The Renegade Regulation of Firearms, Part One: "The Continued Tragedy and Danger of America's Gun Violence"
Written by Heather Mason (Red Spectre Writer), Edited by Philip Kovalchik (Red Spectre Writer)
5/16/24
5/16/24
Preface
Before we say anything, we at Red Spectre feel the need to say we are not happy we have to write this article. In the past we openly endorsed the American Party of Labor as the communist party in the United States. However time and time again we have been proven wrong in this assertion, and thus it is our duty to come out in criticism of the American Party of Labor as an opportunist organisation, which has deviated from a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist line. In doing so, the APL has degenerated their line to the level of the Kautskyites, “Socialist Revolutionaries”, and Bidenist Democrats through their line on the disarmament slogan.
The American Party of Labor, or APL for short, has many issues with it, but it was a series of four gun articles on the Red Phoenix that have pushed us from believing that the APL was just a flawed organisation that needed a lot of work done, to a legitimate threat to the revolutionary left. These four articles are: “The Continued Tragedy and Danger of America’s Gun Violence”, “The Second Amendment of the Constitution Does Not Justify the ‘Right to Bear Arms”, “On the Sensible Regulation of Firearms”, and “Clearing the Air on Infantile U.S. Gun Culture: Marx Revisited”.
This article is intended to be one of a series of four, that makes up a larger overall polemic against the APL. We have opted to split it up in the interests of making it easier for our readers to digest, as well as to focus on finishing one section at a time.
The American Party of Labor, or APL for short, has many issues with it, but it was a series of four gun articles on the Red Phoenix that have pushed us from believing that the APL was just a flawed organisation that needed a lot of work done, to a legitimate threat to the revolutionary left. These four articles are: “The Continued Tragedy and Danger of America’s Gun Violence”, “The Second Amendment of the Constitution Does Not Justify the ‘Right to Bear Arms”, “On the Sensible Regulation of Firearms”, and “Clearing the Air on Infantile U.S. Gun Culture: Marx Revisited”.
This article is intended to be one of a series of four, that makes up a larger overall polemic against the APL. We have opted to split it up in the interests of making it easier for our readers to digest, as well as to focus on finishing one section at a time.
Foreword to Section One
After some internal review and discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the arguments in this article could be made more clear, concise, and on the point. Hence, we have written this second revised edition of this section of the article, so as to replace the original. We are confident that this revised version best represents our views in these matters.
Section One: "The Continued Tragedy and Danger of America's Gun Violence"
At the start of the article, “The continued tragedy and danger of America’s gun violence”, author Ian Ocx brings up the example of a Neo-Nazi named Maurico Garcia who murdered 8 people with an AR-15 “assault rifle” in a mass shooting in Allen, Texas. As pointed out by the article, gun violence has become a severe problem in the United States, with the rate of mass shootings rising dramatically in recent years. Ian brings up many valid points to effectively demonstrate this claim. Where this article's real insidiousness starts to really show is in the ‘immediate tasks of struggle’, and ‘long term tasks of struggle’ sections of the article.
The immediate issue in this first article is where Ian writes that we must (quote) “continue to struggle for regulations on gun sales, background checks, and the types of weapons that can be purchased within the bourgeois-democratic system on both the state and federal levels, especially reforms that ban high powered assault-rifles like the AR-15, extended magazines, high powered munitions, and that strengthen background checks and extend waiting periods”. (sic)
The leadup to this conclusion is based on the preposition demonstrated in the “age of right wing extremism” section, where Ian illustrates the horrors of gun violence under capitalism. However, Ian’s logic fails in a few key ways. First of all he wants to limit the type of weapons that you can buy, mentioning first and foremost high powered assault rifles like the AR-15.
While it is ridiculous enough in its own right that the APL chose to mimic the Democrats in targeting specifically the poster child and boogeyman of the latter, the AR-15, matters become more absurd when one recalls the semi-automatic nature of the weapon: It is not nearly as lethal as a fully automatic assault rifle like the AK-47. Nevertheless, between the APL and the Democrats, not a single Liberal of their ranks has dedicated the twenty seconds it takes to realize this, and at least attempt to base their treason on a ‘scientific’ line. The line the APL adopted is not only treacherous, it is downright insulting.
Worse still, this targeting of the AR-15 as well as assault rifles is also completely unfounded. According to the Pew Research Centre, 59% of firearm murders and negligent manslaughters’ committed in the United States are done with handguns, not so-called assault-rifles, while only 3% are actually carried out with assault rifles. A different study from Rutgers concludes that 65 .3% of firearm suicides are committed with handguns, not assault rifles.
