far less knife crime as well, by the numbers, compared to knife crime in gun-riddled countries? Like, you realize that it's just plain safer in general, right?
If you've never left your county, I recommend a vacation.
Honestly, I don't really think that an armed population really affects the ability of the ruling elite to maintain power one way or the other. A population pushed far enough to revolt both tends to find a way to arm itself and poses a threat to the power of the ruling class regardless (because things just don't get done without their work), and singular armed people aren't very difficult for an organized military to deal with. How restrictive gun laws should be is mostly just a cultural thing in my view.
what? socialists are famously gun loving.
"political power comes from guns" and "resist any attempt to disarm the proletariat" type stuff.
Like all good things at certain times, epsecially early days, it was permitted, often once the state starts to solidify its power and authority they become a threat to their rule.
On December 12, 1924, the Central Executive Committee of the USSR promulgated its degree "On the procedure of production, trade, storage, use, keeping and carrying firearms, firearm ammunition, explosive projectiles and explosives", all weapons were classified and divided into categories. Now the weapons permitted for personal possession by ordinary citizens could only be smoothbore hunting shotguns. Other categories of weapons were only possessed by those who were assigned duties by the Soviet state; for all others, access to these weapons was restricted to within state-regulated shooting ranges.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Union
Civilian ownership of firearms is largely restricted to non-individual entities such as sporting organizations, hunting reserves, and wildlife protection, management and research organizations. The chief exception to the general ban for individual gun ownership is for the purpose of hunting.[1] Individuals who hold hunting permits can apply to purchase and hold firearms for the purpose of hunting.[13] Illegal possession or sale of firearms may result in a minimum punishment of 3 years in prison, and the penalty for a gun crime is death penalty.[12][4]
Yes, in the USA it's working great to prevent tyranny and the accumulation of power by the elites.
Are most people in the US leftist?
So weapons only prevent tyranny when the majority is left-wing? That makes perfect sense.
Weapons not existing is not realistic. Weapons exist and will exist.
Either someone will use them successfully to prevent tyranny, or someone will use them successfully to inflict tyranny.
For those who wish tyranny to be prevented, the necessity of an armed population is essential to recognize.
And the politicians are doing great at is as well! /j
The problems in the US are cultural ones (that and socio-economic), not a gun one. The people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power, not the people. And the people with guns are largely the same people who are at least complicit (and many who are outright supporters) with the government. Liberals and leftists have distanced and villainized guns so much that they are neither armed, nor ready for violent resistance. The conservatives and fascists are armed and are ready, but they wont cause they got what they wanted. The exception being the groypers that keep trying to assassinate their own teammates. For what reason idk, but my guess is they are trying to pull a false flag to start a civil war.
In other words, you have a case where "the people in power are cowards who are trying to protect their power"—the exact case for which this should work, but it doesn't work because... well, because people are idiots and don't do what you think they should do, certainly not because the whole point is utter nonsense.
Certainly is in Kurdistan.
America is fucked for a million reasons.
So, gun ownership isn't a determining factor in preventing tyranny, but it will increase the problems of violence in society. Noted.
It literally is protecting people from tyranny in Rojava as I mentioned, but hey ignore that to only focus on the failure that is America.
I haven't ignored it; I told you that if it works in one place and not in another, it's because it's not the key element.
If works in those tiny little counties surely it's fine. /s Guns are lame.
Guns exist. They will continue existing. They will continue being used in every society. Calling them "lame" has no coherent meaning politically. The questions needing to be answered are who will use them, and toward which ends?
I don't care what it means politically it's my personal view guns are lame. Why should I have to compromise my beliefs because whoever else decided they wanted to be violent assholes. Do what you like but the constant rhetoric about arming yourself is tiring. I don't know what the end game is supposed to look like, some kind of mutually assured destruction scenario where everyone is armed to the teeth?
Mutually-assured destruction is inapplicable to small arms.
Regardless, a responsible attitude entails developing personal beliefs congruent with the surrounding political reality.
Emphasizing one's own individual partiality, from within a political frame, serves as an obstruction of essential discourse.
Additionally, considering the matter as affecting someone personally, the day may come that violent thugs go after you or someone you love, with self defense being your only means of preservation.