85
I wanted to share an article but after read/scanned ~6 of them - I had nothing to share. They weren't any good. I wish blogs were still a thing. Blogs can be excellent on topics like these. Here's the Wikipedia page - Columbine High School massacre.
The Sandy Hook shooting happened in December, 2012. By early 2013 I had entirely given up on any hopes of gun control. If a mass of murdered little kids killed by guns didn't change anything - I knew nothing would ever change. I think that's true for a lot of Americans.
"Gun control" is a bourgeois talking point. Rifles kill less than 400 people a year in the US on average, the Bloombergs and the Bidens and the Betos are only concerned about disarming the working class. Things that would actually address mass shootings (like affordable mental healthcare) are never even discussed, because those solutions actually cost the rich money.
Hilarious talking point when literally tens of thousands are killed (homicide!) per year by gun violence. This is like saying that Honda Civics only kill so many people per year, so traffic violence is no biggie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Imagine seriously believing that rampant gun violence, an exclusively American phenomenon, is the cause of anything other than the second amendment.
THERE ARE NO MASS SHOOTINGS WITHOUT GUNS. Guns, not anything else, are the root cause of gun violence, just like how cars, not anything else, are the root cause of car crashes.
'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
Also love the take that anyone in power in America who proposes gun control is only concerned about disarming the working class, not maybe stopping children from getting slaughtered in schools. Like yeah mental health services would be great but also there is absolutely a connection between the number of mass shootings and the fact that America has more guns than people
Ok, what gun control measures should we put in place that would stop "children getting slaughtered in schools" while also not giving the government a total monopoly on violence?
The government already has a monopoly on violence and it's a joke to pretend otherwise. In the event of an armed revolution, private firearm ownership won't stop them rolling in tanks or bombing you with jets.
"We should just give up since it's hopeless anyway"
No. I think you should look to history to understand what happens when a professional military tries to occupy hostile territory. Asymmetric warfare is impossible to extinguish. The Palestinians are holding their own in a tiny city with AKs, tunnels, and homemade explosives. The Taliban now control all of Afghanistan. The Vietnamese pushed the US into the sea. An armed populace is impossible to repress, especially when it's as armed as US citizens are, and when the territory that needs to be held is as massive as the US. There is absolutely no way the US military could indefinitely suppress the US civilian population while still maintaining the production necessary to fuel it's war machine.
He's not exactly wrong though, since gun control historically in the US was a lot more about taking guns out of the hands of PoC. One modern case was in California with the Mulford Act, which came about because the Black Panthers showed off the the thing whites fear the most has and still will be black people open carrying guns.