Guns & the Left in America

[Vostok17]

What constitutes the Left in America is perceived by most of the non-left political spectrum as being hostile to gun ownership and rights.

Would it benefit the Left to be more visibly supportive of firearms?

Should we on the Left embrace gun ownership to distinguish us from Liberals, to take the issue away from the right to bludgeon us with and to show that we are fighters who, if not respected, must be to some degree feared?

[blake 3:17]

No. Yuck. I hate guns.

If guns were so great, the US would be the first socialist country.

[BIXX]

I personally like guns.

However, I don't believe anyone should have to "embrace gun ownership" simply to gain support. To me that sounds like the beginning of the slippery slope (if not already down that slope) of lying simply to get support rather than fighting for freedom.

However, with any intelligent gun debate...
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
I think this is a good source.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

The reason the modern American Left is perceived as anti-gun is largely due to the fact that the people who are pro-gun in America are, to be quite frank, some of the most loathsome human beings to walk the planet. They are rage-dripping right-wing nutjobs who fetishize guns the way that pyromaniacs fetishize burning shit.

There's also the fact that the NRA, the primary 2nd Amendment-related organization in the country, are completely in the pocket of gun manufacturers who actively work for lesser gun restrictions so that the very people who shouldn't have guns are able to get guns.

Personally, I have no problems with guns or gun ownership, and of course being a revolutionary socialist I believe the working class should be armed in order to defend itself.

On the other hand, I REALLY REALLY FUCKING HATE THE NRA!!!

It's a conundrum.:(

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I hunt so fuck you if you support gun bans. I'm okay with background checks and stuff though. But I don't think nonviolent and non-sex-offending felons should be banned from owning guns... It's stupid easy to get a felony from shoplifting or property damage.


[edit]

Plus, you know, blaming the specter of 'guns' (oooh scary) for gun violence completely fails to analyze the very real causes of violent behavior that will manifest in other ways in the absence of guns


I grew up around guns and learned safe handling from a very young age, so all this weird fear of guns from people is really perplexing to me. They're tools. I can go beat someone's skull in with a wrench, but I won't, because I'm not crazy and I'm not violent, if people starting doing that more often, would you support banning wrenches or would you ask why the hell it's happening ... ?

[DasFapital]

Ironically, some of the first modern gun control legislation in the US was pushed through by conservative politicians who were trying to disarm the Black Panthers.

[Brutus]

*"The arming of the whole proletariat with rifles, guns, and ammunition should be carried out at once [and] the workers must ... organize themselves into an independent guard, with their own chiefs and general staff. ... [The aim is] that the bourgeois democratic Government not only immediately loses all backing among the workers, but from the commencement finds itself under the supervision and threats of authorities behind whom stands the entire mass of the working class. ...As soon as the new Government is established they will commence to fight the workers. *In order that this party (i.e., the democrats) whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the first hour of victory, should be frustrated in its nefarious work, it is necessary to organize and arm the proletariat." - Karl Marx, Address to the Communist League (1850)

[Nevsky]

Who are these "liberals" everyone is talking about when it comes to gun control? When the conservative is pissed off about people wanting to ban guns, he calls them "liberals". The bizarre thing is that gun loving communists use the same absurd terminology in this case. Liberals (not phantasy "liberals" everyone is upset about) support free gunownership. Liberalism is all about freedom of having private property and guns are a number one example for liberal mentality. If I'd defend any sort of private property in these forums, everyone would go nuts, except for the holy guns, they need to stay private property at any cost! Because you win the revolution with your private handguns!!!

[Brutus]

I'm pretty sure guns would be personal property, comrade.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly I don't think we really have a horse in this race. I would argue that it's not that benificial to agitate for or against gun-control in the abstract. First, "arming the proletariet" doesn't mean anything in the contemporary US. Our concern should be just in trying to help workers in struggle and to develop class consiousness and their own power. At some point, then the question of arms may come up if workers are able to begin to organize more militantly. A larger working class movement would probably have to deal with vigilante cops, fascists, and armed thugs (not to mention possibly with police and national guard) long before an actual revolution, so it will be an issue then, but since I do not see some kind of massive gun-ban happening in the US anytime in the forseeable future, I don't think there is much to be gained in orienting around gun-rights unless there is some specific thing where workers or oppressed people are obviously being politically targeted for repression from gun-laws.


