How the US Drives Gun Exports and Fuels Violence Around the World
web.archive.org
"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/
You are viewing a single comment
I love how they focus on gun crimes, and no crimes. Like the tool is more important than the act.
No shit, it is almost as if the article is about gun exports specifically. They should put that in the title.
Yeah, it's just straight up propaganda, incredibly obvious propaganda at that.
Reading comprehension issues abound.
Bloomberg is propaganda now? I guess your only approved media outlets are true American media sources like VoA. Bloomberg doesn't even make money on its journalism arm, it literally exists to provide data for Bloomberg Terminal subscribes (who trade on that information).
Lol Bloomberg... billionaire Bloomberg...yes it's propaganda for anti-2a groups... Bloomberg being one of the biggest ones. You're naive if you think it's not.
Better tell Bloomberg Terminal subscribers to not trust their news sources, then.
Bloomberg isn't a news company, they're a trading software company.
Well, the idea isn't to stop your citizens from killing each other. That doesn't really matter. But you can't have them have tools that would limit your control of them. No guns, no right, no problems.
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
The reason why the citizens need access to something, and the reason why they are still allowed that access may not be the same reason.
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.
2nd amendment in the US is a complicated topic and both sides have completely ruined any chance for a civilized discussion about the topic. I'm pro. I've got my reasons. But it's probably going to go away and for the wrong reason.
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.
Can't have a communist revolution without guns
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?
Tell me, what happened in the middle east?
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?
It worked here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
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.
Standing up to police really is the point for me. It's not about the big boog uprising that the crazy right talks about. For me it's about small town corruption that happens all over the country and giving people defense against other people.
Also, fun fact, Republicans used to be anti 2nd when Black Panthers were walking around with guns.
I know that there are a lot of good arguments for and against it, but in my mind giving people access to those tools is a net positive.
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.
You're making a lot of baseless assumptions about me. I'm not going to do that in return. I've said my piece.
fair enough