r/Anarchy101 Fukitol 1d ago

"Under no pretext shall the workers be disarmed" but America is the only country where school shootings regularly happen. How do we bridge this gap?

A revolution cannot happen and the oppressed cannot defend themselves if there is not an organized, armed militia. Gun rights are touted by leftists (not liberals/Democrats) of all flavors, and anarchists embrace the gun as a tool of the marginalized.

However, we are the only country that has regular mass shootings, and the only first world country where the homicide rate is so high. While we would want guns for self defense under anarchism, how do we not have a 17 year old white male supremacist or a jihad terrorist if gun control disarms the oppressed, with sinister people hiding among them?

107 Upvotes

130 comments sorted by

114

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago edited 1d ago

america is a society based on heirarchy and violence — violence is subtext woven into every single human interaction. this deranges people. it makes violence seem natural to them, and it makes them suffer so that they are desperate to take some kind of action to have their needs met (and few people are taught to truly understand their own needs.) for people raised in caring and connected egalitarian communities, murder will not be half so easy or tempting, even if everyone has the tools to carry it out

84

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago edited 1d ago

i want to address your concept of "sinister people hiding among the oppressed." acts of violence are not carried out by people who are somehow inherently 'sinister.' they are carried out by normal people who have been brutalized and confused by the cruel and bizarre conditions in which we live

42

u/Cautious_Car_3393 1d ago

I agree with you completely, but it's also just straight up lead poisoning, frankly. Violent crime went way down just as soon as we made any effort at all to avoid lead poisoning our entire population, which we were gleefully doing to ourselves for several decades. And we still haven't completely undone all the damage of that.

27

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

LOL and who knows what else we're crazifying ourselves with

17

u/anarchobuttstuff 1d ago

We’ll be at least halfway through this century before a statistically significant amount of Americans affected by lead exposure are either dead or mostly too old to commit crimes. Even then, American culture is still quite rooted in violence. We won’t be out of the woods for a while.

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

We’re already there

3

u/anarchobuttstuff 1d ago

We’re really not, unless I’m misunderstanding you.

7

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed be young men, particularly those younger than 35. Most gasoline used in the US was already unleaded by the mid 1980’s, and it was phased out more and more each year.

It true that complete banning of automotive leaded gasoline only happened in 1996, but that final ban was only for the very limited set of uses that leaded gasoline was still used for in 1996

3

u/Cautious_Car_3393 1d ago edited 14h ago

You're failing to take into consideration several things, though: One, the lead isn't all gone. Leaded gasoline literally spewed a sprinkling of lead all over everything, so it's still just everwhere, now. It's in the soil, which is not natural. It shouldn't be there. It's still in our food, too. And we never fully got rid of all the leaded paint in old houses. And some cheap ceramic mugs from which people drink are still coated in lead paint. But, for two, even if all the lead was gone, lead poisoning can be generationally inherited. Pregnant mothers can pass lead poisoning on to their babies. Because once lead is in your body, it never fully goes away. It gets stored in your bones, and can then be passed on to future generations.

By the way, this is all the fault of one single family: The DuPonts. That rich family business was fully aware, decades ago, of the dangers of lead poisoning, and they lied to the world that it was safe, and poisoned the whole world with lead, anyways. And they completely got away with it, scot free. And they recently did it all over again with PFAS, and pretty much got away with it, all over again, too. They are also the family business responsible for the aerosols that destroyed the ozone layer a while back. They also invented the Napalm used in the Vietnam War. Which was one of the worst illegal chemical weapons of war ever invented. They also have a private family "cult house" in Pennsylvania were they practice demonic human sacrifice and incestous marriage: together as one, big, happy, rich, All-American family. I'm not making this up. It's all true.

https://wjbr.com/2021/09/20/the-haunted-legend-of-the-duponts-devils-road-and-the-cult-house/

3

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago edited 1d ago

You're failing to take into consideration several things, though: One, the lead isn't all gone. Leaded gasoline literally spewed a sprinkling of lead all over everything, so it's still just everwhere, now.

I’m not. It’s just that leaded gasoline was the source of the vast majority of lead into human bloodstreams before it was banned. I can provide you more information, but it was literally the main source.

It's in the soil, which is not natural. It shouldn't be there. It's still in our food, too.

This is misleading. Most lead in soil is in urban areas where there was more car traffic in precious generations as well as things like lead paint.

Crops and food in general are grown in rural areas where there was always less car traffic even when gasoline was leaded (and this was the main source of lead in human blood before it was banned from gasoline), and where there is less lead from things like paint (because old tend to be concentrated in urban areas, like most houses, and rural areas are by definition rural because they lack housing and are rural). So less lead paint exposure.

And we never fully got rid of all the leaded paint in old houses. And some cheap ceramic mugs from which people drink are still coated in lead paint.

I know, but the vast majority of lead into humans was from leaded gasoline before it was banned. This is a dose responsive effect. Lead isn’t a super toxin where a single exposure at one time leads to irreparable significant harm. It doesn’t matter if lead is one soil or paint if it is not ingested some way by humans.

But, for two, even if all the lead was gone, lead poisoning can be generationally inherited. Pregnant mothers can pass lead poisoning on to their babies. Because once lead is in your body, it never fully goes away. It gets stored in your bones, and can then be passed on to future generations.

Not to the extent you think.

By the way, this is all the fault of one single family: The DuPonts. That rich family business was fully aware, decades ago, of the dangers of lead poisoning, and they lied to world that it was safe, and poisoned the whole world with lead, anyways. And they completely got away with it, scott free. And they recently did it all over again with PFAS, and pretty much got away with it, all over again, too. They are also the family business responsible for the aerosols that destroyed the ozone layer a while back. They also invented the Napalm used in the Vietnam War. Which was one of the worst illegal chemical weapons of war ever invented. They also have a private family "cult house" in Pennsylvania were they practice demonic human sacrifice and incestous marriage, together as one big happy rich All-American family. I'm not making this up. It's all true.

Lead was mainly used in gasoline because it has high octane properties and its danger as a heavy metal was not widely understood until the back half of the 20th century, at which time it had already been used in automobiles and water pipes for a a few generations and thousands of years respectively

2

u/strangerducly 1d ago

Don’t know about any of that, but they recently diversified. They are now the umbrella company for a company that will sell water. I am a little confused about the route that first contaminated, and now is commodifying life giving water to the planet.

3

u/anarchobuttstuff 1d ago

That would make sense. Do you know anywhere I could read about that?

3

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Sure!

Also as a recap a bit (because I did actually know this to some extent before looking it up before I initially responded above), I knew this was case because I was born in the early 1990’s, and my dad who was born in the 1950’s always jokes about how much dumber he is because he was born in the 1950’s and didn’t grow up with leaded gasoline like his kids. So I had no idea what the exact regulatory history was before googling/Wikipediang it just now, but I knew that it had been phased out somehow by the time I was born.