The natural response of any who would wish to muzzle the proletariat would be an empty remark, to the tune of ‘the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in many such mass shootings’. This is indicative of the entire thought pattern of ‘fix the symptom, ignore the cause’, and is undialectic at its core. So long as one fails to eliminate the causes of mass shootings, any ‘regulation’ of the means can only change how they are carried out. The ‘ban’ proposed by Ian Ocx won’t prevent school shootings. Take away the AR-15, and a deadlier Assault Rifle will rise to take its place. Take those away too, and weapons more deadly in confined environments, easier to use weapons, and weapons that are easier to hide will take their place. Shotguns, SMGs, and Pistols will lead to a very similar result (a fact the scoundrel Ocx implores you to forget), and will potentially be even worse, as the shorter nature of these means there is less time to respond before any signal or warning arrive.
The APL also specifically clamours about banning ‘high powered munitions’ on their list of impotent half-measures. But Ian Ocx, like the Swindler they are, made no effort to clarify this vague term. It shouldn’t be up to Red Spectre to provide a concrete definition, like the one made by ‘Press Democrat’: high powered munitions refers to any bullet cartridge or gun caliber with a .223 or larger casing, as this term is thrown around as a bugbear without any grounded meaning all too often. Why could Ian not bother to be straight forward and clear with their actual line, just stating clearly what is their benchmark?
Practically, using an abstract definition, even if it would already have any generally accepted meaning, would be a serious blunder. This ties in the APL and their following to supporting a ban on this ‘term’, and leaves its exact meaning to ‘public discourse’ I.E. bourgeoisie journalists and propagandists. By agitating to an empty slogan instead of any concrete solution, the APL allows the bourgeoisie to choose, uncontested, what is the meaning of this slogan.
To make matters even more damning, it is a populistic way of misleading the masses. To put something that looks good ‘on paper’ without any concrete information behind it is the election promise of a bourgeoisie politician, not a revolutionary slogan of agitation. The APL, in this entire article, neglected to mention what it classifies as ‘high-powered’. It neglected to tell us what it actually wants to ban, besides name dropping a single weapon, and using the incredibly scientific and precise term of "like the AR-15"(sic!!). This is empty populism, the APL clearly think too highly of themselves to crunch the numbers to figure out a good policy, let alone "boring" the audience with actual information to justify their miserable excuse for a policy. Their science is that of gut feelings and CNN broadcasts.
Being generous and defining "high-powered" as ".223 and above"[for reference: comparable to .556], which is, uncoincidentally, what is used in the AR-15 and many other assault rifles, still makes Ocx look more ridiculous than a dozen clown cars; Seeing as these quote-unquote “assault weapons” that this proposed ban of ‘high powered munitions’ targets are only used in 3% of firearm related murders and negligent manslaughter cases in the United States. This really begs the question – Why does the APL target them specifically, while not even mentioning the chief offender, handguns? Can they truly be this profoundly (and I do mean profoundly, this would be astounding) incompetent at conducting the most basest of researches, or are they just being ‘economical’ with the truth?
A so-called ‘Marxist’ argument against assault rifles usually goes: "But have you seen how expensive those guns are? Only the petty-bourgeoisie would be able to afford them anyways...". This is profoundly ignorant and narrow-minded. Some food for thought:
-What prevents multiple revolutionary workers from banding together, to give those of them most able to fight these expensive weapons?
-What prevents us from helping the workers attain better terms through unions, strikes, ect to be able to afford better weapons?
-What prevents us from using technology and modern solutions to, for example, print assault rifles legally? (Make sure to verify if this is legal in the state you live in, for your own legal protection)
-Most importantly: What stops the party from getting firearms to arm the workers? Isn’t it a vanguard party? Certainly not in the case of the APL, but that is an irrelevant detail, considering the fact we refer to a communist party here.
That argument implies such horrid placidity and inaction on the side of the proletariat and all of its elements, it is downright revolting to even consider. It is a cruel mockery to expect the proletariat, with all of its creative force and adaptive potential, the very same class which possesses the power to end all exploitation, to follow a miserable excuse for a "party" that cannot even consider these basic points, and underrates what the workers can achieve this ignorantly! If the APL truly uses this justification, their party is not worthy of shining the shoes of a member of the working class, let alone ‘leading’ them.
Regardless of what we do, the armed lackeys of the bourgeoisie will always have access to these weapons. From Millitias, to illegal paramillitaries tolerated and built up by the authorities, to the police (run by fascists), the private army Desantis is building, and the main bourgeoisie army. Of course, it falls into the hands of the party to organise the acquisition of these firearms, whether it be seizure in a time of revolutionary upheaval, or purchase of stockpiles and reserves in times of preparation for the next revolutionary moment.
