“The US Commerce Department has played booster and concierge to the firearm industry, even as America’s mass shootings horrify the world and gun-crime rates rise in many of the importing countries.”
Original article is a Bloomberg piece available at - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-us-made-gun-exports-shootings-violence-sig-sauer/
Removed by mod
Yeah, ok, the US Department of Commerce is buddying around with arms manufacturers at conventions in Vegas because they want to protect the ability of peoples’ movements to resist their governments, this definitely isn’t about arming right wing death squads financed by oligarchs or anything like that /s
Removed by mod
Have you ever contemplated a solution to a problem that wasn’t just shooting it in the face?
I mean, I know I’m being reductionist, but I just didn’t want you to feel alone in that regard.
Removed by mod
Shockingly, there’s more than two sides. Just because the people in power have tricked you into thinking otherwise doesn’t mean it’s true.
Removed by mod
Yeah, cause the last 100 years of armed “communist” revolution have gone so well.
…Doesn’t the millitary still vastly out-arm any armed citizen in today’s age, both in actual weapons and in training to use said weapons?
Removed by mod
Lots and lots of military contracts that made a few people a lot of money? With millions of civilian deaths, and maybe thousands of military deaths?
Removed by mod
Looks like it never reached the point of millitary. They just fought police. And Uvande showed everyone the competence of police.
It really just looks like the government made no efforts to enforce the SC’s ruling. So it works if they don’t care.
Removed by mod
I think anyone who thinks greater access to tools of death and destruction is a net positive is deluding themselves.
It may be net neutral, in that giving people weapons to “counter” other weapons negates other weapons… but it doesn’t protect them, it just gives them a chance to hurt others as much as they’re hurt themselves.
It’s predicated on the idea of mutually assured destruction, but in not so nearly a potent manner as nuclear arms… which, in and of themselves, are not a universally potent enough deterrent to prevent war. Just enough that those weapons themselves aren’t used (more than twice). People still get hurt and killed by guns. And as any defender of gun death statistics will tell you, more often by the people who own them.
If you consider that a net positive… well, I kind of feel sorry for you.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
fair enough