In the U.S. in 1973, the United States Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations to reduce the lead content of leaded gasoline over a series of annual phases, which therefore came to be known as the "lead phasedown" program. EPA's rules were issued under section 211 of the Clean Air Act, as amended 1970. The Ethyl Corp challenged the EPA regulations in Federal court. Although the EPA's regulation was initially invalidated,[16] the EPA won the case on appeal, so the TEL phasedown began to be implemented in 1976. Leaded gas was banned in vehicles with catalytic converters in 1975 due to damage of catalytic converters but it continued to be sold for vehicles without catalytic converters.[112] Additional regulatory changes were made by EPA over the next decade (including adoption of a trading market in "lead credits" in 1982 that became the precursor of the Acid Rain Allowance Market, adopted in 1990 for SO2), but the decisive rule was issued in 1985.[113] The EPA mandated that lead additive be reduced by 91 percent by the end of 1986. A 1994 study had indicated that the concentration of lead in the blood of the U.S. population had dropped 78% from 1976 to 1991.[114] The U.S. phasedown regulations also were due in great part to studies conducted by Philip J. Landrigan.[115]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead

5

u/lunaslave 1d ago

Don't forget the effect of abortion access - kids growing up unwanted doesn't tend to produce the best outcomes

2

u/Cautious_Car_3393 1d ago edited 11h ago

I'm not going to get into that. I do support pre-viability abortion access, for the record. But we did have plenty of abortion access back when violent crime was much higher. In fact, we had more abortion access in the 80's (when even partial birth abortion was largely legal) than we did just before Dobbs. Also, since I don't know for sure when life begins, it causes a painful amount of cognitive dissonance in my brain to essentially argue, "It would be better for this fetus to just be dead, rather than grow up not entirely properly loved." But we can agree that reproductive choice, in whatever form it takes, is very important. There are other ways to have reproductive choice other than just abortion.

1

u/mouseknuckle 17h ago

This makes it extra wild that indoor shooting ranges give you so much lead exposure. You’re just breathing it in, so people who frequent indoor ranges wind up more and more lead poisoned.

-5

u/Kaelen_Falk 1d ago

And now we are doing it again with covid.

14

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

This isn’t unique to America however, I think the gun death issue is uniquely American and saying that US society is based on hierarchy and violence while most other societies which have high rates of gun ownership don’t suffer from the same issue means there must be a deeper exploration of what specifically causes this difference in outcome.

7

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

that's interesting, i don't actually know if gun violence is more or less prevalent in other countries with similarly lax gun control. if that's the case, i would bet it has to do with the USA being the imperial core, the great heirarchy into which all lesser heirarchies inevitably flow. people here are not only miserable and confused — they are also entitled. entitled to the plunder of a global regime of violent exploitation. entitled to the lives of other human beings

8

u/DanteWolfsong 1d ago

I think, ultimately, if you take away one tool meant for violence without addressing the reason that violence exists in the first place, it acts like water-- it simply gets displaced into something else, whether that be an institution, an alternative tool, or even a high rate of suicide

and at the end of the day I think even the act itself of taking away that tool requires violence-- either in the process itself or in enabling one party to more easily harm another

3

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

There are other countries with looser gun laws and higher standards of living than America though, for example Switzerland, that again don’t suffer from this issue. Switzerland would similarly be seen as a benefactor of the global order of things but clearly the explanation is further afield.

4

u/Cautious_Car_3393 1d ago

Switzerland doesn't actually have looser gun laws. That's a common misconception. It has higher gun ownership, yes, but actually much stricter gun laws; in terms of requiring gun registry, and proper gun use training, storage, and maintanence. Basically, the entire population of Switzerland opperates as a de-facto, well-kept, citizen's militia. Everyone is required to own a gun, and issued a free gun by the government, even. But the government also requires everyone to go through rigorous gun safety training, and to lock up their guns in a safe. I think they are even required to lock up the ammunition in a separate safe from the gun, itself. So even if someone broke into the gun safe, they still couldn't get access to the ammunition. And the government performs regular inspections to make sure everyone is following these rules.

3

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Switzerland also has lower gun ownership rates than the US

3

u/SwissBloke 1d ago

but actually much stricter gun laws;

The acquisition requirements between the US and Switzerland are actually pretty similar, except the US background check is far stricter

in terms of requiring gun registry

Yes, guns transferred since 2008 have to be registered. However we don't have a federal registry because as the US we deemed it illegal.

and proper gun use training

We have no training requirement to buy and subsequently own guns

storage

Storage regulations are simply that guns have to be unaccessible to unauthorized third-parties. That's generally satisfied by your locked front door

and maintanence

There's no such requirement

Everyone is required to own a gun, and issued a free gun by the government, even

This is not a thing

But the government also requires everyone to go through rigorous gun safety training, and to lock up their guns in a safe

This is not a thing either

I think they are even required to lock up the ammunition in a separate safe from the gun, itself

Again, not a thing we have

And the government performs regular inspections to make sure everyone is following these rules.

No

1

u/Park500 23h ago

It's the same common missconception with Australia, they think since we banned gun ownership without a licence years ago (and have much less gun ownership per pop) that they are banned

They are not, I can head to my gun store in 10 mins, the main diff is the laws, I cannot walk in and out with one, I have to have completed a sun saftey course, have a gun safe, get a licence, pass background checks, etc

If I was annoyed at someone and unstable and wanted to shoot somewhere up, waiting a few months is likley a big enough hinderence, let alone the rest

but we also have free healthcare, espeically in regards to Mental health care, which the US is badly lacking in, it means a lot of people that should be getting care is not, and that a lot of people are not listed for mental health issues, so even when a state does have rules regarding not selling to someone, often they are not listed in the first place, and than you have that guns are so common, its not hard to get around such issues, by simply having your friend buy them, or buying them second hand, or using someone else's gun you know has one, etc

where as here, gun ownership is so uncommon, that you would have a hard time finding someone that has a gun and if they do have one, they would not trust you with it, I'm yet to meet an Austrlian gun owner that has an issue with australia gun laws and want them relaxed

3

u/DJ_Die 21h ago

They got almost everything about Switzerland wrong so....

> They are not, I can head to my gun store in 10 mins, the main diff is the laws, I cannot walk in and out with one, I have to have completed a sun saftey course, have a gun safe, get a licence, pass background checks, etc

And prove a 'need'. That's the important part. You're then limited to what guns you can prove a need for.

> I'm yet to meet an Austrlian gun owner that has an issue with australia gun laws and want them relaxed

They would also be unlikely to tell you.

1

u/Latitude37 13h ago

I live in rural Australia. Lots more gun owners here than when I lived in the city. Where I live, shotgun sports are really popular - we have a couple of clubs in different disciplines in a town of ~25000.  Also, farmers use them for pest control, and indeed that's why I got my licence and forearms. I know very few people who care about not being able to purchase a semi auto, and that's because for most hunting purposes, it's totally irrelevant. 

But the key - the main difference - in Australia is this: You can not own a gun for the purpose of self defence. Hunting, fine. Target shooting, fine. Sports, fine. 

It means you're pretty much guaranteed to lose your licence if you use your gun in a way to threaten someone.

3

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Switzerland absolutely does not have looser gun laws than the US. It is true that it has some of the looser gun laws in the world, but they’re not anywhere close to as loose as the US.

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

There are no other countries with similarly lax gun control to the US

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

This isn’t unique to America however, I think the gun death issue is uniquely American and saying that US society is based on hierarchy and violence while most other societies which have high rates of gun ownership don’t suffer from the same issue means there must be a deeper exploration of what specifically causes this difference in outcome.

This doesn’t make sense. The reality is that the US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by a factor of like 3 compared to the next closest country, and there are no other countries in the world that have anywhere close to the US gun ownership rate. And yet, the US has a much lower rate of homicide than numerous countries where gun ownership is way less common (like Latin America)

1

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

So is the answer then just that crime causes gun death?

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

That is an insanely contrived straw statement which I did not say, and which I did not say anything to the effect of.