Even the tiniest party at the start of its struggle should not sabotage its future in such a manner, as any real revolutionary party that upholds dialectics will plainly see its future lies in rallying the banner of the proletariat. When that day comes, the party will need the very same weapons the APL today hopes to have outlawed, the very same weapons we have in abundance and will continue to have in abundence should these saboteurs and their allies (like the demented Biden) will fail to torch down this boon.
They also argue against the proliferation of extended magazines for firearms. By banning extended magazines, the APL will successfully makes the lives of anyone trying to defend themselves from multiple assailants that much more infernal. Namely, the neighbourhood watches minorities need and deserve, to be able to collectively defend themselves against the right-wing extrimism Ocx proved so fantastically is on the rise.
Further - banning extended magazines, as well as assault rifles, high powered munitions, suppressors or anything of the sort opens the doorway for more restrictions on firearms in the future, i.e the disarmament of the working class. We must remember who does the ‘banning’ to begin with. The exact terms will be dictated by the bourgeoise government and enforced by its organs, worse of all – the police. The state and fascist paramilitary forces such as the Florida State Guard will still have access to all of these tools. If you outright ban these tools, then what recourse will the working class have to defend itself against these institutions? Any broad limitation on firearms after all will not disarm the bourgeoisie and their cronies, rather it give the bourgeoisie a full monopoly over these tools, and the last thing we need is a bigger power imbalance in this class war.
The immediate issue in this first article is where Ian writes that we must (quote) “continue to struggle for regulations on gun sales, background checks, and the types of weapons that can be purchased within the bourgeois-democratic system on both the state and federal levels, especially reforms that ban high powered assault-rifles like the AR-15, extended magazines, high powered munitions, and that strengthen background checks and extend waiting periods”. (sic)
The leadup to this conclusion is based on the preposition demonstrated in the “age of right wing extremism” section, where Ian illustrates the horrors of gun violence under capitalism. However, Ian’s logic fails in a few key ways. First of all he wants to limit the type of weapons that you can buy, mentioning first and foremost high powered assault rifles like the AR-15.
While it is ridiculous enough in its own right that the APL chose to mimic the Democrats in targeting specifically the poster child and boogeyman of the latter, the AR-15, matters become more absurd when one recalls the semi-automatic nature of the weapon: It is not nearly as lethal as a fully automatic assault rifle like the AK-47. Nevertheless, between the APL and the Democrats, not a single Liberal of their ranks has dedicated the twenty seconds it takes to realize this, and at least attempt to base their treason on a ‘scientific’ line. The line the APL adopted is not only treacherous, it is downright insulting.
Worse still, this targeting of the AR-15 as well as assault rifles is also completely unfounded. According to the Pew Research Centre, 59% of firearm murders and negligent manslaughters’ committed in the United States are done with handguns, not so-called assault-rifles, while only 3% are actually carried out with assault rifles. A different study from Rutgers concludes that 65 .3% of firearm suicides are committed with handguns, not assault rifles.
The natural response of any who would wish to muzzle the proletariat would be an empty remark, to the tune of ‘the AR-15 is the weapon of choice in many such mass shootings’. This is indicative of the entire thought pattern of ‘fix the symptom, ignore the cause’, and is undialectic at its core. So long as one fails to eliminate the causes of mass shootings, any ‘regulation’ of the means can only change how they are carried out. The ‘ban’ proposed by Ian Ocx won’t prevent school shootings. Take away the AR-15, and a deadlier Assault Rifle will rise to take its place. Take those away too, and weapons more deadly in confined environments, easier to use weapons, and weapons that are easier to hide will take their place. Shotguns, SMGs, and Pistols will lead to a very similar result (a fact the scoundrel Ocx implores you to forget), and will potentially be even worse, as the shorter nature of these means there is less time to respond before any signal or warning arrive.
The APL also specifically clamours about banning ‘high powered munitions’ on their list of impotent half-measures. But Ian Ocx, like the Swindler they are, made no effort to clarify this vague term. It shouldn’t be up to Red Spectre to provide a concrete definition, like the one made by ‘Press Democrat’: high powered munitions refers to any bullet cartridge or gun caliber with a .223 or larger casing, as this term is thrown around as a bugbear without any grounded meaning all too often. Why could Ian not bother to be straight forward and clear with their actual line, just stating clearly what is their benchmark?