Ironically, some of the first modern gun control legislation in the US was pushed through by conservative politicians who were trying to disarm the Black Panthers.

Yeah, when Ronald Regan supported gun control.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Who are these "liberals" everyone is talking about when it comes to gun control? When the conservative is pissed off about people wanting to ban guns, he calls them "liberals". The bizarre thing is that gun loving communists use the same absurd terminology in this case. Liberals (not phantasy "liberals" everyone is upset about) support free gunownership. Liberalism is all about freedom of having private property and guns are a number one example for liberal mentality. If I'd defend any sort of private property in these forums, everyone would go nuts, except for the holy guns, they need to stay private property at any cost! Because you win the revolution with your private handguns!!!

As comrade Odysseus points out, weapons are personal, not private property. And while individual gun ownership is not exactly revolutionary, bans on various sorts of weapons make the arming of a workers' militia more difficult. But that's besides the point. We communists are, in general, against the bourgeois state moralistically regulating what personal property people have - it doesn't matter if the state is trying to ban pistols, rifles, "immoral" books, cognac, cannabis, or hamburgers.

[The Douche]

Nobody needs to "embrace" anything. Guns are a tool, people will use them when they need to. Obviously, anybody who promotes themselves as a communist should oppose the consolidation of arms in the hands of the bourgeoisie where such steps have not been taken, but they should do so in a principled manner.

[Desy]

No. Yuck. I hate guns.

If guns were so great, the US would be the first socialist country.

What?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Frankly I don't think we really have a horse in this race. I would argue that it's not that benificial to agitate for or against gun-control in the abstract. First, "arming the proletariet" doesn't mean anything in the contemporary US. Our concern should be just in trying to help workers in struggle and to develop class consiousness and their own power. At some point, then the question of arms may come up if workers are able to begin to organize more militantly. A larger working class movement would probably have to deal with vigilante cops, fascists, and armed thugs (not to mention possibly with police and national guard) long before an actual revolution, so it will be an issue then, but since I do not see some kind of massive gun-ban happening in the US anytime in the forseeable future, I don't think there is much to be gained in orienting around gun-rights unless there is some specific thing where workers or oppressed people are obviously being politically targeted for repression from gun-laws.



Yeah, when Ronald Regan supported gun control.
We do have a horse in this race, comrade. Communists oppose gun control because it seeks to provide a monopoly of weapons for the bourgeoisie. It is absolutely true that gun control laws were first passed in response to armed black leftists walking around. That is precisely the point. So while I might agree that this is not a priority propaganda or agitational issue, you should take a clear position. However, that would not be very comfortable for the ISO and the milieu in which it works.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Who are these "liberals" everyone is talking about when it comes to gun control? When the conservative is pissed off about people wanting to ban guns, he calls them "liberals". The bizarre thing is that gun loving communists use the same absurd terminology in this case. Liberals (not phantasy "liberals" everyone is upset about) support free gunownership. Liberalism is all about freedom of having private property and guns are a number one example for liberal mentality. If I'd defend any sort of private property in these forums, everyone would go nuts, except for the holy guns, they need to stay private property at any cost! Because you win the revolution with your private handguns!!!
If you want to be so damn pedantic, in the US 'liberal' is slang for someone who is ostensibly center-left

[Jimmie Higgins]

We do have a horse in this race, comrade. Communists oppose gun control because it seeks to provide a monopoly of weapons for the bourgeoisie. It is absolutely true that gun control laws were first passed in response to armed black leftists walking around. That is precisely the point. So while I might agree that this is not a priority propaganda or agitational issue, you should take a clear position. However, that would not be very comfortable for the ISO and the milieu in which it works.So you are saying that you basically agree, but then also wanted to add a non-sequitor sect-jab?

What milieu is that? The milieu of workers in Oakland, the milieu of the anti-police activists where we agitated around things like "Disarm/Disband the police"? Yes, this is why we're always relating to these small coalitions rather than the dozens of "Silence the Violence" and gun-turn-in days sponsored by NGOs:rolleyes:.

What miliue is fighing against gun control from the needs of working class self-defense right now? None. The debate today is either liberal forces (against guns) or conservative (for guns, but only for white suburbanites). We don't have a horse in that race.