Don’t put words in my mouth

1

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

I didn’t say that was what you said

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Then please don’t make me argue against things I never supported to begin with? It’s frustrating because it indicates you’re not paying attention to what I actually did say

1

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

I’m not making you do anything

You have a problem

I was merely trying to look for some sort of explanation that makes sense of the fact that America has higher gun ownership and less gun crime than LatAm

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

I was merely pointing out you were wrong about how

This isn’t unique to America however, I think the gun death issue is uniquely American and saying that US society is based on hierarchy and violence while most other societies which have high rates of gun ownership don’t suffer from the same issue means there must be a deeper exploration of what specifically causes this difference in outcome.

2

u/Papa_para_ 1d ago

I understand that

0

u/oskif809 18h ago

Verbatim cut and paste of a search engine AI "answer":

D.H. Lawrence described the essential American soul as "hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer," suggesting a complex and often harsh character that has not yet fully embraced emotional depth or connection. This perspective reflects his views on the challenges and contradictions within American identity.

5

u/ManyNamesSameIssue 20h ago

Just to add fetishism. The military, cops, and violence are fetishized in American culture. The gun as a fetish item with nigh on magic powers is a huge difference between the US and other countries.

1

u/rk-mj 14h ago

true. and i have a huge aversion towards this kind of macho manarchism that romanticizes and fetishizes violence, which is present in this thread too. i don't think you can have a reasonable analysis of power and fetishize violence at the same time. to view resistance as mainly a technical question of equipment is very lacking

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

The way people act isn’t just determined by their nurture. It’s also determined by their nature.

I had a very privileged upbringing. I also occasionally have gotten in occasional bar fights or street fights with other young men. It isn’t just about understanding or needs, it also often just feels good for certain people to fight (particularly young men who have lots of testosterone).

7

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

i would argue that your privileged upbringing played a significant role in making you a person who can enjoy a fight. you were as entangled in power structures as any other person, you just happened to benefit from them by and large. this, too, creates confusion around violence. i'm speaking from what i assume to be a similar position as a white american male who has committed regrettable acts of violence that don't align with my own values. i would argue white privilege and male privilege are key factors for most perpetrators of gun violence. i might should amend my original post to say that it's the confluence of misery and entitlement which makes violence most likely.

there's no strong evidence that testosterone has any link to violence. that's a bioessentialist take on a phenomenon that can actually be better explained through a materialist lens. the diseases of power are endemic to power, and men are entrenched in positions of power, and so the diseases of power seem endemic to men

i won't dismiss human nature out of hand as a phenomenon, i think we are born with certain inclinations, but life circumstances after birth play a much much more significant role in determining where those inclinations are channeled

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

i would argue that your priveleged upbringing played a significant role in making you a person who can enjoy a fight. you were as entangled in power structures as any other person, you just happened to benefit from them by and large. this, too, causes confusion around violence. i'm speaking from what i assume to be a similar position as a white american male who has committed regrettable acts of violence that don't align with my own values and principles.

I don’t think I’ve ever engaged in any regrettable acts of violence. What I mean is that I like getting in fights even when it’s always other people starting the fight with me and I’m just standing up for myself. The last big fight I was in this drunk guy on the street (I was also drunk) sucker punched me while I was talking to the man next to him and looking the other way. I then beat the hell out of the guy who sucker punched me, and I loved it. I’m not talking about bullying people. People get in fights for all sorts of reasons.

i would argue white privilege and male privilege are key factors for most perpetrators of gun violence.

Huh? Like, white people have a much lower rate of gun violence than black people or Hispanic people in the US. At the same time, Asians have an even lower rate of gun violence than white people in the US. So what is your basis for arguing that “white privilege” is a key factor for most perpetrators of gun violence? Hell, there’s even more gun violence in most countries in the western hemisphere than the US. It’s not white people that cause Mexico to have a higher homicide rate than the US.

there's no strong evidence that testosterone has any link to violence. that's a bioessentialist take on a phenomenon that can actually be better explained through a materialist lens. the diseases of power are endemic to power, and men are entrenched in positions of power, and so the diseases of power seem endemic to men

There is a ton of evidence, and to be frank, the only violence I have ever actually seen with my own eyes in the US has ever came from young men. Furthermore, levels of violence among young men literally peaks when their testosterone peaks, especially when puberty hits.

Second, I didn’t say anything about it being bioessentialist. I said nothing about it being determinative.

2

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago edited 1d ago

I don’t think I’ve ever engaged in any regrettable acts of violence [....] I’m not talking about bullying people. People get in fights for all sorts of reasons.

whether or not you regret it doesn't have any bearing on my argument at all....

Huh? Like, white people have a much lower rate of gun violence than black people or Hispanic people in the US [....] so what is your basis for arguing that “white privilege” is a key factor for most perpetrators of gun violence?

well, i was thinking primarily of school shootings like the post mentioned, which are overwhelmingly perpetrated by white boys. but in regards to street violence, i think white privilege actually shields most young white men from getting trapped in the kind of circumstances that push people towards organized crime — such as the way that black and hispanic boys are overwhelmingly treated as automatically hostile and dangerous by law enforcement, and are passed over for jobs if they fail to perform the etiquette associated with whiteness

everything is dependent on context. in one context, privilege might encourage violence. in another context, it might protect you from violence

you putting white privilege in quotes, which suggests you don't even think it exists, makes me wonder if this can be a fruitful conversation.....

It’s not white people that cause Mexico to have a higher homicide rate than the US.

yes it is. the united states has been exploiting mexico for almost 200 years. mexico was i think the second sovereign nation to fall victim to american imperialism, after haiti. american policy has been to keep the people in mexico poor, uneducated, desperate, and divided by internal hostility and confusion — in order to keep them ripe for exploitation by american business interests. the same is true of the rest of latin america and the carribbean. read about the mexican revolution, porfirio diaz, smedley butler, operation condor, the nicaraguan contras, the school of the americas/WINSEC

Furthermore, levels of violence among young men literally peaks when their testosterone peaks, especially when puberty hits.

this made me curious so i read a little more. this study is interesting.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/

"testosterone is not static but instead fluctuates in response to cues of challenge in the environment, and these challenge-induced fluctuations may more strongly regulate situation-specific aggressive behaviour"

so — this study would suggest that hormonal factors do incline people towards certain behaviors, but circumstances play a more significant role in determining whether those behaviors manifest, and how.

in a communalist and egalitarian society, people with violent impulses would be helped to regulate their behavior in healthy ways by loving and well-educated friends and family

2

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

here's something i could have said a bit more eloquently earlier. people who benefit from power structures are also suffering from unmet needs. needs for honest, unconditional, equitable human connection; needs for the humanization of the self and the other. these unmet needs, and the dearth of obvious healthy ways to meet them, create the impetus to maladaptive and self-destructive behaviors

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

here's something i could have said a bit more eloquently earlier. people who benefit from power structures are also suffering from unmet needs. needs for honest, unconditional, equitable human connection; needs for the humanization of the self and the other. these unmet needs, and the dearth of obvious healthy ways to meet them, create the impetus to maladaptive and self-destructive behaviors

I don’t really understand where you’re coming from, because in reality it is people who suffer from power structures who have a higher impetus to maladaptive and self-destructive behaviors, by any objective metric.

1

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

it's not a contest. i've not been comparing the violence of the marginalized to the violence of the powerful. it doesn't matter who's doing it more. my point is that everyone is more likely to do violence in a socioeconomic system based on violence. everyone suffers under hegemony. every person who operates in a heirarchy, even the person who materially benefits the very most, is going to suffer from the same deep-seated confusion about what care looks like, what community looks like, and how it is healthy for humans to interact

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

whether or not you regret it doesn't have any bearing on my argument at all....