Practically, using an abstract definition, even if it would already have any generally accepted meaning, would be a serious blunder. This ties in the APL and their following to supporting a ban on this ‘term’, and leaves its exact meaning to ‘public discourse’ I.E. bourgeoisie journalists and propagandists. By agitating to an empty slogan instead of any concrete solution, the APL allows the bourgeoisie to choose, uncontested, what is the meaning of this slogan.
To make matters even more damning, it is a populistic way of misleading the masses. To put something that looks good ‘on paper’ without any concrete information behind it is the election promise of a bourgeoisie politician, not a revolutionary slogan of agitation. The APL, in this entire article, neglected to mention what it classifies as ‘high-powered’. It neglected to tell us what it actually wants to ban, besides name dropping a single weapon, and using the incredibly scientific and precise term of "like the AR-15"(sic!!). This is empty populism, the APL clearly think too highly of themselves to crunch the numbers to figure out a good policy, let alone "boring" the audience with actual information to justify their miserable excuse for a policy. Their science is that of gut feelings and CNN broadcasts.
Being generous and defining "high-powered" as ".223 and above"[for reference: comparable to .556], which is, uncoincidentally, what is used in the AR-15 and many other assault rifles, still makes Ocx look more ridiculous than a dozen clown cars; Seeing as these quote-unquote “assault weapons” that this proposed ban of ‘high powered munitions’ targets are only used in 3% of firearm related murders and negligent manslaughter cases in the United States. This really begs the question – Why does the APL target them specifically, while not even mentioning the chief offender, handguns? Can they truly be this profoundly (and I do mean profoundly, this would be astounding) incompetent at conducting the most basest of researches, or are they just being ‘economical’ with the truth?
A so-called ‘Marxist’ argument against assault rifles usually goes: "But have you seen how expensive those guns are? Only the petty-bourgeoisie would be able to afford them anyways...". This is profoundly ignorant and narrow-minded. Some food for thought:
-What prevents multiple revolutionary workers from banding together, to give those of them most able to fight these expensive weapons?
-What prevents us from helping the workers attain better terms through unions, strikes, ect to be able to afford better weapons?
-What prevents us from using technology and modern solutions to, for example, print assault rifles legally? (Make sure to verify if this is legal in the state you live in, for your own legal protection)
-Most importantly: What stops the party from getting firearms to arm the workers? Isn’t it a vanguard party? Certainly not in the case of the APL, but that is an irrelevant detail, considering the fact we refer to a communist party here.
That argument implies such horrid placidity and inaction on the side of the proletariat and all of its elements, it is downright revolting to even consider. It is a cruel mockery to expect the proletariat, with all of its creative force and adaptive potential, the very same class which possesses the power to end all exploitation, to follow a miserable excuse for a "party" that cannot even consider these basic points, and underrates what the workers can achieve this ignorantly! If the APL truly uses this justification, their party is not worthy of shining the shoes of a member of the working class, let alone ‘leading’ them.
Regardless of what we do, the armed lackeys of the bourgeoisie will always have access to these weapons. From Millitias, to illegal paramillitaries tolerated and built up by the authorities, to the police (run by fascists), the private army Desantis is building, and the main bourgeoisie army. Of course, it falls into the hands of the party to organise the acquisition of these firearms, whether it be seizure in a time of revolutionary upheaval, or purchase of stockpiles and reserves in times of preparation for the next revolutionary moment.
Even the tiniest party at the start of its struggle should not sabotage its future in such a manner, as any real revolutionary party that upholds dialectics will plainly see its future lies in rallying the banner of the proletariat. When that day comes, the party will need the very same weapons the APL today hopes to have outlawed, the very same weapons we have in abundance and will continue to have in abundence should these saboteurs and their allies (like the demented Biden) will fail to torch down this boon.
They also argue against the proliferation of extended magazines for firearms. By banning extended magazines, the APL will successfully makes the lives of anyone trying to defend themselves from multiple assailants that much more infernal. Namely, the neighbourhood watches minorities need and deserve, to be able to collectively defend themselves against the right-wing extrimism Ocx proved so fantastically is on the rise.
Further - banning extended magazines, as well as assault rifles, high powered munitions, suppressors or anything of the sort opens the doorway for more restrictions on firearms in the future, i.e the disarmament of the working class. We must remember who does the ‘banning’ to begin with. The exact terms will be dictated by the bourgeoise government and enforced by its organs, worse of all – the police. The state and fascist paramilitary forces such as the Florida State Guard will still have access to all of these tools. If you outright ban these tools, then what recourse will the working class have to defend itself against these institutions? Any broad limitation on firearms after all will not disarm the bourgeoisie and their cronies, rather it give the bourgeoisie a full monopoly over these tools, and the last thing we need is a bigger power imbalance in this class war.
