The Secret History of Guns

[Os Cangaceiros]

The Panthers’ methods provoked an immediate backlash. The day of their statehouse protest, lawmakers said the incident would speed enactment of Mulford’s gun-control proposal. Mulford himself pledged to make his bill even tougher, and he added a provision barring anyone but law enforcement from bringing a loaded firearm into the state capitol. Republicans in California eagerly supported increased gun control.

Governor Reagan told reporters that afternoon that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.” He called guns a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan said he didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” The Mulford Act, he said, “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”

The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions, after the summer of 1967 brought what the historian Harvard Sitkoff called the “most intense and destructive wave of racial violence the nation had ever witnessed.” Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire.

A 1968 federal report blamed the unrest at least partly on the easy availability of guns. Because rioters used guns to keep law enforcement at bay, the report’s authors asserted that a recent spike in firearms sales and permit applications was “directly related to the actuality and prospect of civil disorders.” They drew “the firm conclusion that effective firearms controls are an essential contribution to domestic peace and tranquility.”

etc

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/8608/2/

(good article about a little-discussed aspect of "Jim Crow" legislation.)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"...the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers." - Engels

[Salyut]

Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire.

I actually had a class in June on American race riots - got to read a bunch of stuff on the 67 riots. That "sniper fire"? The cops/national guardsmen got spooked and shot at non-existent snipers...which usually turned out to be their fellow police/guardsmen.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I actually had a class in June on American race riots - got to read a bunch of stuff on the 67 riots. That "sniper fire"? The cops/national guardsmen got spooked and shot at non-existent snipers...which usually turned out to be their fellow police/guardsmen.

"Saturday night special" hysteria (also mentioned in that article) turned out to be mostly nonsense, too. As did "plastic guns", none of which actually exist.

None of those facts stopped increased state control, though.

[Tenka]

Arguments against gun control from the left are very well considered, unlike those from the right, let me start by saying.
But I still don't want to live in a world where most people are carrying a loaded gun most of the time. I just think that these things must be removed from the police force first of all in bourgeois society. Cops shoot too many people; they can oppress us proles well enough with truncheons, can't they?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I actually had a class in June on American race riots - got to read a bunch of stuff on the 67 riots. That "sniper fire"? The cops/national guardsmen got spooked and shot at non-existent snipers...which usually turned out to be their fellow police/guardsmen.Ever read about the Detroit rebellion of 1967? One of the largest in U.S. history. And of course it was much about class as anything (black and white folks were involved, and arrested; "black owned businesses" were crashed and emptied out--from wikipedia: 'Complaints about the price and quality of the commercial trade in inner-city retail stores was prevalent before the riot. ... In stores serving black neighborhoods, owners engaged in 'sharp and unethical credit practices' and were 'discourteous if not abusive to their customers.'; etc).

Plenty of shooting took place, and it wasn't only coming from the cop/National Guard/army side.

"2,498 rifles and 38 handguns were stolen from local stores." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Detroit_riot


Arguments against gun control from the left are very well considered, unlike those from the right, let me start by saying.
But I still don't want to live in a world where most people are carrying a loaded gun most of the time. I just think that these things must be removed from the police force first of all in bourgeois society. Cops shoot too many people; they can oppress us proles well enough with truncheons, can't they?Unfortunately, you don't get to decide what kind of tools the capitalist state uses to enforce the rule of capital. If the enforcers of the capitalist state need firearms, they'll use them.

The question for us is whether or not we'll get behind the drive to make it so that the capitalist state is the only force that possesses firearms.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Saturday night special" hysteria (also mentioned in that article) turned out to be mostly nonsense, too.And guess who that was aimed at? The whole criticism of supposed "Saturday Night Specials" was they were affordable for people who didn't have a lot of money! OH THE HORROR!

Of course the petty-bourgeois NAACP played into that bullshit, when it sued manufacturers for producing inexpensive guns several years ago.

