Statesian here. There are a CRAPTON of mass shootings here. If we do nothing about guns, the shootings will still happen. What is the leftist answer for reducing mass shootings without disarming the proletariat?

75 points

cracking down on the right-wing. seriously. the vast majority of US mass shootings that i can remember are done by violent white supremacists and fascists. the right is dangerous and will always use extreme and horrific violence to achieve their ways. so the leftist answer would be to suppress the activities and organizing of fascists heavily.

permalink
report
reply
35 points

This. The circulation of fascist propaganda in particular must be curtailed and cracked down on to the greatest possible extent. Only a proletarian state can do this since a bourgeois state knowingly tolerates and cultivates fascism as a weapon against the working class and working class unity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This… Only a proletarian state can do this…

Sounds like not “This” at all? You don’t agree with him. He’s suggesting fixing it somehow within the current system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

I didn’t read SU25 as saying that it could happen under the current state, just that that’s the action that would need to be taken.

Edit - sorry, just realized this is an old thread. Feel free to ignore!

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

The issue is mass shootings have become a part of American culture. Americans not only like killing brown people in other countries, but also themselves. I’m obviously overgeneralizing but it does hold true to at least some degree. The only real solution is a mass reeducation of Americans and that can only happen once the US itself is thrown into the dustbin of history.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

I mean yeah, mass murder has been part of the cultural psyche since the beginning. Once genocide and lynching fell out of fashion, the violence simply turned inward. You can see the parallels with relationship between liberalism and fascism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points
  • Invest more in mental health programs, including efforts to destigmatize therapy.
  • Teach critical thinking skills in school to give younger generations the tools to be more likely to find an alternative to violence.
  • Encourage more in-person social events and public spaces. It’s too easy to dehumanize these days.
permalink
report
reply
12 points

I’ve been thinking about your third bullet point a lot lately. I genuinely think that the lack of irl social interaction these days is far more pernicious than anyone wants to acknowledge. I don’t think it’s social media and technology that are the problem, rather, the LACK of third places and irl social interaction is the problem, if that makes sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I went through online learning back in 2020 until early 2022 (Although this was probably justified due to the pandemic) and I can confirm that the lack of irl interaction (Combined with being overworked with constant online activities, where I had to work even during weekends to submit them on time) during online learning is what caused me so many problems and is what made me realize how shitty the status quo is, and that eventually radicalized me into becoming a ML, even if there were some bumps on the road. (although I overcame them by reading more theory)

While I still hold a personal grudge against the internet and (mainstream) social media, and have a desire to keep usage of it to a minimum, I agree that the technology itself isn’t the problem. It is how it is used under Capitalism which is the problem. The internet has so much potential to connect and unite people for the better, but under Capitalism it isolates and alienates people. The internet could have been (and still could be) a great place to express human creativity and solidarity, but Capitalism has turned it into yet another place for consumerism and profit for the sake of profit, not to mention how corporations gather your online data and sell it.

permalink
report
parent
reply

There should be a distinction drawn between how the proletariat should be armed and how right-wingers want to be armed. The right in America uses guns as toys and an intimidation tactic against the poor. They’re armed out of hatred and only care about their own guns, or perhaps that white people stay armed. American gun ownership, especially the 2A people, is an artifact from frontier justice, from slave catchers, lynching, all of that. It’s disorganized, individualized, and fully absorbed within the capitalist framework.

The proletariat being armed implies for a purpose other than standard American gun ownership. We want liberation, we want to fight racism. So in that sense, gun ownership should be organized. Who commits mass shootings? Mostly disaffected white people who purchase a gun when they shouldn’t have them.

I’d actually like to point to Switzerland’s model of gun ownership. I know they’re capitalist and imperialist and everything, but the gun ownership model is still interesting to me. You have to be involved in a militia there to have a gun. Guns and ammo belong to depots, so they’re communally owned. You have to do regular training and drills to have access as well. So to have a gun you have to be part of something, you need training on how to use it, you need to be focused on using it for a specific purpose.

That’s how the proletariat should be armed, in an organized way. We shouldn’t be scared of restricting gun ownership based on purpose. They’re not toys and shouldn’t be bought and sold like toys. American gun culture is severely broken and downright frightening. It doesn’t represent an armed working class at all. It’s a disorganized mass, it’s the working class pointing guns at themselves. Combined with a lack of social purpose it’s like you said, a recipe for mass shootings.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Also the Swiss only get access to rifles and such from the militia right? Not exactly the kind of weapon you can hide under your shirt.

permalink
report
parent
reply

A bolt action rifle is the only one you can get without an acquisition permit, but you still need a background check. Swiss people can request things like pistols but they need to have a reason unless that reason is hunting, sport shooting, or collecting (like a museum). And I’m pretty sure they have to prove that it’s one of those three things. If the reason is just something like “self-defense” I think that goes through several bureaucratic layers to get issued.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points
*

Red flag laws for extreme behavior (domestic abusers, those making active, credible, and targeted threats against themselves or others), allowing psychiatrists or psychologists to place holds on a persons ability to own guns, cracking down on straw purchases especially for known “under the table” gun distributors.

Mandating that firearms be purchased with either a gun safe or trigger lock as to prevent accidental discharge and to keep them out of the hands of children.

Mandating first time gun owners take a short class in proper gun storage, handling, cleaning, and safety.

All of these things can be reasonably done without disarming the proletariat and they would reduce the gun death statistic SIGNIFICANTLY. The disarming of the suicidal or those in psychological distress along with domestic abusers would cut the amount of guns deaths by nearly 2/3rds.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

In general, I would also support additional barriers for firearm ownership under the age of 25. Not make it illegal persay, but give some extra hoops to jump through.

Most of these mass shooters are men in their early twenties, where the decision-making part of the brain is not fully developed and most are in a very vulnerable transition stage in life.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Ehhhh I’m not sure about this one either. If a person can sign up for the military at 18, own a car, vote, sign legal contracts, etc, or buy alcohol and tobacco at 21, then limiting firearms to 25 seem infantilizing and misguided.

It’s a similar argument that a lot of right wingers use to say “raise the voting age”.

Also the brain development is a decent point, but its a lot more overblown then people make it out to be. 25 is actually the general average as people can be done at 22 or need until 27, and the level of development relies more on life experience and education then it does on some brain wiring.

If a person is hellbent on killing people like a mass shooter, then they will use anything they can get their hands on, hence why they’ve used cars before for example. Limiting everyone based off of a handful of the most deranged people is a bad idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Fair points. I didn’t say I supported banning young people from firearms though, but would entertain giving them extra scrutiny depending on the legislation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Ehhhh I’m not sure about this one either. If a person can sign up for the military at 18,

Well… to add some context to this, if you’re in the military you don’t walk around every day with a weapon/ammo. You are not allowed to keep personal firearms on your person while one duty or on post without a really REALLY good reason. You are not allowed to store privately owned firearms in your barracks or on post housing (and probably off post housing too but you’d have to piss off all sorts of people to get them to comb through your house looking for stuff to gig you on). So its not that far out there.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Guns for Leftists

!firearms@lemmygrad.ml

Create post

For sharing and discussing about firearms.

Rules;

  • Follow site rules
  • No Anti-Gun Rhetoric
  • No Conservative memes

Community stats

  • 1

    Monthly active users

  • 75

    Posts

  • 154

    Comments