Guns and Suicide
According to a study published in 2009 by the Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48% of suicides were only planned 10 minutes before they were attempted. This is not enough time to drive down to your local gun store, fill out all of the necessary paperwork and required background information, and purchase a firearm.
The go-to card of the enemies of the working class is the lethality of firearms. I must say, it is incredibly cynical and callous. Instead of an active fight against suicide, of drawing attention to the causes, to what makes people miserable, to what drives them to suicide, to what prevents them (and even harms them if they so much as try) in getting help. Instead – a band-aid solution, of shifting the entire debate of keeping them ‘miserable but alive’, at the expense of those who need firearms to stay alive to begin with. It is inhumane and cruel to focus on this, of demanding the "concession" of being harmed and disarmed, instead of fighting for the vital concessions the suicidal need: Better and free mental healthcare, elimination of homelessness and poverty, the right to work, and a billion more slogans.
According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in 2021 the United States had 14.04 suicides for every 100,000 people. Meanwhile in Japan (a country with a simular level of economic development), there were 16.7 suicides for every 100,000 people. Unlike the United States however, Japan is very well known for having low gun ownership rates, with there only being 0.25 guns for every 100 people. Meanwhile the United States has a gun ownership rate of 120.5 guns for every 100 people. So why is it that Japan has a much higher suicide rate despite having less access to firearms compared to the United States? The answers are numerous from oppressive social conventions, to an aged population that doesn't have enough young people to take care of them, to the fact that Japanese workers often work grueling hours and unpaid overtime.
What of suicide rates in other developed countries? In 2019 the suicide rate in France was 13.80 per 100,000 people. In Germany it was 12.30, in South Korea it was 26.9, in Belgium it was 18.30, in Austria it was 14.60, in Sweden it was 14.70, and in Finland it was 15.30. What about these countries is different from the United States? These countries all have strict gun laws compared to the United States.
So what exactly does cause suicide then? Studies have shown that poverty and suicide rates are directly related to eachother. Under capitalism, poverty is exacerbated and allowed to fester, as capitalism denies workers access to fundamental rights. Capitalism will not abolish the housing market, and thus homelessness will always exist under capitalism. Capitalism will not ensure the right of every worker to a job, as it cannot afford to lose its reserve army of labour. Capitalism will not stop overworking people, as it seeks to exploit workers as much as possible to keep their rate of profit up. Under capitalism the average worker will always feel alienated, as they are divorced from the product of their own labour. Capitalism will not solve the fundamental contradictions inherent to it that cause people to be so miserable as to take their own lives.
The go-to card of the enemies of the working class is the lethality of firearms. I must say, it is incredibly cynical and callous. Instead of an active fight against suicide, of drawing attention to the causes, to what makes people miserable, to what drives them to suicide, to what prevents them (and even harms them if they so much as try) in getting help. Instead – a band-aid solution, of shifting the entire debate of keeping them ‘miserable but alive’, at the expense of those who need firearms to stay alive to begin with. It is inhumane and cruel to focus on this, of demanding the "concession" of being harmed and disarmed, instead of fighting for the vital concessions the suicidal need: Better and free mental healthcare, elimination of homelessness and poverty, the right to work, and a billion more slogans.
According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, in 2021 the United States had 14.04 suicides for every 100,000 people. Meanwhile in Japan (a country with a simular level of economic development), there were 16.7 suicides for every 100,000 people. Unlike the United States however, Japan is very well known for having low gun ownership rates, with there only being 0.25 guns for every 100 people. Meanwhile the United States has a gun ownership rate of 120.5 guns for every 100 people. So why is it that Japan has a much higher suicide rate despite having less access to firearms compared to the United States? The answers are numerous from oppressive social conventions, to an aged population that doesn't have enough young people to take care of them, to the fact that Japanese workers often work grueling hours and unpaid overtime.
What of suicide rates in other developed countries? In 2019 the suicide rate in France was 13.80 per 100,000 people. In Germany it was 12.30, in South Korea it was 26.9, in Belgium it was 18.30, in Austria it was 14.60, in Sweden it was 14.70, and in Finland it was 15.30. What about these countries is different from the United States? These countries all have strict gun laws compared to the United States.