Here's a gem:

"The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks." - Robert Sherrill, writer & prominent gun control advocate

[Tenka]

The question for us is whether or not we'll get behind the drive to make it so that the capitalist state is the only force that possesses firearms.
Obviously as the "revolutionary left", we cannot get behind such a drive; but deregulation is highly inadvisable when taking into consideration both mental illnesses and today's reactionary culture. I wouldn't even trust myself with a loaded gun, let alone some of the flag-waving patrioughts down here.

[The Douche]

Obviously as the "revolutionary left", we cannot get behind such a drive; but deregulation is highly inadvisable when taking into consideration both mental illnesses and today's reactionary culture. I wouldn't even trust myself with a loaded gun, let alone some of the flag-waving patrioughts down here.

You don't trust yourself with a gun?

Then why should you be trusted to contribute to the organization of production and distribution of wealth? A task far more dangerous and potentially disastrous than the ownership of a firearm.

[Tenka]

You don't trust yourself with a gun?

Then why should you be trusted to contribute to the organization of production and distribution of wealth? A task far more dangerous and potentially disastrous than the ownership of a firearm.
You know, people who have deep-seated aversions to firearms (or who are simply mentally unstable, as the case may be) are capable of working, right? Don't workers factor into our scheme?

[The Douche]

You know, people who have deep-seated aversions to firearms (or who are simply mentally unstable, as the case may be) are capable of working, right? Don't workers factor into our scheme?


The mental capacity it takes to not point a loaded gun at something you don't want to harm, seems pretty straight forward and simple to me. Now, surely there are people who don't have that mental capacity. But I would hope that such individuals would also not be permitted to decide how my town is fed.

Communism means that all of society will be responsible for the monumental task of distribution of wealth. If you can't be trusted with a relatively simple and straight forward device like a firearm, how will you be trusted with the fate of the world's population?


I don't care if you don't like/are scared of firearms. But to imply that they are just sort of inherently dangerous, so dangerous that you, a person of some significant level of intelligence, couldn't be trusted with one, begs the implication that you would certainly not be able to be trusted with the distribution of wealth and well, running the world.

[Tenka]

The mental capacity it takes to not point a loaded gun at something you don't want to harm, seems pretty straight forward and simple to me. Now, surely there are people who don't have that mental capacity. But I would hope that such individuals would also not be permitted to decide how my town is fed.
There goes any pretence of "workers control" then. Let's only have the most fit to lead us, eh? I can't say I disagree, but I wanted to be sure you know what you're implying.
Accidents happen, people get drunk and do stupid shit, and some have lapses in reasoning all on their own. You have to take that into account when considering every individual's right to firearm "ownership".


Communism means that all of society will be responsible for the monumental task of distribution of wealth. If you can't be trusted with a relatively simple and straight forward device like a firearm, how will you be trusted with the fate of the world's population?
No individual will be trusted with the fate of the world's population, so what are you on about here?
And you are correct to say that firearms are simple and straightforward: you load, cock and shoot, maybe someone dies. Not everyone's comfortable with lethal force so easily at their disposal.


I don't care if you don't like/are scared of firearms. But to imply that they are just sort of inherently dangerous, so dangerous that you, a person of some significant level of intelligence, couldn't be trusted with one, begs the implication that you would certainly not be able to be trusted with the distribution of wealth and well, running the world.
Again, no individual should be trusted with "the distribution of wealth and running the world", as you seem to suggest. And firearms ARE inherently dangerous: they're intended to kill things, living things which includes people, so they are not something to be taken lightly.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Do you cut your food with a knife? Drive a vehicle? Both are lethal if used as weapons.

[Tenka]

Do you cut your food with a knife? Drive a vehicle? Both are lethal if used as weapons.
You can kill someone from a greater distance and with more ease with a gun than with a knife. An honest comparison cannot be made. Knives also have a wider range of applications as a tool than guns do.
FYI, I do cut my food with a knife, but I can't drive.

late edit:
It's pretty clear to all that the only applications of firearms are killing, crippling and threatening. In the capable hands of a revolutionary proletariat they are definitely desirable; in the hands of the bourgeois state, as well as the mentally unstable, drunkards, and common reactionary bigots, they are not.
ITT: complex issue

[The Douche]

Let's only have the most fit to lead us, eh? I can't say I disagree, but I wanted to be sure you know what you're implying.

