Communism

I think vietnam has mandated gun training in schools but I could be mistaken

In a fully communist country like China that is competent with its national defense and not rife with corrupt police that murder civilians on the regular? I would not feel the need to really own a gun, but I DO think firearm ownership should be allowed, but must be EARNED. Hell, maybe even have dedicated storage locations where they can then be checked out for a day on the range or something. But China is a pretty safe place, and there really no reason anyone outside of police forces needs a firearm other then for some form of recreational shooting, or like, hunting or something, which I'm sure is very regulated.

In a shithole like America? I own a gun, I would be a fool not to own a gun. When your entire country is fucking psychotic, and your own neighbors are either openly, or closeted fascists, who salivate at the idea of killing communists like you, you should own a gun. The police will not protect you. Peace will not protect you. Revolution wouldn't happen if the revolutionary didn't have weapons. And even if tomorrow, a magic revolution overthrew the capitalist government in some kind of miracle, the country would still be unsafe for communists. Think post revolution USSR. Communists were still being murdered for years as the old bougies and kulaks and shit were trying to hold on to their power.

And if it ever became as safe as China? Sure, it could be a slow, tiered approach to controlling and removing guns. But you also have to realize, it's easier to keep guns from getting into hand, then it is to take them away. China started it's gun control before guns were everywhere in the nation. Meanwhile in the US, it's become a part of the national identity. Changing that, means changing the nation, and the people, which may take a few generations at least.

So basically, like communism itself, there is no one size fits all. What works for one country may not work for another. We have to use logic and understanding of the local conditions when thinking about it. There is no blanket solution.

Anyone who makes themselves safer by making others more vulnerable is obviously cynical. Everyone is worried about ideology, citizenship, and ethics. I am concerned with neither on this matter.

Law is class power, so we have to ask why the ruling class of the US wants its working class to be armed.

Settlers had to be deputized to tame the frontier, slave owners had to be armed to control the slaves, whites had to be armed to control the freed slaves, and as the US ramped up its imperialist adventurism the recruits had to be made comfortable with guns and inured to violence from the cradle to be effective troops. Kids who grow up with colonial occupation troops patrolling their streets and dodging bullets in the hallway at school become fucked up adults that volunteer to join the police or the army.

Then there's the effects of gun violence on society, which are all useful to the ruling class. Like Operation Gladio, gun rights act as part of a strategy of tension to make the population receptive to ever more heavily armed police and justify ever more repressive surveillance. Assassination attempts and school shootings become bloody shirts they can wave to get whatever they want.

Not that I am trying to downplay the need for an armed and militant workers' movement, I'm merely contextualizing it. Perhaps we can use the laws to our advantage, but we can't lose sight on why the law is the way it is.

I think questioning <individual gun ownership/rights> in, say, China is similar if not on par with the average Chinese person (who doesn't think too hard politically or know much about the system/current conditions of USA) being confounded about why Americans have 2nd amendment, are currently miserable, yet aren't rioting at all times with said access to guns. It's almost analogous to free speech, rights in general... individualism doesn't actually factor that much into the fundamentals to basic quality of life, but it sure can give you the illusion of agency. Sure is nice to have free speech or access to guns if you can't meaningfully contribute or affect the political system since you're not the bourgeoisie - on that front, living under a dotp as a proletarian it comes down to actual access to political mechanisms, real democracy or whatever, real power instead of "rights" as some cover of "you don't actually have to exchange allll your freedoms in exchange for protections and amenities from the state“.

The main struggle on the progress of history today is imperialism, and individuals being able to access guns is blades of grass compared to countries and groups on the front lines of the struggle being able to access defense and weaponry, and more importantly, related tech. The present conditions in "hyper" capitalist imperial core such as the US, the needs to organizing are primarily at a more basic level of gaining mass support, and imo thinking about gun rights for individuals, towards the goal of acquiring arms for organized purposes, is "jumping the gun" (pun intended) if not outright just doesn't make sense on the liberal playing field of "rights", legality within a dotb system. (That said socialist rifle groups aren't a bad thing, "leftists" learning gun safety etc is good overall. But I think it's useful to not come in with any "oooohh gonna use my 2nd amendment rights to resist tyrannical government" stupidity, and yes, I fully think it's stupid, easiest way to end your run, etc.) On that front of imperialism being the major historical conflict right now, groups in the imperial core doing what they can to block weapons shipments to Israel > any group playing at organizing a heavily unsupported domestic inssurection IMO.