So what exactly does cause suicide then? Studies have shown that poverty and suicide rates are directly related to eachother. Under capitalism, poverty is exacerbated and allowed to fester, as capitalism denies workers access to fundamental rights. Capitalism will not abolish the housing market, and thus homelessness will always exist under capitalism. Capitalism will not ensure the right of every worker to a job, as it cannot afford to lose its reserve army of labour. Capitalism will not stop overworking people, as it seeks to exploit workers as much as possible to keep their rate of profit up. Under capitalism the average worker will always feel alienated, as they are divorced from the product of their own labour. Capitalism will not solve the fundamental contradictions inherent to it that cause people to be so miserable as to take their own lives.
Guns, and Murder, and Organised Violence
Compared to other western developed countries, the United States has the highest murder rate sitting at 7.8 murders for every 100,000 people. This, paired with the fact that developed European countries with stricter gun laws all have significantly lower murder rates than the U.S, has reasonably led many to come to the conclusion that America’s relaxed gun laws cause thousands of unnecessary deaths.
It is difficult to determine how many lives defensive gun use actually saves. We have chosen one estimate we consider likely and reasonable in a previous article, but for the sake of argument, I will use a different, more conservative yet still reasonable estimate here. In criminal cases, according to a report from the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2014 and 2018 guns were used in 2% of all nonfatal violent victimisations in the United States as well as 1% of property victimisations. This amounts to 166,900 and 183,300 cases of recorded defensive gun use respectively, or 350,200 cases total. That means that on average guns were used defensively at least 70,040 times a year on average, not counting instances of gun use which are unreported. According to the same report, firearm homicide deaths in those years were at 66,900. This means that guns were used defensively in nonfatal victimisations more often than they were used offensively in fatal victimisations.
According to an article from the trace, there are around 433 million guns in civilian possession in the United States, not accounting for guns leaving circulation. Many of these firearms are unregistered, although the exact statistic is impossible to calculate with the data we have. Many are smuggled into the country from abroad, 3D printed, stolen, brought across state lines without re-registration, so on and so forth. Because of this violent criminals and hostile lumpen-proletarian elements such as gangsters and/or racial supremacists in organisations like the Crips, the Bloods, the Ku Klux Klan, etc, are highly armed and will remain capable of acquiring firearms illegally no matter how many limitations on firearms sales or background checks are passed. Restricting the sale of firearms will just make it more difficult for innocent civilians to acquire firearms to protect themselves from these criminal institutions. You are not taking it from the lumpenproletariat, who would not surrender their guns anyways, especially the illegal and unregistered ones. You are not taking the guns away from the fascistic elements who have the backing of the police. You are only taking it away from the working class, and giving pretext to repressions against any party that wishes to arm them. And yet, the APL have the audacity to call themselves a vanguard party, while failing to understand this.
According to a special report published by the U.S Department of Justice in 2012, individuals in lower income households had more than double the rate of violent victimisations (39.8 per 1000) in nonfatal crimes compared to individuals in high income households 16.9 per (1000). That same study as before also claims that 51% of these violent victimisations against the poor were committed by the police, compared to 45% in high income households. Therefore a lot of this victimisation is explainable by the violence committed against racial minorities as well as the urban poor.
Black men have routinely been made victims of police brutality for as long as the police have existed. Black people are also murdered by the police at a disproportionately high rate compared to other ethnicities. Black communities will not be safe so long as the police continue to harass them, but especially not if they are denied the means of defending themselves from police violence that comes with firearms. This is not historically unprecedented, as the Black Panthers did just that.
The Black Panther Party formed in 1966 and organized open firearm carrying copwatching patrols to protect Black men from police harassment in a time when Black men were being murdered by the hundreds by the racist institution of the police, a problem we still have today albeit to a less extreme extent. Because of this, the BPP saw rapid success and became a very large party with chapters in multiple major cities, going on to run free healthcare clinics that treated illnesses common in Black communities, as well as the Free Breakfast for Children programs. All of the successes of the Black Panther party would have been unobtainable without their insistence on arming Black men to protect Black communities.
But that is not enough. Anybody can look and say that firearms are used in violent crimes. However, it is undialectical to do this without first looking at why there is violent crime in the first place. A study from the Journal of Economic Structures found that there is a direct correlation between poverty and violent crime, while another paper that reviewed an aggregate of 34 data studies came to the same conclusion. Notably, the former study concluded that access to healthcare and education were an indicator for violent crime rates, which is relevant when put into the context of the United States having a significantly higher murder rate than the social democracies of Europe. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the average healthcare cost per capita in the United States was 12,555$ per person, the most in the developed world, while the average for other wealthy countries was 6,414$ per person.