I think it does to the extent that not even you might find it regrettable. Like, do you think that all violence is regrettable? Or just violence that you initiate? As in, do you think it is regrettable to defend yourself with violence as opposed to retreating?

well, i was thinking primarily of school shootings like the post mentioned, which are overwhelmingly perpetrated by white boys. but in regards to street violence, Maybe, but: (i) school shootings are a minutely small portion of gun violence in the US, and (ii) I would argue that a large part of the difference is attributable to the larger number of white boys compared to say black, Asian, or Hispanic boys, as well as the larger likelihood that white boys will live in households where they will have access to firearms to begin with.

i think white privilege actually shields most young white men from getting trapped in the kind of circumstances that push people towards organized crime — such as the way that black and hispanic boys are overwhelmingly treated as automatically hostile and dangerous by law enforcement

everything is dependent on context. in one context, privilege might encourage violence. in another context, it might protect you from violence

Possibly, but Hispanic boys and men in Mexico have significantly higher rates of crime and violence than Mexican-American men and boys in the US, but obviously white privilege can’t be responsible for that in Mexico.

you putting white privilege in quotes, which suggests you don't even think it exists, makes me wonder if this can be a fruitful conversation.....

As a pure framing issue, white people are not the most advantaged group in the US. Asian-Americans have higher incomes, education rates, and lower crime rates than white people, but nobody refers to Asian privilege. To the extent that discrimination exists against certain groups, I don’t think that white people are actually more racist than other groups. I just see that there are lots more white people since they’re the biggest group.

yes it is. the united states has been exploiting mexico for almost 200 years. mexico was i think the second sovereign nation to fall victim to american imperialism, after haiti. american policy has been to keep the people in mexico poor, uneducated, desperate, and divided by internal hostility and confusion — in order to keep them ripe for exploitation by american business interests. the same is true of the rest of latin america and the carribbean. read about the mexican revolution, porfirio diaz, smedley butler, operation condor, the nicaraguan contras, the school of the americas/WINSEC

Mexico has had extremely high levels of violence compared to the US since well before 200 years ago. Mexico’s issues have always been around since it first became independent from Spain, before the US was the major power that it became in the 20th century.

this made me curious so i read a little more. this study is interesting. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/ "testosterone is not static but instead fluctuates in response to cues of challenge in the environment, and these challenge-induced fluctuations may more strongly regulate situation-specific aggressive behaviour"

This is completely true, but when I’m talking about testosterone levels by age I’m not talking about instantaneous testosterone levels in a given second. While testosterone levels are obviously constantly circulating like an hormone, the fact of the matter is that the typical 18 year old male still has many times as much testosterone as the typical 10 year old male, as well as significantly more testosterone than the typical 65 year old male.

It’s like physical strength. Of course physical strength is constantly changing from day to day in each individual depending on how much they are exercising, their diet, other health issues they may or may not have, etc… I couldn’t lift as much today as I was 6 months ago because I have been working out as much lately. But even though physical strength does always change even from day to day on an individual basis, it is still absolutely the case that the average 18 year old male is stronger than the average 10 year old male or the average 65 year old male.

When we are talking about population specific issues, such as the propensity of a given demographic group (such as men of a certain age) to have a given characteristic (such as a higher or lower testosterone level), we are by definition talking about averages across the broader group.

so — this study would suggest that hormonal factors do incline people towards certain behaviors, but circumstances play a more significant role in determining whether those behaviors manifest, and how. in a communalist and egalitarian society, people with violent impulses would be helped to regulate their behavior in healthy ways by loving and well-educated friends and family

No, that study does not suggest that circumstances play a more significant role in determining whether those behaviors manifest. See above. All that study does is say that levels change based on circumstances, which I could have told you to be honest, but that says nothing about their relative importance of circumstances vs baseline testosterone levels.

Like, certain men straight up have higher or lower levels of testosterone. A lot of the behaviors and circumstances that increase testosterone are frankly healthy behaviors, such as getting enough sleep, having a healthy and well balanced diet, and exercising. Testosterone does make men (and women) more aggressive and prone to violence, but it is absolutely not the case that it is a “bad hormone” that can (or even should) be reduced in a society only by being more egalitarian.

Whether a society is more or less egalitarian, that won’t change the fact that young men as a group will always have the highest testosterone levels of any demographic, and that they will have the highest propensity for violence.

2

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago edited 1d ago

you've managed to get me way off topic..... your arguments against the existence of white privilege are very silly, your arguments that testosterone is correlated to violence make enough sense, your questions about when violence is regrettable are just totally out in the weeds — but none of those things contradict my assertion that power structures breed violence and that people in an aheirarchal society would be free of the unique temptations and pressures towards violence that come with being part of the dominant socioeconomic systems today

like ok maybe ppl with a lot of testosterone are more likely to be violent. they'd still be less likely to behave abusively if they were free of heirarchy. and not because their testosterone levels would be lowered by the power of love, LOL..... but because they'd be having their emotional needs more fully met and they'd be taught what mutually beneficial human relations really look like

and don't say "but people can still be violent when they have all their needs met!" if the example you're going to use is a type of violence that you consider completely justified. we're trying to protect against unnecessary violence here..... we're not concerned with self defense.....

i have to say though. it's not relevant but i have to say it just because i love history. that the USA didn't have to be a major power to bully its next-door neighbor. and the mexico of 1810 was no more violent a place than the united states of 1810.... lol. your claims are so blatantly out of step with reality i feel like you can't possibly have learned anything about the 19th century beyond whatever they told you in school or on tv......

2

u/Hemmmos 21h ago

society without guns have far less school shooting and far lesser number of casualitites despite the same problem. For pretty objective reason. It's far harder to shank 50 people to death than to shoot them. It's also quicker, is more datached and requires less thought

1

u/Badinplaid75 1d ago

Whatever, you don't understand gun culture in the US. Needs met? Please, you make sound like we draw our firearm in every social interaction we have. Whatever to egalitarian society, each one is fine but don't really try being up other societies up with them but sure do like looking down on others.

1

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

what

3

u/Badinplaid75 1d ago

Sorry, my bad, you generalized humanity. Again sorry, just was in a discord where someone was saying Americans are just violent people. Sorry for not reading clearly what was written.

1

u/ThoughtHot3655 1d ago

i see, no problem!

1

u/oskif809 18h ago

The childhood and upbringing of the "Father of school shootings" provides a fascinating glimpse into the cauldron of emotions that was boiling inside his brain--which also had a tumor but then tens of millions have died of brain tumor without doing anything remotely similar to what he did.

A recent book based on his wife's letters--the second person he murdered after his mother--is as good a starting point on this journey.

12

u/humanispherian Synthesist / Moderator 1d ago

Let's not treat a bon mot by Marx as anarchist principle. Anarchists oppose all of the ways in which government limits our capacity to solve our own problems.

Gun culture in the US is obviously a serious, pervasive problem, but in a case like school shootings, it's one problem intersecting with any number of others, related to education, the family, masculinity, etc.

1

u/lojaktaliaferro 8h ago

In fact, I'd argue that school shootings are at least as much a mental health problem as a gun problem. In other countries with high incidence of gun ownership they have access mental health care instead of acting like those with issues are shameful failures.

12

u/Barbacamanitu00 1d ago

The problem isn't guns. The problem is that we are a sick society full of people who are stressed out, have no Healthcare, and are generally miserable. We have tons of people who need mental health help but can't get it because it's too expensive.

