[Marxism] Re: Gun control, justice & meat
dwalters at marxists.org
dwalters at marxists.org
Sat Dec 9 17:51:32 MST 2006
I've actually tailored my comments TO this list and avoided ultra-left
rhetorical stuff. My friend Hari takes me to task, falsly me thinks: "under the
guise of black liberation groups", who said this? Not I. I pointed *away* from
this as a reason to oppose gun control, not use this as an example.
The article in Harpers, which is what got me started on this, talked about
Robert F Williams first forays into *defense* of his Black community, not the
"liberation" of it. I suspect those that support gun control, per haps Hari
from what I can read of his message here, would argue that the famous picture
of Malcolm X defending his house from armed assassins is an example of the
"mayhem" south of his border.
Interestingly, and Mo raised this in his very articulate counter to anti-gun
control advocates here: Canada vs. the US. Well there are figures and figures.
There are like 25 times more guns in the US generally than in Canada. But
that's absolute. Relatively Gun ownership is about the same in Canada as the
US, just fewer people collecting more guns. At this point I should point out
that I'm not against gun control, at least not the way the Canadians have
implemented it. If they register as a hunter/collector/gun-maker/sport-shooter
you can get a gun(s). My beef is with people who want to BAN guns. This
includes almost every gun control group in the US.
Canada has a less violent culture than the US. To attribute this, as both Mo and
Hari do, to the ownership of guns is simply mad. And, Canada, proves this. MY US
capitalist society is far more fucked up than Canada's capitalist society. Every
crime statistic shows this, from drug use, to violent crime *without guns* and
with them. Ergo, gun usage and mayhem are aspects of our culture here. Having
the same system that is responsible for this mayhem be the agency that bans the
use of guns by people who *do not cause mayhem* makes on sense to me at all. It
is why the right-wing is so persuasive on this issue and why they are often
Mo's comments about .50 calibre weapons are totally irrelevant to anything. Few
people own them even now. In fact they are illegal to buy in California now
albeit you a have to register one if you own one. There is not much value in
one of these rifles: you can't hunt with it (they all weigh in at about 30lbs)
and you can use it to defend yourself (for the same reason). So why have them?
Who cares? In fact, in California it was the *liberals* who were scarred,
because, they argued, cops would get killed if used by the bad guys on them.
That fact that no .50 calibre weapon has ever been used in a crime anywhere,
or, a terrorist plot (using 9/11 as the excuse) in the US. So why ban them?
Because it makes them feel good. They've done something to "fight terrorism".
BTW, Mo, these weapons, for the most part, are bolt-action rifles that were not
designed to bring down airplanes. Where did you get this from? It was designed
to shoot at grounded air craft, light armour vehicles and very long distance
sniping. They are used extensively by imperialist troops in Afghanistan, for
Hunting has fallen as a general rule in the US (with some places more or less
stable: Colorado for example). But so what? Do it's declining...does that mean
people shouldn't hunt?
My view is that people want to own guns. IF, implemented along Canadian lines,
which include mandatory safety certifications, something I'm for, why not allow
people to own what the want (no tanks, howitzers, machineguns, tactical nuclear
evises, sure), and strict enforcement of gun-safety laws, I'm for allowing
people to own their guns, and I even encourage people to take courses on their
own in marksmenship and safety.
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
More information about the Marxism