I don’t think the conversation I’m having with you is constructive because you view guns as the tool required to overthrow capitalism
to which they are. I'm assuming you agree that the revolution is necessary, to be charitable.
in the long term gun control would stop a lot of right wing terrorism and murders
if they confiscate the right-wings guns, which they won't. gun control in the us, under the current bourgeois state, for the third time I've stated thus far, would be implemented in a targeted manner that would ignore fascists with guns and zero in on marginalized people.
but I’m confident the state could suppress them.
you're assuming they would seek to suppress them, like every fascist mass shooter ever hasn't been on a government watchlist for a while before they went berserk.
Well let’s talk about something we can agree on, the police! I think in the United States we need police officers, but they need to be reformed beyond recognition
actually nah. Police and policing in the modern sense originated with slave catching patrols. It's always been a domestic bourgeois military, and honestly, fuck em. As long as a bourgeois state remains I do not respect policing as an institution because bourgeois policing is inherently anti-proletarian and disproportionately targets marginalized people of the lot who violate the law (written by the bourgeoisie, to help the bourgeoisie) daily.
legit struggling against the police is unironically more productive than trying to reform them as an institution. Why? Because you cannot hold bourgeois political entities accountable without threat of force. My question is: how are you going to get the state to do something directly counter to their interests without the threat of force? Of which, to match the state, you require guns or general weaponry? Because they won't change policing otherwise, and at that moment you'll just be :wall-talk: There's a study out there that shows that public opinion literally has zero influence on US governance. It's only lobbyists.
A revolution would have infinitely less casualties than the continuance of bourgeois policing and social murder, long-term.
But that's still not the main issue here, the main issue is that gun control is not the priority number one solution to your issue of stochastic terrorism. Watchlists exist for a reason, the government is supposed to suppress these incidents before they happen! Literally every single mass shooter that I am aware of in the past ten years (except for the Vegas shooter, to which I'm uncertain of) was KNOWN to the FBI as a potential threat before they went rambo! If the government genuinely cared and made suppression of fascist terrorism a priority, they would intervene when they were making public threats on their goddamn facebook page instead of showing up to Second Thought’s house because he criticized police brutality on his platform! :matt-jokerfied:
You're operating under the assumption that the US government can be held accountable to systematically support a cause that would negatively impact their interests (the threat of reactionary violence to the poor keeps those proles in line and compliant! the decentralized nature of it all makes it so they can’t even blame a specific entity, which means no counter-organization!) without threat of violence. You know that the Civil Rights Act was only passed because the government genuinely was afraid of rioting and mass destruction of private property, right? The US government couldn't give two shits about the wellbeing and safety of its citizens! It's a racket! Congress literally doesn't care what you think! Public opinion has near zero impact on US governance!
You say you have a solution, but how the fuck are you going to implement it in a way that doesn't specifically and only align with bourgeois interests, due to the enforcer being a bourgeois state, and therefore terrorize the marginalized, without the threat of force? How? I'm genuinely curious. I'd like to know the process here.
Individual, one-on-one gun violence is infinitely less of a problem than the broader issue of the enabling of fascist stochastic terrorism by government entities and corporate entities and police brutality. And solving those two? The problem would be effectively moot in terms of how relevant and pressing it is. This is just a hyperfocus on a symptom of a broader issue.
Also, read Rosa Luxemburg :rosa-shining: and I'd seriously recommend that you stop dismissing theorists that discuss this issue because they aren't alive now, it's anti-intellectual. The current moment isn't that special. Much more applies than many assume. If you want something more relevant to America, from a marginalized group, the BPP is a goldmine for arguments against gun control, especially given that Reagan fucking supported it against them.
to which they are. I'm assuming you agree that the revolution is necessary, to be charitable.
if they confiscate the right-wings guns, which they won't. gun control in the us, under the current bourgeois state, for the third time I've stated thus far, would be implemented in a targeted manner that would ignore fascists with guns and zero in on marginalized people.
you're assuming they would seek to suppress them, like every fascist mass shooter ever hasn't been on a government watchlist for a while before they went berserk.
actually nah. Police and policing in the modern sense originated with slave catching patrols. It's always been a domestic bourgeois military, and honestly, fuck em. As long as a bourgeois state remains I do not respect policing as an institution because bourgeois policing is inherently anti-proletarian and disproportionately targets marginalized people of the lot who violate the law (written by the bourgeoisie, to help the bourgeoisie) daily.
also, reformist :rosa-shining:
legit struggling against the police is unironically more productive than trying to reform them as an institution. Why? Because you cannot hold bourgeois political entities accountable without threat of force. My question is: how are you going to get the state to do something directly counter to their interests without the threat of force? Of which, to match the state, you require guns or general weaponry? Because they won't change policing otherwise, and at that moment you'll just be :wall-talk: There's a study out there that shows that public opinion literally has zero influence on US governance. It's only lobbyists.
Give me a solution then to gun violence, how many bodies, can you give me a number?
A revolution would have infinitely less casualties than the continuance of bourgeois policing and social murder, long-term.
But that's still not the main issue here, the main issue is that gun control is not the priority number one solution to your issue of stochastic terrorism. Watchlists exist for a reason, the government is supposed to suppress these incidents before they happen! Literally every single mass shooter that I am aware of in the past ten years (except for the Vegas shooter, to which I'm uncertain of) was KNOWN to the FBI as a potential threat before they went rambo! If the government genuinely cared and made suppression of fascist terrorism a priority, they would intervene when they were making public threats on their goddamn facebook page instead of showing up to Second Thought’s house because he criticized police brutality on his platform! :matt-jokerfied:
You're operating under the assumption that the US government can be held accountable to systematically support a cause that would negatively impact their interests (the threat of reactionary violence to the poor keeps those proles in line and compliant! the decentralized nature of it all makes it so they can’t even blame a specific entity, which means no counter-organization!) without threat of violence. You know that the Civil Rights Act was only passed because the government genuinely was afraid of rioting and mass destruction of private property, right? The US government couldn't give two shits about the wellbeing and safety of its citizens! It's a racket! Congress literally doesn't care what you think! Public opinion has near zero impact on US governance!
You say you have a solution, but how the fuck are you going to implement it in a way that doesn't specifically and only align with bourgeois interests, due to the enforcer being a bourgeois state, and therefore terrorize the marginalized, without the threat of force? How? I'm genuinely curious. I'd like to know the process here.
Individual, one-on-one gun violence is infinitely less of a problem than the broader issue of the enabling of fascist stochastic terrorism by government entities and corporate entities and police brutality. And solving those two? The problem would be effectively moot in terms of how relevant and pressing it is. This is just a hyperfocus on a symptom of a broader issue.
Also, read Rosa Luxemburg :rosa-shining: and I'd seriously recommend that you stop dismissing theorists that discuss this issue because they aren't alive now, it's anti-intellectual. The current moment isn't that special. Much more applies than many assume. If you want something more relevant to America, from a marginalized group, the BPP is a goldmine for arguments against gun control, especially given that Reagan fucking supported it against them.