On the end of being used to remove ... this is generally useless to altering systems, Shinzo Abe being somewhat of an exception in terms of direct effects (didn't remove the LDP not even close but did clear house of unification church cult??) although presently fascism is reinvigorated in Japan so,,, ehh (oh, and also illustrates clearly, gun rights/control posing no real barrier to determined individuals self-manufacturing doohickeys)

Guns are, in a way, a type of tool; albeit for defense rather than production.

Just as the proletariat should collectively control the means of production so too should the proletariat collectively control the means of defense. Gun ownership under capitalism works the same way as production ownership under capitalism: privileged private ownership, often to the exclusion of the poor & marginalized, to be weaponized against the poor & marginalized. Arms must not be viewed as personal property but as private property and ergo must be collectively owned under socialism.

Think a communal armory where access is given by the community as a whole and permitted only under specific purposes (e.g. hunting, recreational shooting, firearm safety instruction, deterrence, defense, etc.) rather than a gun in every home. This is under socialism, mind.

Under capitalism firearms must be distributed among as much of the revolutionary movement as possible. Every comrade who is able & willing to use a firearm should, ideally, have one and know how to use it.

Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary - Marx

IMO it really depends on the culture of the nations. I personally don't plan on giving up my guns even if a successful revolution in the USA happens. And I think it would be extremely hard to ban them. But more importantly, the USA (or at least large swaths of it) has had a pretty different view on persons being allowed to own guns compared to many other nations. And being part of the constitution does kind of make the USA a little different. Though I don't know off-hand how many other nations have something like the 2nd Amendment so feel free to let me know.

I can't speak to how the cultures of Soviet/Warsaw Pact, China, Vietnam, DPRK, Cuba, or any other nations thought of guns before or after their revolutions. Even if you look at non-socialist nations (especially the major capitalist nations), they also have similar laws making individuals owning guns super limited. Which (to me) just indicates that they just don't have gun culture large enough to push for changing the laws. Not a "good" or "bad" thing, just shows that the people of different nations (or even just regions of nations) do things differently.

In my personal case, I grew up and still live in a more rural area. And I have handled various kinds of guns since I was like 10~12. Most of the time was hunting or scouts, but now also for concealed carry and fun range days with friends. I understand how large urban and suburbs closer to urban areas would want to have more rules due to higher population densities (different material conditions and cultures).

The rest is about mostly mental and physical health that I got ranty with but still matters in my opinion. Not kidding myself into thinking it is the only or correct causes/solutions. Just things I feel do matter with obvious problems relating to guns and other physical violence.

I think the very real and terrible issues with gun violence in the USA is that so many other deeper issues lead to the violence. Our capitalist system keeps poor and working people down and healthcare is out of reach. More and more people become isolated and then get "black pilled".

Even if someone has access to healthcare (specifically mental health but other health related issues very much matter), all the effort doesn't change that outside of sessions or physical health efforts the "real world" just keeps grinding them down without care because profits matter more. I always roll my eyes at any "mental health awareness" trainings my jobs put so much lip-service into. Because the rest of what they do in demanding more and more with fewer people. Overwork and impossible demands mean that even if you do try to take a mental health day or are visibly stressing out are just another reason to get rid of you. The stress of possibly losing access to income (and healthcare that is tied to the jobs) only increases the isolation.

A socialist/communist society with unconditional access to healthcare, housing, employment, and basic needs for literal living would remove a lot of these issues. Might not go away, but would seem to naturally reduce gun and other violent crimes. Much like with how the idea of government and classes as we know them withering away naturally. Obviously there will always be outliers like literal clinical issues that aren't tied to the above. But real efforts to research biological causes and ways to actually help seem to only become an option if the profits are removed along with the default of just throwing people away into prisons to "forget" about them.