So you want the ISO to make a priority of starting a campaign around armed self-defense of a working class movement that doesn't really exist at the moment? And yet you agree that this shouldn't be a priority right now. So what exactly is your point?

http://socialistworker.org/2013/01/17/sticking-to-their-glocks


LEFTISTS LIKE myself traditionally oppose gun control because, even though we have much more in common with people who oppose gun violence than those who seem to celebrate it, it nevertheless doesn't seem like a great idea to leave all the guns in the hands of the state--and besides, we really do believe in all that right to self-defense stuff the NRA makes such a mockery of.

...

Just last month, in fact, some wing nut senator introduced the "Save Our Schools Act" (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-sen-boxer-national-guard-schools-20121219,0,7530900.story) to deploy the National Guard to schools.

Oh wait, that was no fringe Tea Partier. It was Barbara Boxer, liberal Democrat of California, proposing to send troops trained for night raids in Kandahar to kick in lockers in Kansas. So why hasn't Boxer been receiving a fraction of the scorn progressives have been dumping on the NRA?
One reason is the usual partisan hypocrisy of those whose own definitions of Good Guys and Bad Guys are based solely on the capital D or R next to their names.

More important, however, is the fact that many progressives who support limits on guns change their tune completely if those guns are carried by soldiers, police officers or any government agency allegedly serving the public good. At a time when American society has never been more militarized and patrolled, this leaves a gaping hole in the national discussion of weapons and violence.


Supporting self-defense by the oppressed and opposing the violence of the oppressors, seems like a clear position to me in terms of violence in society.

[blake 3:17]

It's stupid ultra leftism to think more people owning more guns will lead to workers militias... Only way that's going to happen in the US is if Pinkertons start shooting union activists. Is that to be promoted?

I did subscribe to the Ortho Trot line on gun control, but no, I want fewer guns. I did make a slightly noise break with the social democrats here on the issue of mandatory minimums for 'gun related crimes' because it was racist bullshit.

For any revolution to succeed the revolutionary forces will have to win considerable support from sections of the police and military, who --hopefully?-- actually know how to use them.


From wikipedia's entry on Gun violence in the US:


The US Department of Justice reports that approximately 60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that, on average, one child died every three days in accidental incidents in the United States from 2000 to 2005.


As far as I know, I only know person shot to death outside of war situations. She was an amazing artist and anarchist activist, who'd returned to New Orleans after Katrina, with her husband and child, to do post-Katrina community building. She was shot in the face and killed, and her husband was shot, and survived. And it was some scavenger looking for $50. Fuck that.

[The Douche]

I want fewer guns

You don't have to have any, if you don't want.;)

[ed miliband]

It's stupid ultra leftism to think more people owning more guns will lead to workers militias... Only way that's going to happen in the US is if Pinkertons start shooting union activists. Is that to be promoted?

that's not a position of the ultraleft at all, though.

[KarlLeft]

Frankly I don't think we really have a horse in this race. I would argue that it's not that benificial to agitate for or against gun-control in the abstract. First, "arming the proletariet" doesn't mean anything in the contemporary US. Our concern should be just in trying to help workers in struggle and to develop class consiousness and their own power. At some point, then the question of arms may come up if workers are able to begin to organize more militantly. A larger working class movement would probably have to deal with vigilante cops, fascists, and armed thugs (not to mention possibly with police and national guard) long before an actual revolution, so it will be an issue then, but since I do not see some kind of massive gun-ban happening in the US anytime in the forseeable future, I don't think there is much to be gained in orienting around gun-rights unless there is some specific thing where workers or oppressed people are obviously being politically targeted for repression from gun-laws.


I concur. It's way too early to get involved in what, at this point, is a conflict between right-wing gun fetishists and liberals whose delicate sensibilities are offended by highly publicized acts of violence and feel that they must "do something".

By the time the working class is ready to get militant, that time will probably have been preceded by a period of increasingly strict weapon control legislation and armed conflict will most likely be undertaken with weapons that are illegally obtained anyway. I don't think this is our fight.

[blake 3:17]

that's not a position of the ultraleft at all, though.

It's an ultra left position. I have no idea what The Ultraleft thinks at night, even though I'm part of it.