Additionally, a study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that 42% of adults aged 25-34 have some form of higher education, ranking the United States 14th in the world, directly behind Belgium and France. That same study came to the conclusion that the odds of a person who has parents with a low level of education entering higher education are “particularly small”. Because the United States has a system where 62% of higher education is privately funded rather than publicly funded. The high cost of American higher education, poses a significant barrier to horizontal mobility as many Americans cannot afford higher education, which also leads to decreased intergenerational wealth among the lower classes, which in turn leads to social stratification and increased poverty rates.
According to the National Youth Gang Survey, as of 2012 there were an estimated 27,000 gangs and 850,000 gang members in the United States. Based on statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, that same study claims that there are over 2000 gang related homicides every year. 15.9% of the 14,827 homicides in 2012 were gang related. Additionally between 2011 and 2012 gangs were involved in 48.9% of all violent crime, 42.9% of all property crime, and 39.9% of all drug sales.
If we are to understand what is the cause of these gangs forming in the first place, we must first look at why people choose to be in gangs in the first place. Some risk factors for gang membership include poverty, lack of economic opportunities, poor mental health, depression, and drug addiction.
Absent parents were also a risk factor contributing to gang membership. As of 2018, 1,500 out of 100,000 Black adults were incarcerated while only 268 out of every 100,000 White adults were incarcerated. As of 2021, there were over 1.2 million people incarcerated in the United States. The racist prison industrial complex of the United States targets lower income Black men which is just one factor contributing to 55% of Black children growing up in a single-mother household, which is also in of itself a predictor for poverty.
In other words, gangs as well as violent crime are here and they are here to stay. We can attempt to minimize their harm on the working class by reforms that help prevent people from taking part in gangs, like concessions that help prevent porverty. By actions that restore safety to those in danger, like neighbourgood watches. And, of course, solving them finally by means of a socialist revolution. But until then, the ugly truth is that these criminal organisations form a serious threat to the safety of the working class of the United States, as their existence is born from the exploitation and disenfranchisement of those same workers. When workers are emiserated by their conditions, and when they are forced to grow up in economically disadvantaged positions, many workers are bound to turn to crime and fall into the lumpenproletarian class to subsist themselves. This is why gangs are such a serious problem, and why many people turn to crimes such as robbery, burglary, drug dealing, theft, etc, crimes which can easily escalate into violent crimes given the wrong circumstances.
It is difficult to determine how many lives defensive gun use actually saves. We have chosen one estimate we consider likely and reasonable in a previous article, but for the sake of argument, I will use a different, more conservative yet still reasonable estimate here. In criminal cases, according to a report from the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 2014 and 2018 guns were used in 2% of all nonfatal violent victimisations in the United States as well as 1% of property victimisations. This amounts to 166,900 and 183,300 cases of recorded defensive gun use respectively, or 350,200 cases total. That means that on average guns were used defensively at least 70,040 times a year on average, not counting instances of gun use which are unreported. According to the same report, firearm homicide deaths in those years were at 66,900. This means that guns were used defensively in nonfatal victimisations more often than they were used offensively in fatal victimisations.
According to an article from the trace, there are around 433 million guns in civilian possession in the United States, not accounting for guns leaving circulation. Many of these firearms are unregistered, although the exact statistic is impossible to calculate with the data we have. Many are smuggled into the country from abroad, 3D printed, stolen, brought across state lines without re-registration, so on and so forth. Because of this violent criminals and hostile lumpen-proletarian elements such as gangsters and/or racial supremacists in organisations like the Crips, the Bloods, the Ku Klux Klan, etc, are highly armed and will remain capable of acquiring firearms illegally no matter how many limitations on firearms sales or background checks are passed. Restricting the sale of firearms will just make it more difficult for innocent civilians to acquire firearms to protect themselves from these criminal institutions. You are not taking it from the lumpenproletariat, who would not surrender their guns anyways, especially the illegal and unregistered ones. You are not taking the guns away from the fascistic elements who have the backing of the police. You are only taking it away from the working class, and giving pretext to repressions against any party that wishes to arm them. And yet, the APL have the audacity to call themselves a vanguard party, while failing to understand this.
According to a special report published by the U.S Department of Justice in 2012, individuals in lower income households had more than double the rate of violent victimisations (39.8 per 1000) in nonfatal crimes compared to individuals in high income households 16.9 per (1000). That same study as before also claims that 51% of these violent victimisations against the poor were committed by the police, compared to 45% in high income households. Therefore a lot of this victimisation is explainable by the violence committed against racial minorities as well as the urban poor.