Yes, only people who are mentally capable of those decisions should be making them. People with severe mental disabilities should not be deciding how the world is fed. That's not able-ist, I am not saying they are less of a person than others, I'm saying that is a task they are not qualified for.


You have to take that into account when considering every individual's right to firearm "ownership".

Yeah and the "ownership" of fists...


No individual will be trusted with the fate of the world's population, so what are you on about here?

You seem to be arguing that the average worker should not/ought not to be trusted with ownership of private firearms. Individuals, collectively, will be trusted with the fate of the world's population. They will decide how to produce and distribute wealth, if it is done in an immature or irresponsible or ignorant manner then hundreds of thousands of people can die.


you load, cock and shoot, maybe someone dies.

:lol: What an absurd assertion.


And firearms ARE inherently dangerous

In 2002 the following things killed more people in the US than guns (and by the way gun death includes those killed by the police, and those killed by self-defense shooters):

heart disease
malignant Neoplasms
chronic Lower Resperitory Disease
diabetes
the flu and pneumonia
alzheimers
cars/motor vehicles
renal failure
septicemia



Lots of things are dangerous, luckily firearms are under the control of the person handling them (hence making them not inherently dangerous, only dangerous if used in a dangerous capacity).

[The Douche]

You can kill someone from a greater distance and with more ease with a gun than with a knife. An honest comparison cannot be made. Knives also have a wider range of applications as a tool than guns do.
FYI, I do cut my food with a knife, but I can't drive.

late edit:
It's pretty clear to all that the only applications of firearms are killing, crippling and threatening. In the capable hands of a revolutionary proletariat they are definitely desirable; in the hands of the bourgeois state, as well as the mentally unstable, drunkards, and common reactionary bigots, they are not.
ITT: complex issue

I never used any gun I own to kill anybody, or cripple anybody. I have on occasion used them to threaten somebody because my safety was at risk.

Your assertion is a clean-cut lie.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

It's pretty clear to all that the only applications of firearms are killing, crippling and threatening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

[gendoikari]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

what this dude says. Besides try to ban firearms I dare you.

[Tenka]

I never used any gun I own to kill anybody, or cripple anybody. I have on occasion used them to threaten somebody because my safety was at risk.

Your assertion is a clean-cut lie.
It is not a lie. You admitted to having used a firearm to threaten somebody. The reasoning doesn't change the fact.

NHIA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sportSome have made a sport of putting live animals in their trousers, competing for the longest time endured. Your point?

cmoney:

:lol: What an absurd assertion.Oh yes, I forgot the part where you aim.

Stop making inane comparisons, also.
For the record, I am not an advocate of totally banning firearms (as I have indicated in above posts, where they were probably ignored).

[The Douche]

It is not a lie. You admitted to having used a firearm to threaten somebody. The reasoning doesn't change the fact.

My father has owned guns for nearly 50 years, and has never used one for any of the reasons you asserted.

I owned guns for over 10 years before I had to use one to defend myself.

You are a liar.



Oh yes, I forgot the part where you aim.

Your assertion was that every time a weapon is discharged it is some sort of accepted risk that an individual might be shot. That is why the assertion is absurd.


Stop making inane comparisons, also.

What inane comparisons have I made? Certainly my statements (based in statistical fact by the way, I will supply the data if you like) about firearm deaths are relevant when you claim that every time a gun goes off somebody is liable to be injured/killed. I was simply making you aware of the fact that firearm death is lower than a number of other death causes, which obviously makes you mad, because you want to claim that firearms are horrible death machines that kill people everytime they see the light of day, and the facts don't mesh with your view.

You however have made a number of inane assertions.

[Obs]

It's pretty clear to all that the only application of firearms are killing, crippling and threatening. In the capable hands of a revolutionary proletariat they are definitely desirable; in the hands of the bourgeois state, as well as the mentally unstable, drunkards, and common reactionary bigots, they are not.

No one here is arguing for giving the bourgeois state weapons, but seeing as it already has them, it makes sense to try and arm workers as well. Also fuck you for implying I couldn't be trusted with a firearm