Liberals pretending to be leftists
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
nraila.org
nraila.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
...
It's a good idea to open rdw-critical threads if he's about to announce leftypol this month, but be prepared for liberals and newfags.
Gun violence in America is a good thing because it helps people who would otherwise not care to feel the impacts of poverty. By getting rid of guns you are simply making it easier for the bourgeoisie to ignore the plight of the poor.
...
Not really. I've never heard anyone from the mainstream tie mass shootings to poverty. Shit, in America if they did tie it to poverty it would just be to hate on poormies for making life hard for rich people.
Deaths resulting from mass shootings are an insignificant statistic. I think more people kill themselves with firearms then die in mass shootings each year.
yukaza has a huge amount of control.
but atleast theres less gun deaths.
This is a good point. Pro-gun activists have long been pointing out how many other causes of death are more common than gun deaths (all gun deaths, not just mass shootings) as well.
...
What did I miss?
Also, I like that webm.
Holla Forums users pooled money and sponsored an episode of Economic Update.
On top of this, they are being grossly dishonest about how things work in Japan.
Organized crime doesn't work like in the US where gangbangers operate discreetly in shitty areas that the fatass speeding ticket dispensers don't want to patrol. Yakuza openly function in a legal gray area where it's hard for the government to prosecute them without breaking its own rules; they are far more concerned with maintaining social influence instead of working around it. They even help out after disasters like Fukushima for this sake. Guns are sometimes useful to them but not nearly as much.
And even when they do off people, the Japanese government sometimes covers it up to artificially deflate murder rates.
...
Oh cool. Thanks user.
Would be like having Holla Forums around like they've been lately. Hopefully they'll learn a thing or two. It actually wasn't too long ago that I was a filthy liberal. Some will be pushed farther left & then spread it, which is a good thing.
...
The gun is a better form of killing than a sword. But they agreed that it was the sword which is better, as it enables you to express your class hatred.
They aren't.
Japan has less crime because they have a surprisingly progressive justice system.
Japan is a pretty good example of how alienation can destroy a culture.
I cannot think of a more dysfunctional culture than the Japanese one.
Is that a joke? Their justice system functions like the wrath of a mad god. They rarely prosecute people but when they do they get ridiculous sentences.
But what I don't understand is that the article outright admits that Japan's extremely strict gun laws are just the logical extension of historical/cultural processes in place that downplayed firearms in Japanese culture - instead of some sort of desperate attempt by Japanese lawmakers to reduce astronomical gun violence rates or whatever
No, not really. It depends on the crime. People charged with possession of CP, for example, have almost laughably light sentences compared to pretty much anywhere else. Serial murder or some other shit might get you a "harsh" sentence (death penalty) but that's really not much different from the US. It's not what I would call "ridiculous."
wew
tell me more, sounds interesting.
Feudal Japan had "gun control" on swords so they were pretty bourg weapons.
en.wikipedia.org
Swords were bourgeois weapons in both Japan and Western countries for a number of reasons beyond "sword control". Anyone can fasten some metal shards to a wooden pole and make a pole weapon, and this is generally how conscript armies were formed up until crossbows were invented. But swords (at least swords worth using) are finely crafted metal that takes time and effort to forge, and that costs money. That, and the fact that pole weapons are easier to train people to use, are why swords were weapons normally restricted to the upper class. It also had to do with the fact that swords were easier to carry around than polearms, so they're ideal for protecting against sudden assaults at the bar from angry proles.
Take a look at this thread to see the problem with liberals. To answer the OP, RDW is good for the most part. Obviously his gun control position needs work, but I'd say he's at least as lefty as Jimmy Dore, who's another case of that exact thing.
Not to derail completely into the hot-button nonissue of the gun "debate", but seriously?
nraila.org
nraila.org
Liberals, not even once
Seriously though why do liberals want the proles' guns so badly?
A prole with a gun is the only real physical threat to the petit-bourgeois' comfortable life.
It's partially this for the ones who are actually aware of class conflict. For the normalfags, it's pacifism. There are an amazing number of people, especially Americans, who think any conflict can be resolved nonviolently. They think that in the current year we're past a barbaric age where we used violence to solve problems.
That's not true. Sheesh gun control is a change in material conditions, less guns = less gun violence.
I get that addressing poverty would lower violent crime more effectively while maintaining gun right but how is banning guns not going to lower gun violence, it's not debatable You guys are so easily triggered by liberals libs and walk right into their framing traps
Why is "gun violence" worse than any other type of violence?
What are you even talking about? I'm explaining someone's flawed reasoning. Do you not understand the difference between entertaining an idea and accepting it? Even that doesn't really make sense given what I posted. Your post seems more like a non-sequitur to be honest.
You said normal people support gun control because they believe in pascifism.
I'm arguing that many proles live in areas controlled by gangs which enforce their control with guns.