[NGNM85]

It's an ultra left position. I have no idea what The Ultraleft thinks at night, even though I'm part of it.

I can't recall ever meeting anyone who self-identified as an; 'ultra-left.' Are you using it in the same context as Lenin, in Left-wing Communism, or some other context?

[blake 3:17]

I can't recall ever meeting anyone who self-identified as an; 'ultra-left.' Are you using it in the same context as Lenin, in Left-wing Communism, or some other context?


I know lots of people who identify as ultra left. I guess I half see myself that way.

A now deceased comrade called the current we were in 'the right wing of the ultra left'. In certain circles I'd be seen as some kind of liberal for trying to work with unions or more mainstream groups. In my union work, I was always getting in shit from the brass for this and that. Their problem was that it was only the radicals that actually did any of the real work. During the brief period I did work in our social democratic party I did a really big no no -- I told supporters of other parties how they could vote!

[BIXX]

I have my misgivings about this site. The site owner is a climate change denialist, and (I think) an evolution denialist.

I honestly don't know about these two things and for all I know they could be true. I still believe the facts that are on that site are accurate and I agree with the analysis it contains, however, I am disappointed about the evolution denial/ climate change denialism.

tl;dr- whatever his other shitty stances may be, I agree with the gun control stuff.

[CriticalJames]

The gun debate is really a distraction more than anything.
It's an issue which is played on by mainstream parties to get votes
and win elections. The role of guns and weaponry in the post-war
United States is really insignificant, however we need to remember
that this issue is more cultural than political.

There are thousands of families in the Southern US who see gun
ownership as a way of making themselves feel safer and more
protected. I don't think it would be very democratic to decide
to uproot all of these families of this sense of security because
this relatively small issue.

Instead of debating about real issues like corporate power and
the monopolization of markets by powerful individuals, we seem to
stuck on this seesaw of arguing over things like gay marriage and
gun laws. People are quite literally starving and it's not right to
distract people from issues like this using a few murder cases.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I'm fixing to do something you guys are going to hate me for....I'm gonna link to the Reason website, but let me explain myself first......

Peter Bagge, the american cartoonist, published this autobiographical comic strip (http://reason.com/archives/2007/08/16/the-right-to-own-a-bazooka) in Reason magazine a few years ago (right around the time of the VTech massacre) about the gun issue here in America, from the right 'libertarian' perspective. It brings up such subjects as the 2nd Amendment, the protectionist economics of American gun manufacturers, the US v. Miller court case that established legal precedents for gun control, and the obviously racialist background of early gun control laws against American Indians and black freedmen. It also brings up the 'Bonus Army' of 1932....an unprecedented act of civil disobedience that scared the living shit out of the ruling class....scared them so badly that its been quietly swept under the rug of history ever since. (Oh, and did I mention that, during that act of civil disobedience, the National Guard actually SHOT AND KILLED dozens of American WWI veterans?).

Obviously this is all from a right-wing American 'libertarian', but it is quite informative, and many of his points are valid, even if you loathe his bourgeoisie politics.

Just....you know....avoid the comments section.

......You don't want to read the comments section.

[Orange Juche]

Yes, because... and no, because... kind of limits some of us to not being able to answer the question at all.

[blake 3:17]

Peter Bagge is great. Thanks!

[Devrim]

I know lots of people who identify as ultra left. I guess I half see myself that way.

People in North America might have very different views on this, but having read many of your posts on here over the years by European standards, you are no where near the ultra-left.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It's stupid ultra leftism to think more people owning more guns will lead to workers militias... Only way that's going to happen in the US is if Pinkertons start shooting union activists. Is that to be promoted?

No, of course not. That said, if such incidents happen, would it not be better for the workers to be able to respond, to an extent at least? And other situations might lead to the formation of workers militias or at least self-defense groups - the racism in the inner cities and so on. But that's neither here nor there. Perhaps, in such situations, untraceable illegal weapons are preferable.

This, however, does not mean that communists should support the bourgeois state in its attempts to suppress personal ownership of weapons (handguns, since realistically few people can afford heavy machine guns and also know how to use them without shooting their own nads off).


I did subscribe to the Ortho Trot line on gun control, but no, I want fewer guns. I did make a slightly noise break with the social democrats here on the issue of mandatory minimums for 'gun related crimes' because it was racist bullshit.