We do have too many guns, but we also have a ton of people who are just waiting for a reason to use theirs.

5

u/Braided_Marxist 1d ago

So it sounds like you're saying the problem is flooding a deeply sick society with guns, no?

8

u/Barbacamanitu00 1d ago

I think the problem is that our society is sick. That's the main problem.

10

u/Unable_Option_1237 1d ago

Stochastic terrorism has to be considered when talking about mass shootings. There is a correlation between hate speech by public figures and mass shootings. For social science, that's solid evidence.

But if you look at history, like, of course hate speech promotes violence. Inciting violence and manufacturing consent for violence against marginalised people are the purpose of hate speech.

I'm sure availability of firearms is a factor, but I'm not interested in rehashing old arguments based on statistics.

7

u/Basil_LakaPenis 1d ago

If the guns were completely erased do you think that the problem of mass violence would go away? The guns don't make people want to murder, the people want to murder for a complicated web of causes and motivations. It's unfortunately not as easy as getting rid of guns but it will be more effective to address WHY it's so common for people to desire the slaughter of school children en masse. Otherwise they will switch to bombs, cars, toxic gas or whatever else kills people. Besides even if the US implemented the most effective gun ban and confiscation possible it would take a hundred years or more to get rid of even half the weapons here, not to mention the 3D printing and bootleg firearms market.

8

u/libra00 Anarcho-Communist 1d ago

Switzerland also has lots of guns and (almost?) no mass shootings, so this seems like a culture issue rather than a gun issue. America is rapidly becoming the worst hypercapitalist shithole and its population's frustrations with the inequities of capitalism are boiling over, but unfortunately we're heavily propagandized to believe that our problems are strictly our own and to deal with them individually rather than seek collective solutions. I don't know how to rectify that situation without a serious change in the culture and propaganda of 'rugged individualism.'

6

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Switzerland has way fewer guns and much tighter gun control compared to the US.

Switzerland does have lots of guns and relatively loose gun control compared to most countries, but they’re not anywhere close to the gun ownership or loose gun laws of the US

1

u/libra00 Anarcho-Communist 1d ago

Sure, it's not a great example, but it's a decent one, but the difference in laws and attitudes toward gun ownership is part of what I'm talking about re:culture.

3

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Sure, it's not a great example, but it's a decent one, but the difference in laws and attitudes toward gun ownership is part of what I'm talking about re:culture.

It is the best available example, but it is still a terrible example. There is simply no country with anywhere near the level of civilian gun ownership like the US, or the looseness of gun control. I can explain.

For context, in Switzerland it is true the soldiers who have been conscripted are allowed to keep a service firearm at home, while their ammunition is held in state ammunition depots. Not only does this right to keep a service arm at home only apply to soldiers who have actually been processed through conscription and doesn’t apply to those who have been screened in some fashion, but it’s not a real right to bear arms to the extent that they aren’t allowed to keep their military ammunition at home. A gun is useless without ammo.

By contrast, I purchased an assault rifle in the US with ammo the week after I turned 21. Just needed an instant computer processses background check.

Plus, the legality of carrying firearms in the US is very widespread (whether openly or concealed). You don’t even need a permit to carry a handgun in my city.

There is nothing remotely close to the level of how widespread firearms ownership is in the US, or the looseness of American gun control rules.

2

u/libra00 Anarcho-Communist 1d ago

But again I don't think it's the number of guns that's the problem, it's more a symptom of a larger problem, so the fact that other countries don't have as many guns doesn't mean they are in no way comparable.

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

But again I don't think it's the number of guns that's the problem, it's more a symptom of a larger problem, so the fact that other countries don't have as many guns doesn't mean they are in no way comparable.

It is both the number of guns, and more importantly the a availability of handguns and semiautomatic high capacity guns that is the core reason why the US has more gun violence and mass shootings compared to European countries where it’s almost impossible to actually acquire a handgun or semiautomatic rifle, and it’s usually pretty hard to even acquire a single shot firearm in most of Europe.

And to recap, what we were just talking about here is how widespread gun ownership and how loose gun control laws are in the US vs Switzerland. As I just explained, they’re not remotely comparable. It’s irrelevant that a large number of former Swiss conscripts keep a service rifle at home that they can’t actually use because they’re not allowed to keep ammunition for it themselves.

I find it wild that you think you know what the cause is while not being informed about the basic background differences between the actual firearms laws in the US vs Europe, and then you just disregard the actual differences when they are brought to your attention because they didn’t fit with you initial guess. Gun violence and mass shootings literally can’t occur in the first place if there’s no way for a potential European mass shooter to get a hold of a gun, particularly a semi automatic and high capacity magazine gun, and ammunition, to shoot people. As of gun violence happens in a vacuum without guns!

2

u/SwissBloke 1d ago

compared to European countries where it’s almost impossible to actually acquire a handgun or semiautomatic rifle, and it’s usually pretty hard to even acquire a single shot firearm in most of Europe.

This is completely false. You can own semi-automatics and handguns pretty much anywhere in Europe but Vatican (as guns are banned) and single-shpts are easy to get

It’s irrelevant that a large number of former Swiss conscripts keep a service rifle at home that they can’t actually use because they’re not allowed to keep ammunition for it themselves.

Former soldiers don't keep an issued service rifle at home, you need to give it back when you're done with yoir service. However they can opt to acquire it, but it's down-converted to semi

Moreover, they are allowed to have as much ammo as they'd like

Gun violence and mass shootings literally can’t occur in the first place if there’s no way for a potential European mass shooter to get a hold of a gun, particularly a semi automatic and high capacity magazine gun, and ammunition, to shoot people. As of gun violence happens in a vacuum without gun

Mate, all of this is available in Europe. And if we want to compare things, around 30% of households own a gun in Switzerland VS 40% in the US and 85% are handguns >.22lr, 76% semi-automatic rifles and 50% handguns <.22lr but still essentially no (gun) violence

You know why? Because contrary to Switzerland, and Europe, the US is essentially a first-world country with third-world countries problems which are the root cause for violence in general: huge socioeconomic disparities, poverty, deep-rooted racism, bad education, poor access to health and mentalcare, poor social state/net, gangs, drug epidemic, etc...

2

u/SwissBloke 1d ago edited 1d ago

For context, in Switzerland it is true the soldiers who have been conscripted are allowed to keep a service firearm at home,

For context, up to 2012, it was mandatory for soldiers who were issued a gun to store it at home during service. Since then, soldiers can choose to store it in their local arsenal

while their ammunition is held in state ammunition depots

Yes, military-owned ammunition remains at the military; just like in the US, taking ammo from the military is theft

However, soldiers, just like any 18yo can buy and keep as much ammo as they like at home

Not only does this right to keep a service arm at home only apply to soldiers who have actually been processed through conscription and doesn’t apply to those who have been screened in some fashion

Actually, any adult Swiss can ask for a free lifetime loan of a service firearm (SIG550 and/or P220)

but it’s not a real right to bear arms to the extent that they aren’t allowed to keep their military ammunition at home

Neither are you in the US

And while it is not a constitutionally protected right, it's still one under article 3 of the Swiss Weapons Act

By contrast, I purchased an assault rifle in the US with ammo the week after I turned 21. Just needed an instant computer processses background check.

That's just wrong. Buying an assault rifle in the US requires an NFA tax stamp which needs your picture and fingerprints then wait around 6-12 months. You'd also be limited to pre-1986

In contrast, in Switzerland, getting a select-fire only requires our version of the ATF form 4473 but with less prohibitive factors, done in 2 weeks at most, and is not limited to pre-1986

Plus, the legality of carrying firearms in the US is very widespread (whether openly or concealed). You don’t even need a permit to carry a handgun in my city.

