Plus it’s kind of impossible to understand how you see police brutality and the way they responded to the George Floyd protests and think, “Yeah, these guys should be trusted with the only guns in existence.”
Like have you already forgotten about Uvalde? If the cops hadn’t been there to cower behind their cars and stop people rescuing their kids then less kids would’ve died.
First: Is “every redneck yokel and his dumb brother is allowed to own an arsenal” in anyway better than a government monopoly in that regard?
Second: This would of course need properly selected and trained policemen, not those trigger-happy yokels that the US uses instead.
My position is from a country where “Police Brutality” is seen as an American or other third world country thing. We don’t allow every random idiot to own a gun. We have properly trained police. We therefor also don’t have issues like Uvalde and George Floyd. For an American, it is hard to draw a straight line between those factors, but in the rest of the civilized world, it is the standard.
So sorry for assuming you were talking about the US when you talked about school shootings.
I come from a country like that too, but if you think police brutality doesn’t happen in your country then again: political bubble.
Go ahead, tell me what country you’re from and I’ll burst it for you.
I used to say the same thing about my country, Australia, where they’ve recently been imprisoning whistleblowers who expose clear government abuse. EDIT: They’ve also been doing racist colonial violence since day 0 and they have never stopped.
There is no such thing as a state that can be trusted with violence. They always use it to oppress.
You provided exactly zero reasoning for most of your statements and have now taken a condescending position. People like you are why we can’t have nice things in the world.
So you completely accept the state’s monopoly on violence
That’s the whole point of the state. And no, you guys are not fighting the US army with its armored vehicles, rockets, bombs, drones, etc. with your guns if it comes to this.
The point of the state is to maintain one class’s domination over others, violence is just the means to achieving that. It’s not a good thing.
And not all armed resistance takes the form of open warfare.
Under a strong state one viable way of resisting the state is community defense. For instance the Black Panthers began open carrying to observe police doing traffic stops, because black men kept getting killed (edit: of course we know they still are).
The state’s response was weapons bans. That ban targetted the Black Panthers and was selectively enforced against them. This is where California got its reputation for banning guns. It was the state maintaining its ability to oppress people along class and racial lines.
So you completely accept the state’s monopoly on violence, and you also don’t think farmers should be allowed to shoot pests?
This is a statement made by someone who lives in a political and ecological bubble.
Better than spreading this to everydays mass shooting event culprits, don’t you agree?
“Spreading”? It’s already spread.
Plus it’s kind of impossible to understand how you see police brutality and the way they responded to the George Floyd protests and think, “Yeah, these guys should be trusted with the only guns in existence.”
Like have you already forgotten about Uvalde? If the cops hadn’t been there to cower behind their cars and stop people rescuing their kids then less kids would’ve died.
First: Is “every redneck yokel and his dumb brother is allowed to own an arsenal” in anyway better than a government monopoly in that regard?
Second: This would of course need properly selected and trained policemen, not those trigger-happy yokels that the US uses instead.
My position is from a country where “Police Brutality” is seen as an American or other third world country thing. We don’t allow every random idiot to own a gun. We have properly trained police. We therefor also don’t have issues like Uvalde and George Floyd. For an American, it is hard to draw a straight line between those factors, but in the rest of the civilized world, it is the standard.
So sorry for assuming you were talking about the US when you talked about school shootings.
I come from a country like that too, but if you think police brutality doesn’t happen in your country then again: political bubble.
Go ahead, tell me what country you’re from and I’ll burst it for you.
I used to say the same thing about my country, Australia, where they’ve recently been imprisoning whistleblowers who expose clear government abuse. EDIT: They’ve also been doing racist colonial violence since day 0 and they have never stopped.
There is no such thing as a state that can be trusted with violence. They always use it to oppress.
Oh, and trusting random yokels with violence is better?
Unironically yes.
Now are you going to answer what I’m saying or are you just bowing out of all the points you tried to raise and which I answered?
My condolences.
I answered all the relevant ones.
You provided exactly zero reasoning for most of your statements and have now taken a condescending position. People like you are why we can’t have nice things in the world.
So like… your answer is no.
That’s the whole point of the state. And no, you guys are not fighting the US army with its armored vehicles, rockets, bombs, drones, etc. with your guns if it comes to this.
The point of the state is to maintain one class’s domination over others, violence is just the means to achieving that. It’s not a good thing.
And not all armed resistance takes the form of open warfare.
Under a strong state one viable way of resisting the state is community defense. For instance the Black Panthers began open carrying to observe police doing traffic stops, because black men kept getting killed (edit: of course we know they still are).
The state’s response was weapons bans. That ban targetted the Black Panthers and was selectively enforced against them. This is where California got its reputation for banning guns. It was the state maintaining its ability to oppress people along class and racial lines.