For any revolution to succeed the revolutionary forces will have to win considerable support from sections of the police and military, who --hopefully?-- actually know how to use them.

As far as I know, I only know person shot to death outside of war situations. She was an amazing artist and anarchist activist, who'd returned to New Orleans after Katrina, with her husband and child, to do post-Katrina community building. She was shot in the face and killed, and her husband was shot, and survived. And it was some scavenger looking for $50. Fuck that.

I am sorry to hear that. And I am not simply saying that because it's the polite thing to do; one of my friends committed suicide using her father's handgun. But tragic situations such as this should not make us forget the underlying issue - and in any case, my friend would not be any better if she had downed a bottle of sleeping pills, and your friend would not be any better if she was killed with a knife or a brick. And surely, no one thinks knives should be banned, or electrical sockets, or any of the million things that can kill you? I think educating people on gun safety is a better approach - as for crime, again, in most cases, whether your assailant has a gun or a knife is irrelevant, unfortunately.

[Tolstoy]

Look I get the "if were going to have a revolution were going to need guns" argument and it makes sense except for one fatal flaw:Its the Tea Partiers and Neo Fascists who buy the most guns! Most Communists ive met cannot afford guns or would have no interest in them. I support gun control and laws against concealed carry because I find it perfectly possible that a Tea Partier could be driving on the wrong side of town and shoot a black man walking towards his car because he believes the man intends to steal his vehicle.

[Desy]

Look I get the "if were going to have a revolution were going to need guns" argument and it makes sense except for one fatal flaw:Its the Tea Partiers and Neo Fascists who buy the most guns! Most Communists ive met cannot afford guns or would have no interest in them. I support gun control and laws against concealed carry because I find it perfectly possible that a Tea Partier could be driving on the wrong side of town and shoot a black man walking towards his car because he believes the man intends to steal his vehicle.

Not sure if you're a troll, or a liberal.

[baz]

was taught to shoot as a child and i own guns. will teach my children to shoot when the time comes.

my european wife doesn't quite "get" the gun culture here in the us though lol

[Tolstoy]

Not sure if you're a troll, or a liberal.


No, its simply practicality. In a revolution where its us against the radical right, it will be the hicks with the AR-15s

[blake 3:17]

People in North America might have very different views on this, but having read many of your posts on here over the years by European standards, you are no where near the ultra-left.

Devrim

By your standards I hope to be a milk toast liberal.

[ed miliband]

I can't recall ever meeting anyone who self-identified as an; 'ultra-left.' Are you using it in the same context as Lenin, in Left-wing Communism, or some other context?

well, they do, though quite why blake does i'm not sure. android posted this elsewhere, and i think it's helpful in understanding what / who the "ultraleft" is / are other than a frequently misused term of abuse:



paleo ultra-left: that currents that developed within various national sections of the Comintern against its rightward trajectory. The most well being the Italian, German-Dutch, Russian and British lefts.

meso ultra-left: essentially those currents that emerged in the period after WW2 that broke with Trotskyism (Jamesians, Marxist-Humanists, SouB and Solidarity (UK)) or developed to its left without locating themselves within the communist left (Situationists)

neo ultra-left: the political and theoretical developments that occurred in the aftermath - principally in France - whereby writers and groups coming from the historical communist left (paleo ultra left) tradition developed a critique of that tradition. Present day examples of this trend are in different ways - Gilles Dauve, Theorie Communiste, Aufheben, Endnotes etc.


now, going back to the original point of contention: nobody associated with the historical ultraleft, or its modern descendants, argue that "people owning more guns will lead to workers militias". that's pure codswallop.

[blake 3:17]

I am sorry to hear that. And I am not simply saying that because it's the polite thing to do; one of my friends committed suicide using her father's handgun. But tragic situations such as this should not make us forget the underlying issue - and in any case, my friend would not be any better if she had downed a bottle of sleeping pills, and your friend would not be any better if she was killed with a knife or a brick. And surely, no one thinks knives should be banned, or electrical sockets, or any of the million things that can kill you? I think educating people on gun safety is a better approach - as for crime, again, in most cases, whether your assailant has a gun or a knife is irrelevant, unfortunately.

No Helen's death was a personal tragedy, but part of a social tragedy. The failure of American society, which instead of looking for collective cooperative solutions to common problems seeks individualistic ones.