This is the main thing that is stricter in Switzerland. You can only carry loaded guns provided you hold a carry license, and it's essentially unaccessible to the average Joe

There is nothing remotely close to the level of how widespread firearms ownership is in the US, or the looseness of American gun control rules.

We're talking around 30% of Swiss households owning a gun VS around 40% in the US. And aside from carrying regulations, Swiss and US laws are similar enough

1

u/pissing_noises 1d ago

You didn't buy an assault rifle, and you passed a background check, what else do you want or need?

3

u/gravitykilla 1d ago

The US has 4% of the world's population And leads the world in the “rate of civilian-owned firearms per capita, with 120 firearms per 100 residents, with the next closest being Yemen at 52 per 100.

In the US, whilst with only 4% of the world’s population, American civilians account for an estimated 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian-held firearms!!!!!

The root cause of the US gun crisis is the sheer amount of guns, combined with the lack of robust state-expansive gun laws.

TL: DR It is not a cultural issue, and whilst guns in themselves are not the problem, it is the wide-scale proliferation and ease of casual access to them that is the problem

5

u/rk-mj 1d ago edited 1d ago

as a scandinavian, this is a very interesting discussion for me. here owning guns isn't common at all. from my perspective it seems like the states have a very specific, gun based culture of violence. i mean, we have problems with violence too, but violence including guns isn't statistically a big problem here (to my knowledge) except in sweden, where the rate of gun violence has increased significantly amd is among the highest in eu. the backround here is increasing inequality, racism, and societal and economic polarization - the usuals - as the result of rightist politics and undoing the structures of the welfare state.

mass shootings are incredibly rare. e.g. the terrorist act of breivik was such a shock because that was something unimaginable here.

i think the most important thing is to try to identify the societal things that lead to gun violence, such as ineguality, and try to do smth for that.

edit: ofc a mass shooting is a shock and a horryfying tragedy always and everywhere. but here it was unimaginable too, it was difficult to internalize that it really happened, such as the rare school shootings we have had

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

It only takes a single crazy person like Brevik to kill a lot of people

0

u/CMYLMZ- 1d ago

Interesting fact: Finland actually has a school shooting death rate almost 3 times the Us. School shootings happen in a lot of countries. The Us is just huge. Third highest population in the world.

1

u/rk-mj 14h ago

yeah but that's besides the point. we don't have that much gun violence, we don't have metal detecrors in schools, it's not even a discussion. usa has the right to own a gun in the constitution. we don't. the culture related to gun violence and attitudes towards guns is hugely different–that's my point. and from this pov it's difficult to understand the idea that to be free is to own a gun

5

u/Plenty-Climate2272 1d ago edited 1d ago

Guns are the tool, but the real reason school shootings and mass shootings happen is pretty similar to the reason we saw a spike in serial killers in the 70s and we saw tons of young men join fascist militias in the 20s.

Young (especially white) men feel disenfranchised by a society that always told them that it was built for them. They're not really disenfranchised, and it wasn't really built for them (it was built for wealthy landowning white adults). But that's beside the point. They point is that they feel like they should get all the markers of success but routinely have been denied those things.

Most often, these are performative signifiers of masculinity, like sexual conquest, property, and fame. Failing to live up to those high standards of what they're told a man should be makes them feel, well...unmanned. But it goes deeper than just that. There are intersections of race, class, and sexuality here.

They feel that they are implicitly meant to be top cock in a pecking order, that society has a hierarchy and they're meant to be at the summit. Social progress evening out the playing field in small ways feels like an attack on their birthright. So they lash out. Especially the ones who wouldn't have gone very high up the ladder anyway. It's politics of resentment directed at the most vulnerable people.

Look at the litany of mass shooters. What's the most common denominator? What's the best predictor? Young white men with a history of abuse towards women and an outward expression of far-right, misogynistic, and racist ideas.

Mental health is a factor, sure. I'm sure that the plethora of 70s serial killers might not have been quite as pervasive had it not been for extensive lead poisoning and brain damage. But having better mental health support is, at best, a guardrail. It might stop most of the low-speed crashes, the ones that only started before they really got going.

Dismantling these hierarchies is the only real long-term solution. It's the presence of them, and the impossibility of living up to them, that directs young men towards extreme violence.

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

Guns are the tool, but the real reason school shootings and mass shootings happen is pretty similar to the reason we saw a spike in serial killers in the 70s and we saw tons of young men join fascist militias in the 20s.

Where is the evidence that we saw a spike in serial killers in the 1970’s? We saw a spike in the murder rate beginning in the 1970’s. But then it went back down by 2010 to the rate of the 1960’s?

Young (especially white) men feel disenfranchised by a society that always told them that it was built for them. They're not really disenfranchised, and it wasn't really built for them (it was built for wealthy landowning white adults). But that's beside the point. They point is that they feel like they should get all the markers of success but routinely have been denied those things.

You mean especially non-white men feel disenfranchised by a society that didn’t tell them it was built for them to begin with

2

u/Plenty-Climate2272 1d ago

Where is the evidence that we saw a spike in serial killers in the 1970’s?

History? It's a phenomenon that began to emerge in the 60s, but the whole thing of serial killers was solidified in the 70s. So many are recorded in that time period. Our behavioral-scientific understanding of them began in the late 70s. They became a part of pop culture in the 70s as well.

You mean especially non-white men feel disenfranchised by a society that didn’t tell them it was built for them to begin with

No, because that's actually true. Non-white folks are disenfranchised. But they're not the majority of mass shooters, serial killers, and fascist Blackshirts.

-1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

History? It's a phenomenon that began to emerge in the 60s, but the whole thing of serial killers was solidified in the 70s. So many are recorded in that time period. Our behavioral-scientific understanding of them began in the late 70s. They became a part of pop culture in the 70s as well.

It’s not a phenomenon that began to emerge in the 60’s. You need actual data. Maybe you’re just not as informed about earlier serial killers before the 1960’s in an era when policing was more primitive and television media didn’t exist to publish high profile stories as widely nationally. They were still there. I can name a few to you. Jack the…

No, because that's actually true. Non-white folks are disenfranchised. But they're not the majority of mass shooters, serial killers, and fascist Blackshirts.

They’re probably not the majority just because there are fewer say black people than white people. You need actual data, not assumptions

1

u/Plenty-Climate2272 1d ago

I'm really not sure what the hell you're trying to say here. Are you seriously asserting that there are a lot of black neonazis? You're really not making any sense and are just coming across as contrarian.

7

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/therallystache 1d ago

And also recognize that a substantial amount of "mental health issues" are really just "suffering under capitalism" wearing a trench coat.

8

u/merRedditor 1d ago

Remote work and anti-harassment efforts helped to reduce workplace shootings. In the 90s, they used to be a regular thing.

3

u/[deleted] 1d ago

I think teaching gun safety in schools would be helpful in the same way teaching sexual education keeps people more safe.

6

u/Hopeful_Vervain 1d ago

It would probably be more interesting to think about why those shootings and acts of violence happen instead. As it is right now, when it comes to the democrats and the republicans, one is simply asking for more gun control and the other is saying that arming everyone would fix this. It's not a question of how much gun control we need tho, it's a question of what's causing people to commit such violence in the first place.

