I agree, but counterpoint. If you’re carrying a gun for political protection/self-defense, you also need to be trained and organized on gun safety, community protocols with guns, and collective action.
If you’re worried about a group of people coming up to murder you. I’m probably less worried about the police response to the fact that I own a weapon.
“Lie down and just get killed, because if you don’t you might get killed”
Once you back people into the corner. You won’t be going to jail.
I think in the context of the thread it was pretty clear I was saying that you’re unlikely to intimidate the police into backing down or to outgun them, not that you should just roll over in the face of any threat.
Be realistic about who that weapon is protecting you from, and who it’s just making fill out more paperwork and earn overtime.
Why are you, individually, trying to intimidate the police?
An armed community does that.
Your argument is pedantic. It’s like saying that you shouldn’t run to be healthier because if you trip and fall you’ll get hurt which could make you bedridden leading to poor health.
I get what you’re saying, what you’re saying isn’t adding value
“True, but don’t downplay how much the police will react when they encounter a legally armed minority”
“True, but consider the black Panthers, who were collectively armed to watch the police”.
“True, but remember MOVE who were likewise armed as a community and the police dropped explosives on them and burned a neighborhood down. Escalation isn’t necessarily worth it, and being a bigger threat might invite harsher violence rather than deter it”
“Oh, so you’re saying you should just let people kill you” <- this is you
“No. I’m saying consider who you’re arming against”
“You’re being pedantic and not adding value”
…
Waco, move, and a large number of early labor movement actions are good examples of how weapons are good for community defense against the government.
Hence: Consider who you’re defending against. Proudboys? Pinkertons? Your gun might give them pause and prevent their shit. The police? FBI? Army? They’ll shoot you for open carrying; kill your family for shooting back; burn down you and your neighbors houses to get you to surrender. Then the courts will say the people who did it can’t be held liable, make taxpayers pay the survivor some cash and sell your children’s bones to a university as a museum display.
So yes, some black people justifiably would rather be harassed by the police than harassed harder and then killed.
That’s fair. Part of organizing community defense is making it absolutely clear that those who are known to be carrying become much more of a target by all fascists.
I agree, but counterpoint. If you’re carrying a gun for political protection/self-defense, you also need to be trained and organized on gun safety, community protocols with guns, and collective action.
but also
Argument being that if you do those things, it can just make them come at you even harder rather than the alternative.
If you’re worried about a group of people coming up to murder you. I’m probably less worried about the police response to the fact that I own a weapon.
“Lie down and just get killed, because if you don’t you might get killed”
Once you back people into the corner. You won’t be going to jail.
Alright.
I think in the context of the thread it was pretty clear I was saying that you’re unlikely to intimidate the police into backing down or to outgun them, not that you should just roll over in the face of any threat.
Be realistic about who that weapon is protecting you from, and who it’s just making fill out more paperwork and earn overtime.
Why are you, individually, trying to intimidate the police?
An armed community does that.
Your argument is pedantic. It’s like saying that you shouldn’t run to be healthier because if you trip and fall you’ll get hurt which could make you bedridden leading to poor health.
I get what you’re saying, what you’re saying isn’t adding value
Yeah, you really didn’t get what I was saying.
Read the context.
“Armed minorities are harder to oppress”
“True, but don’t downplay how much the police will react when they encounter a legally armed minority”
“True, but consider the black Panthers, who were collectively armed to watch the police”.
“True, but remember MOVE who were likewise armed as a community and the police dropped explosives on them and burned a neighborhood down. Escalation isn’t necessarily worth it, and being a bigger threat might invite harsher violence rather than deter it”
“Oh, so you’re saying you should just let people kill you” <- this is you
“No. I’m saying consider who you’re arming against”
“You’re being pedantic and not adding value”
…
Waco, move, and a large number of early labor movement actions are good examples of how weapons are good for community defense against the government.
Hence: Consider who you’re defending against. Proudboys? Pinkertons? Your gun might give them pause and prevent their shit. The police? FBI? Army? They’ll shoot you for open carrying; kill your family for shooting back; burn down you and your neighbors houses to get you to surrender. Then the courts will say the people who did it can’t be held liable, make taxpayers pay the survivor some cash and sell your children’s bones to a university as a museum display.
So yes, some black people justifiably would rather be harassed by the police than harassed harder and then killed.
Not reading a novel. No. What you said was clear. It just wasn’t important.
Cool story bro.
That’s fair. Part of organizing community defense is making it absolutely clear that those who are known to be carrying become much more of a target by all fascists.