They're support for gun control comes from wanting to see these petite porkies stripped of their guns which is what gun control would do
If you honestly think that gun control law would strip gangs of guns than you are gravely mistaken.
Why would a gang obey the law when it comes to guns?
This dumbass utopian argument.
Less guns equals less people having them. Unless gangs seize them means of production somehow.
Gangs are powerful because they can arm anyone desperate enough to join, not because the most violent of them have guns
Those aren't the main supporters of gun control. Most people living near gangs or high-crime areas in general know that criminals will still have guns with gun control, because right now that have shit that's already illegal. Since the police don't bother with places like that, normal people like to have guns for what extra safety they offer. The people who are for gun control are almost entirely booj liberals on the coasts who probably have never seen a gun in person, much less heard one fire outside of a video.
How is it utopian, if anything your empty headed idea that gangs will obey the law is more utopian and less grounded in reality.
I come from a country that has strict gun control and it has not worked out as your liberal fantasies shows it to be. Gangs still have guns and those laws didn't stop gangs from getting guns as groups like gangs prefer to get such things illegally than through the legal parthways.
People like gangs will keep their guns and the worker will be stripped of the means of revolution and self-defence.
Gangs don't use legally purchased firearms. There's a black market of AKs and shit smuggled into the country from elsewhere.
If you don't own the means of production then anything can be denied from you at anytime by porky.
Screaming at the top of your lungs laws won't stop criminals from getting guns isn't convincing anyone but fascist reactionaries.
This proles need guns is bullshit, anyone that's truly tried to arm proles has been shut down quick. Just ask the black panthers
Bullshit, they get there guns here. 25 percent of guns are private sales with no background check
What country is that. The US is the only rich country with a gun violence problem
Do you understand what an arms race is? It's not legal to even have a full-auto rifle. For a gang to be competitive and keep their turf they need weapons to match or exceed their rivals'.
tbh who gives a shit? Wolff is good because he has decent insights into contemporary economics from a lefty, and easily accessible, perspective. He’s not a vanguard propagandist.
Must be because the US is the only rich country with guns OH WAIT
en.wikipedia.org
They also have a ridiculously strong welfare state.
I fucking said addressing poverty would be a more effective way to reduce gun violence.
I'm arguing against your dumbass idea that criminals will be able to pull guns from their ass if the state enforces gun control.
You first have to establish that the state would be able to take the guns out of circulation, which would never happen. One, there are already loads of illegal guns on the black market. Two, US borders are extremely porous, and all kinds of contraband gets smuggled in all the time, including guns.
True, but the correlation beyond that is essentially zippo.
Spics fucking love murder holy shit.
Even Africa is safer.
Like I said before, politics and law are the ultimate determinant of crime, even when factoring in pathological behavior. Central America is literally a warzone.
No Muhhamads, Jamals, Cletuses and Pedros i guess.
Do you guys just blame everything on capitalism on this board, please explain to me.
I don't know how to feel about gun control tbh
I know I know, we're gonna need the guns for revolution and such
I live in the Netherlands and the homicide rate is low as fuck, and police rarely kill anyone
uh… what is "cultural discipline"?
we're fucking leftists, we shouldn't have to explain to you that people aren't blank slates
Japan comes a different cultural background than the US, I shouldn't have to explain to you that some people tend to be more peaceful than others.
"culture" can mean basically anything, you are stating a truism.
According to this ranking, your Swedish, Norwegian, and Finnish neighbors are some of the most heavily armed citizens in the world:
en.wikipedia.org
I really doubt it makes any difference in either direction.
See
I pretty consistently see people on this board arguing that people are blank slates though.
literal tabula rasa arguments are pretty rare, arguments for material conditions shaping behavior are not on that level
I've run into several posters arguing that external factors are entirely responsible for people's behavior, effectively that biology transcends material conditions. I think there are just some people here who fetishize old philosophy.
good, people saying dumb shit is preferable to a hug box
Mass shootings are DEFINITELY the result of the natural alienation of capitalist "culture" and society, which is why they're especially prevalent in populations capitalist consumer culture that is the only culture really exists (suburban white America)
...
What are black markets? What is the drugs trade (including pharmaceuticals, so no MoP ownership) ?
almost trust you, fascist shite lord
...
Those black markets are supplied by Chinese counterfeits. It's real simple the more impediments to gun owner ship you have the less people will own them.
I'm for including police with gun control also.
Criminals need guns to supply their workers with, this idea of vilolent criminal masterminds is bullshit, gangs enforce their rackets by throwing dumb armed proles at them like any other porky
ye and if you're found with 0.5g of le forbidden herb it's 10 years of jail for you
fuck off
I think other poster's joke was about the old unofficial motto of police as "the strongest street gang" that "if you kill one, more always come to take you down". Ideally that's supposed to mean they're the gang of the people, but of course reality isn't always ideal.