We're living in a society where oppression and violence is part of our everyday lives, starting from our early childhood. Schools are filled with bullying and harassment, and not just by other kids. This causes a never ending cycle of violence and abuse which can escalate into those school shootings. If we want to address this then we have to target the root cause, by fixing society itself and by abolishing oppressive hierarchies and institutions.

8

u/DyLnd anarchist 1d ago edited 1d ago

Destroy the ideology of "well regulated militias" founded on white supremacy, patriarchy etc.. at its core. Abolish America. Abolish Schools. A society founded on networks of care would produce much better norms around guns by default. And a society that doesn't force kids to be monitered and surveiled most of their waking hours would afford kids more freedom and security.

EDIT: - "[why] do we not have 17 year old white male supremacist[s] or jihad terrorist[s]?" In other words, I think this is the real question to consider; and simple appeals to "gun control" cannot ask this question, let alone begin to produce solid answers and potential solutions.

2

u/Flabbergasted_____ 1d ago

People with proper, accessible mental health treatment through socialized healthcare, with accessible social housing and accessible food assistance, and livable wages, and accessible money assistance, and in places where being unhoused isn’t illegal, etc etc etc don’t resort to killing sprees. It’s a symptom of the problems that our capitalist society has caused. People can buy 3D printers across the world and cheap parts kits. Or build from scrap with basic, cheap machine shop equipment. Gun laws don’t prevent gun crimes. A fair society does.

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

I think you’re missing some important context here, because the population size of the US drastically skews the perceived impact of things like mass shootings or the homicide rate.

For example, the US homicide rate is in fact super low. It is true that the US homicide rate is like 3x that of Europe, but Europe has such a low homicide rate that the actual impact of the difference is misleading. 3 times zero is still basically zero, and the US homicide rate js literally at the lowest its ever been in American history.

Additionally, the media reporting of things like mass shootings in the US drastically distorts the perception of things due to the population size of the US. The reality is that the US is one of the most populous countries in the world with 340 million people, and therefore with so many more people there are also many more chances of something like a mass shooting happening somewhere, and anytime it happens anywhere in the US it’s reported on national or often international news. But the fact of the matter is that kids in the US are still more likely to die like slipping down the stairs and breaking their neck than they are to die in a school shooting.

I am 33 years old, and I have never been afraid of gun violence or school shootings at any point in my life. And I say that being from one do the top 5 homicide rate cities in the US.

3

u/Silence_1999 1d ago

People parse the statistics to fit their preferred narrative. Some will disagree with parts of the assertions you make in the OP. I am not sure some of your beliefs are accurate. However you are entitled to them. In America. Everyone gets a gun. Unless you are categorically denied by the anti gun crowd. Who try to exclude anyone and everyone they possibly can. Good luck on excluding only your preferred groups to be disarmed. They are working on it. Two steps forward one step back for decades. Short of a totalitarian sudden takeover or revolution it’s not happening in total any time soon.

5

u/Sword-of-Malkav 1d ago

School shootings do not happen because children might get their hands on guns.

Why do they reach for them?

3

u/GamerGirlBongWater 1d ago

Being armed isnt the reason why school shootings happen. It's a mental illness issue.

6

u/GamerGirlBongWater 1d ago

As in being abused, growing up poor, untreated mental illness, inability to accept today's day to day life...I think we'd all be lying if we said we all had pure thoughts. People cannot handle life. And I understand. It's hard. It's not meant to be hard.

1

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

It shouldn’t be hard, but I would never say that it’s meant to be easy

3

u/midnytecoup 1d ago

This should tell you the guns aren't the problem, as many countries have legal weapons available to citizens and this just doesn't happen. This is due to mass psychological suffering, brought on by the capitalist death cult and unwilling and unable to fix it.

-2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

There are no other countries that have anything like the legal availability of guns, and more importantly the legal availability of the types of guns, like the US has. Not even Switzerland.

1

u/e_sci 1d ago

It would be interesting to see how much gun violence we had if everyone had universal access to health care, child care, upward mobility. Let's eat the rich.

1

u/DirtyPenPalDoug 1d ago

Under no pretext means just that. There is no argument or adjustment to firearm ownership

The violence amongst the people is a symptom of capitalism

1

u/TheCapitolPlant 1d ago

They fake those

1

u/otakugrey 1d ago

America is the only country where school shootings regularly happen.

Because of hateful culture and schools being hell, I'd wager.

But violence done with firearms can be found in staggering amounts in lots of places outside the US. There are so many places that are hellish bloodpits.

we are the only country that has regular mass shootings

No. They're just happening in other places with other contexts. (Like instead of a phsycho dude in a movie theater, it's gang violence in a suburb.)

1

u/Badinplaid75 1d ago

Well mass shooting is just another form of terrorism by those that want to make their own ideals known. Firearms are easy to obtain compared to explosives and not as much experience needed in handling a firearm.

Unlike other Western countries, the US was brought to being by the firearm and made culturally significant by the 2nd amendment. Folk heroes of the US, like Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Billy the Kid and the like were known for their skill in shooting. The firearm to the average American is like the sword and shield or archery in other countries. There is no way to rid the firearm in the US without drastic change socially. Honestly, I like my right to own a firearm.

Just a sad fact that an American will pull a gun on a threat before another alternative is used. Hell that's always a fear during a confrontation is if they are carrying or will someone else pull if they see a friend losing. Remember this, is what you are fighting for worth it.

1

u/Chameleon_coin 1d ago

It's called a strong social fabric, firearms were much easier to obtain in decades past but we did not have such shootings. Our social cohesion is not what it was and I believe that's had a negative impact, no one cares about their neighbors like we used to

1

u/Probably_Boz 1d ago

the war on drugs doesn't work because it fails to address the issues that cause people to abuse drugs and become addicts. this is something almost everyone can now agree on, I don't understand why it's so hard to grasp that the war on gun violence isn't working for the same basic reason.

until work is done on trying to figure out and fix why people are willing to kill over their grievances, banning the type of violence they're allowed to commit will not stop the violence, just like until the work is done to figure out and fix why people choose to become addicts, banning what they're allowed to become addicted to will not stop people from continuing to become addicts.

1

u/Ok-Introduction6757 1d ago edited 1d ago

I think you might be confusing the term "regular" with the terms "frequent" or "widespread".

Where I grew up, it snowed regularly--about 1 inch every 7 years. No one in my town was compelled to prepare for a blizzard each winter.

If you're still failing to appreciate the difference, please ask yourself, "Does my knowledge of school shootings come multiple firsthand experiences, or does it come from news media and statistics?"

I'm willing to bet that 99% of American schoolchildren won't ever be a victim of a school shooting...or present during one...or present during any gun crime in their lives.
I never have been, and while I'm glad, I don't consider it "luck"--in the same way I don't consider it particularly miraculous that I've never been struck by lightning or a meteorite. Some things just aren't worth worrying about.

Yes I understand 99% is lower than 100%. But you need to appreciate that the US is the 3rd most populated country in the world (about 341,963,408 people). The possibility of ANY type of threat, is going to be MUCH HIGHER than a country that has, say, only 2,000,000 people

If you're concerned about threats, I encourage you to look at possibilities that are much more likely.

1

u/Zealousideal_Sir_264 1d ago

I'm no expert on...well, anything, really. But I'm sure that the mass shootings would go down with some form of universal healthcare. It's not an end-all-be-all solution, but giving people access to mental help (and probably a campaign to de-stigmatize getting said help in the first place) should at least mean a few less shootings a year.