Hurricanes that destroyed large parts of the US barely affected Cuba for two reasons. Basic preparedness and property relations. Cubans don't loot.

I think the psychology of gun culture in the US really promotes a vicious individualism which has its own fascist(?) aesthetic to it. Pound magazine did a really great exploration of gun culture a few years back: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/800650.Enter_the_Babylon_System

[Desy]

No, its simply practicality. In a revolution where its us against the radical right, it will be the hicks with the AR-15s

What do you think is worse? Your stereotype of hicks, or your liberal bias to guns? I have a few guns. I don't go around scared that the black community is going to steal my juice box, and I live in a hick state. I have to talk to a lot of country boys at work. I'm more scared of urban liberals that shit their pants at the site of any firearm.

[KarlLeft]

No, its simply practicality. In a revolution where its us against the radical right, it will be the hicks with the AR-15s

Know Your Enemy. If the radical right hicks have AR-15s then we also must arm with AR-15s... or better. They're not going to disarm just because some of us may have a distate for guns.

[CognitiveDissident]

It's a good wedge issue to split the populist right. In the US, a lot of people have no conception of an actual radical left. Following the lead of Fox News, they think that Obama is a "left wing socialist." Talking about firearms ownership is often a good way to bridge the gap with populists who may be more open to leftist ideas than they realize.

[BIXX]

No, its simply practicality. In a revolution where its us against the radical right, it will be the hicks with the AR-15s

Not if we arm ourselves with AR-15s.

Also shut up. There is so much wrong with this, specifically your stereotype of hicks as gun toting radical right wingers.

Let me use a little practicality: if we want a revolution, and we are not armed, we carry it out... Peacefully? By doing what exactly? Standing in the streets chanting? Not saying that standing in the street chanting doesn't have it's place, but it is not a revolutionary act. And if we aren't armed, and we try to carry out a violent revolution, how the hell are we gonna win if we refuse to arm ourselves?

I think a good way to think about it is this: if you are in a world where revolution is imminent, but the revolutionaries are being killed on the daily cause they have no way to defend themselves, are you really gonna go and line up to be shot because you're trying to fight without arming yourself? Well, not me, I'm gonna be the guy grabbing a gun cause I like to live, and unlike what you seem to want, I want a successful revolution.

[Vostok17]

It's a good wedge issue to split the populist right. In the US, a lot of people have no conception of an actual radical left. Following the lead of Fox News, they think that Obama is a "left wing socialist." Talking about firearms ownership is often a good way to bridge the gap with populists who may be more open to leftist ideas than they realize.

You state this well and make the point as to why I posited this poll question in the first place.

Indeed, if any thought at all is given to "the left" in America, we are tagged as followers of Lennon, but not Lenin. We are indistinguishable from Liberals to most people.

[G4b3n]

I would say yes, but for none of the reasons listed.
The bourgeois state should not exert that sort of authority over working people.

[G4b3n]

Repost, I apologize, I was have some technical errors.

[G4b3n]

Repost, I apologize, I was have some technical errors.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No Helen's death was a personal tragedy, but part of a social tragedy. The failure of American society, which instead of looking for collective cooperative solutions to common problems seeks individualistic ones.

Hurricanes that destroyed large parts of the US barely affected Cuba for two reasons. Basic preparedness and property relations. Cubans don't loot.

Alright, but surely, this is due to the changed relations of production in Cuba, not "collectivism"? The American culture of the Fifties seems quite "collectivist" to me - violently, conservatively, hierarchically collectivist but collectivist still - but violent crime was still a major problem due to the economic factors.

So these factors need to be addressed - through the social revolution, of course, but also through programmes that would alleviate some of the chronic poverty and structural unemployment, at least for a period (since capitalism can not escape cyclic crises). I am not sure what banning firearms would accomplish; looters can use weapons like knives and so on - or they could use illegaly obtained firearms.


I think the psychology of gun culture in the US really promotes a vicious individualism which has its own fascist(?) aesthetic to it. Pound magazine did a really great exploration of gun culture a few years back: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/800650.Enter_the_Babylon_System

Perhaps; but is gun culture something the state should be concerned with? I think the state should be minimally involved in cultural matters, to be honest, particularly the bourgeois state.