>>468118I have to side with
>>468121That type of gun-debate, is a ruse.
If you start talking about the nature of tools, you got got, tools are inert objects.
The real debate is about who's allowed to wield tools, and for what purpose.
If only the organized proletariat wields weapons to enforce it's political and economic interests, it's very easy to implement socialism. And it's easy to justify this politically because the proletarian interest is very nearly identical to democracy, because the proletariat encompasses most people.
The capitalist ruling class of course they want that no weapons should be wielded unless it's for the enforcement of their interests. And it's very difficult to justify this politically because that is indistinguishable from tyranny. For that reason they can't be open about their intentions, they try to use manipulation, deception and diversion of attention, as means to gain consent for shifting fire-power towards the enforcement of their interests.
So there is no reason to accept any of their premises in this debate.
The maximalist goal for Socialists is a highly organized proletariat that is heavily armed, well trained and unopposed by any other force. We want any and all weapons at the disposal of enforcing the interests of the proletariat and that includes nukes and future scifi weapons. And we would like the Bourgeoisie to be disarmed.
Of course maximalist goals aren't always realistic, so we support the political positions that are the closest and most compatible.
Of course this shouldn't be interpreted as giving individual people nukes. Nor does it mean that immature children should have guns, or mentally unstable people would be allowed to pilot a helicopter gunship. Of course as with any tool-use sanity checks apply, which means training and discipline is mandatory. Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat seeks to arm people that are ill suited for wielding weapons. Nobody is actually arguing for shooting up schools or other public venues, that's just an imaginary opponent for a political narrative.
Of course there is the question of interpersonal conflicts that aren't political, if many people are armed, no amount of discipline, training and judiciousness with granting the possession of weapons, will fix this. But the same can also be said for the attempt of universally disarming the population. The police isn't superhuman that will never shoot in error, anybody looking at police violence statistics (especially in the US) can come to that conclusion. Banning the possession of weapons also doesn't mean that people will comply with it. So if you seek to further reduce the number of gunshot victims with realism in mind, the conclusion must be that because firearms exist it's time to push for the development of every-day wearable clothing that can stop at least low caliber bullets.
Something that already exists is bullet-proof backpacks for kids that have an armor plate. Before you roll your eyes at this being a sign of dystopia, there is literally no reason why everyday objects like this shouldn't double as a protective measure. Armor plates that can stop up to medium powered rifle ammo, can be made from relatively light weight and affordable materials, that would hardly compromise the functionality of a backpack. Making people less vulnerable must also be considered as an effective measure to reduce violence.