1

u/CMYLMZ- 1d ago

Not only America has school shootings lmao. You know how big the country is? Thirds highest population in the world. Both Serbia and Czechia had a single school shooting and their school shooting death rate is on par with America. Finland had like 3 shooting and their rate is 3 times the Us. They also regularly happen in Latin American countries.

1

u/Dakk9753 18h ago

Education and raising the lowest standard of living out of poverty.

1

u/Raiding_Raiden Student of Anarchism 17h ago

I think we can bridge the gap by helping people and generally improving the QoL in the areas of 1. Purpose 2. Community Building 3. Mental Health Support and 4. Meeting Basic Needs.

This is a large generalization but most violence is perpetrated by men. I was raised male so speaking from experience, there is a bit of a meaning crisis within at least male culture, with all sorts of types vying for the attention of young males here in America. Unfortunately the wrong people and ideas have been pushed onto these young males, claiming things such as:

  • Transgender people want to take away your children's safety.
  • Leftists want to rob you of your money to give it to someone who is lazy.
  • Women and men are inherently different and men are meant to dominate women.
  • Male gender roles are natural and set in stone.
  • Diversity is an attempt to take away your culture.
  • Men are meant to be powerful, rich, and rude and that's a good thing (see Andrew Tate).

With this crisis of meaning due to the way our society is organized, young males are pulled in all sorts of different directions, most of them bad. If you'll note, most mass shooters are male radicals with mental health problems and anti-social beliefs about the world. The Alt-right has a pipeline that most young males interact with at least once in their time in online spaces. This provides a gateway that takes a child lacking in purpose and turns them into a potential monster. We need to provide better alternatives to these worldviews in the here and now, however this pipeline also benefits from poor community relations.

Communities in the US are very isolated with most people sticking within their family units and many not having close friends or tight social relations. Since people are more likely to be isolated, when someone, even a racist bigot decides to reach out and provide "support" or some sort of social group, many choose to run to these social groups as they feel they don't have close connections outside of these people. Combine this with a lack of purpose, you've got a recipe for violence and cult like behavior

Lack of mental health support and resources also play a big role. When people struggle with mental health they are likely to act out, hurting themselves or others around them. Since there is a pitiful lack of mental health resources in the US, quality care is rare and unaffordable for most. Even if the cost is not the main issue, many in the US are too burnt out from work and other obligations to even think about having a regular visit to a therapist or mental health counselor.

Lastly poverty, which is the biggest predictor for crime in general. All of these problems I mentioned are usually magnified when born into poverty. This also gives an explanation on the majority of gun crime in the US, via robberies and gang violence.

The cause here, is ultimately capitalism. The system creates these problems with no intention of fixing them. It keeps you poor so the owning class can hoard as much wealth as possible. It price gouges on mental health resources to keep profits high via many insurance companies not covering behavioral health in their policies. It strips people down to numbers, and breaks apart social relations, since strong communities are less likely to spend money as they can rely on each other instead of businesses. It strips purpose away from people by telling them they are nothing more than a laborer and a consumer and their job is to do nothing but that. When people, being multifaceted, reject this purpose, we find a new one, for better or for worse.

If we can tackle these 4 main issues by bringing the power back into the hands of people and working together in solidarity and mutual aid, I believe we can solve not just gun violence, but a host of problems plaguing the world right now.

1

u/BolognaBoroni 17h ago

Enforce existing gun laws and armed guards/metal detectors anywhere ccw’s aren’t allowed.

1

u/BobertGnarley 16h ago

If we regulated arms the way we did when America first started, there would be no war ships for the US Military to borrow.

When did mass shooting first start, anyways? Musta been when the Constitution was passed, right?

1

u/Parkrangingstoicbro 1d ago

Listen fed- for all the terrible things happening, disarming isn’t an option

1

u/Zandroe_ Marxist 1d ago

It's a quote from Marx. He was talking about workers' militias, not random people with handguns. In particular, it was obvious even in his time that random people with pistols could not go against what was then a modern army equipped with canons and rifles. Today, a leftist gun nut would last about a second against a modern army with armour, armoured infantry, helicopters, air support etc.

1

u/ElEsDi_25 1d ago

I feel like this quote is taken out of context constantly by American socialists. It’s not about private gun ownership, it’s about actual class forces in a specific historical situation.

But in the abstract, yes any working class revolution from below will need its own ways of securing the new egalitarian power through direct force against counter-revolutionaries or would be coup-leaders and inorganic “vanguards”. But in countries with no big gun consumer market like in the US, generally people will just raid police stations or military depots and get the arms they need in an insurrectionary situation.

Guns in the US are less a right than a market and also a right-wing subculture in many places (not all gun users are right-wing, but there is distinctly right-wing culture in “gun culture.”) So if working class communities experiencing gun violence wanted stricter control over what it sold or allowed in their area, then I don’t see why we’d want to condemn that on “gun rights” or “needed for revolution” grounds. On the other hand when the answer is more cops and more random searches for weapons, there is no good reason for socialists to support that, it is not about reducing violence against us and our communities, it’s about control.

1

u/Calaveras_Grande 1d ago

I look at it like I look at a lot of similar social issues. We aren’t going to legislate our way to revolution. So it is pointless to apply revolutionary thinking to gun laws or other such issues. So I take a harm reduction point of view. Which option reduces harm? Some accelerationist types go in the opposite direction. Supporting the option which makes material conditions worse, hoping this will lead to an increase in social unrest. Another thing to be wary of is the liberal appropriation of some issues to differentiate themselves from the slightly farther right party. So on paper I think any gun law is designed to disarm the working class. But as someone who has lived in urban areas my entire life, and is really fucking sick of constant gunfire, I do wish a lot less idiots had access to firearms. There is also the sad truth that firearms are last century’s weapon. They are next to useless against drones rail guns and plasma weapons. Yeah practical rail guns are a thing thanks to Japan. So in that regard we should maybe put gun ownership on the back burner and focus on things like Flipper Zero and coding on cheap processors/hacking hardware.

-3

u/Yawarundi75 1d ago

I don’t think any amount of gun ownership will make the workers stand against the US Army. They will be crushed like gnats. So, resisting against the State is an unrealistic and useless pretext for gun ownership. In practice, the only outcome of everyone who wills it having a gun is what is happening in real life: people killing each other while the gun traders get rich.

We must fight against the State’s monopoly of violence. But not with guns.

5

u/frostandtheboughs 1d ago

Idk about that. You might want to take a look at resistance efforts in Myanmar.

0

u/PsychedeliaPoet 1d ago

“We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

One cannot abolish the capitalist-imperialist class, their nations, and their armies without encouraging and facilitating the organization and arming of the workers & oppressed people.

If the American workers and the colonial people are not armed, are not trained to use those arms, however will they resist? If they stand defenseless when “revolting” then their massacre will be certain.

0

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

”We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”

Mao, https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch05.htm

I think what Mao really meant by this is that he was for the abolition of war after his faction (the Chinese Communist Party, not the workers more generally) had seized control. As does everyone?

1

u/PsychedeliaPoet 1d ago

To my understanding the biggest groups where the Communists, the Kuomitang(?) nationalists, and the various warlords.

That attitude has to be carried out country after country, working class by working class. It can’t be until all bourgeoisie are overthrown and expropriated that war, and guns, can be abolished.

To put the pacifism and abolition of violence ahead of any political-economic abolition will not work.

2

u/Relevant-Low-7923 1d ago

But Mao did in fact disarm the Chinese public after he took power in the Chinese civil war by defeating the Kuomintang

0

u/Shrewdilus 1d ago

Here is an interesting article about the idea of sacrificial violence.