this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
12 points (87.5% liked)
Memes of Production
334 readers
995 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
Do you think the way your society operates it could handle everyone also being armed? Like, really? You've seen disputes escalate for no reason and you've seen insane people, people itching to hurt others... in a utopic land where everyone is both righteous and emotionally stable, sure, but in any other case it feels irresponsible and highly dangerous, IMO.
Yes, combined with a strong community focus such as in Rojava or Zapatista Chiapas you can see how this play out.
Such extreme acts as you are describing are rarities that most people will never experience or see in their life. Not having access to firearms has not prevented such acts in the past, nor have the police. Being able to protect yourself from them would be far more beneficial if that was a genuine concern of ones.
In an idealised utopia there would be no need for weapons of any kind, but that is not what is being called for.
That's a really wrong assessment.
Extreme acts without gun: punches, maybe knifes. One person hurts one other person.
Extreme acts with guns: one person shoots down 35 other people.
Not having firearms DID in fact prevent such killings. See any country without mass gun ownership
People with knives can kill much more than just one person. I was reading a story a few days ago about a village somewhere in SEA where a man killed his family and neighbors long before anyone ever got to him.
Likewise countries with high gun ownership can also not have frequent mass killings. What you're really describing there is just America.
An armed populace can do more to resist a fascist or otherwise oppressive government than an unarmed one. As a minority who has historically (and contemporarily in other countries) been persecuted by the state for the crime of existing, I don't feel comfortable leaving my life in their fickle hands.
Honestly, I don't really think that an armed population really affects the ability of the ruling elite to maintain power one way or the other. A population pushed far enough to revolt both tends to find a way to arm itself and poses a threat to the power of the ruling class regardless (because things just don't get done without their work), and singular armed people aren't very difficult for an organized military to deal with. How restrictive gun laws should be is mostly just a cultural thing in my view.
Yes, in the USA it's working great to prevent tyranny and the accumulation of power by the elites.
Certainly is in Kurdistan.
America is fucked for a million reasons.
So, gun ownership isn't a determining factor in preventing tyranny, but it will increase the problems of violence in society. Noted.
It literally is protecting people from tyranny in Rojava as I mentioned, but hey ignore that to only focus on the failure that is America.