Black men have routinely been made victims of police brutality for as long as the police have existed. Black people are also murdered by the police at a disproportionately high rate compared to other ethnicities. Black communities will not be safe so long as the police continue to harass them, but especially not if they are denied the means of defending themselves from police violence that comes with firearms. This is not historically unprecedented, as the Black Panthers did just that.
The Black Panther Party formed in 1966 and organized open firearm carrying copwatching patrols to protect Black men from police harassment in a time when Black men were being murdered by the hundreds by the racist institution of the police, a problem we still have today albeit to a less extreme extent. Because of this, the BPP saw rapid success and became a very large party with chapters in multiple major cities, going on to run free healthcare clinics that treated illnesses common in Black communities, as well as the Free Breakfast for Children programs. All of the successes of the Black Panther party would have been unobtainable without their insistence on arming Black men to protect Black communities.
But that is not enough. Anybody can look and say that firearms are used in violent crimes. However, it is undialectical to do this without first looking at why there is violent crime in the first place. A study from the Journal of Economic Structures found that there is a direct correlation between poverty and violent crime, while another paper that reviewed an aggregate of 34 data studies came to the same conclusion. Notably, the former study concluded that access to healthcare and education were an indicator for violent crime rates, which is relevant when put into the context of the United States having a significantly higher murder rate than the social democracies of Europe. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, the average healthcare cost per capita in the United States was 12,555$ per person, the most in the developed world, while the average for other wealthy countries was 6,414$ per person.
Additionally, a study from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found that 42% of adults aged 25-34 have some form of higher education, ranking the United States 14th in the world, directly behind Belgium and France. That same study came to the conclusion that the odds of a person who has parents with a low level of education entering higher education are “particularly small”. Because the United States has a system where 62% of higher education is privately funded rather than publicly funded. The high cost of American higher education, poses a significant barrier to horizontal mobility as many Americans cannot afford higher education, which also leads to decreased intergenerational wealth among the lower classes, which in turn leads to social stratification and increased poverty rates.
According to the National Youth Gang Survey, as of 2012 there were an estimated 27,000 gangs and 850,000 gang members in the United States. Based on statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, that same study claims that there are over 2000 gang related homicides every year. 15.9% of the 14,827 homicides in 2012 were gang related. Additionally between 2011 and 2012 gangs were involved in 48.9% of all violent crime, 42.9% of all property crime, and 39.9% of all drug sales.
If we are to understand what is the cause of these gangs forming in the first place, we must first look at why people choose to be in gangs in the first place. Some risk factors for gang membership include poverty, lack of economic opportunities, poor mental health, depression, and drug addiction.
Absent parents were also a risk factor contributing to gang membership. As of 2018, 1,500 out of 100,000 Black adults were incarcerated while only 268 out of every 100,000 White adults were incarcerated. As of 2021, there were over 1.2 million people incarcerated in the United States. The racist prison industrial complex of the United States targets lower income Black men which is just one factor contributing to 55% of Black children growing up in a single-mother household, which is also in of itself a predictor for poverty.
In other words, gangs as well as violent crime are here and they are here to stay. We can attempt to minimize their harm on the working class by reforms that help prevent people from taking part in gangs, like concessions that help prevent porverty. By actions that restore safety to those in danger, like neighbourgood watches. And, of course, solving them finally by means of a socialist revolution. But until then, the ugly truth is that these criminal organisations form a serious threat to the safety of the working class of the United States, as their existence is born from the exploitation and disenfranchisement of those same workers. When workers are emiserated by their conditions, and when they are forced to grow up in economically disadvantaged positions, many workers are bound to turn to crime and fall into the lumpenproletarian class to subsist themselves. This is why gangs are such a serious problem, and why many people turn to crimes such as robbery, burglary, drug dealing, theft, etc, crimes which can easily escalate into violent crimes given the wrong circumstances.
Conclusion
Between the violent racist police force, and criminal organisations such as gangs and far right terrorist organisations operating with the backing of the United States government, who exactly is supposed to protect the workers from any of these threats? Is it the police force that murders Black men by the hundreds and serves as the institution by which the ruling class oppresses the proletariat? Is it the gangs themselves which are engaged in violent crimes, territory disputes, and drug pushing? Is it the military, which serves as the arm of U.S imperialism abroad, and the reserves of the counter-revolution in times of revolutionary upheaval? This is why the American left must internalise the lessons learned by the Black Panther Party, and support the armament of the working class. Only when the workers are armed are we capable of defending ourselves. The fact that we have failed in the systematic organisation of this universal armament, is a failure on the part of the American communist movement as a whole, and nobody else's. We in the United States have a duty to correct this error.
