There’s like 1 billion firearms in the usa, how may CEOs?
Nobody said You need to stop at US CEOs.
getting firearms across international lines is a little trickier than shooting dumbfuck CEO’s, though. Not advocating anything; just commenting on availability and transportation of firearms.
And personally, I’d rather see billionaires sit in prison and watched their assets get nationalized than to see them die, but given the stranglehold money has on justice systems around the world, one of those is a less likely solution than the other…
and watched their assets get nationalized than to see them die
The fun thing is, with enough estate taxes, we’d reach that end goal in a way.
Those have been carved away as well and there are always other ways to transfer wealth:/ Eventually, seizure is probably the option if there’s a group willing to make that happen. Depends on the trajectory of the government, though, but my money is on more BS tax breaks and moneyed protectionism unless there’s a significant upheaval.
Those have been carved away as well
They have, though not completely. In the end, the rate at which such wealth is transfered through such a method is largely irrelevant, as it only effects the number of burgoise needed for the same effect. And as evidenced by this week’s events, everybody* is ok with that, ignoring the increased difficulty.
True. I mean, it really is a bit of Vulcan chess with regard to all the external factors. Historically, at some point, there is likely a group that will come around and hoover all that up or destroy/squander it. Depending on their goals, this could be better or worse lol
personally, I’d rather see
You can take it a step further, I wish they haven’t fucked us to the point where the violence is getting cheered on. They’re caging and starving a leopard, it will eat their faces eventually.
~400million is the estimate. 1 billion is an etaggeration
It’s not in YOUR social circle.
do the elong next
Greetings and salutations fellow children, I have come to impart a message from myself, your peer.
(Except that has too many syllables for the real Elon)
If this starts a spat of CEO killings, most people will just continue sipping their tea.
I’m certainly not going to throw mine in the harbor over it.
I think I’d get out the finest tea I could find to sip
I dunno.
I might go grab a bottle of champagne or something. Maybe indulge in a nice bit of cheese to go with it.
Champagne and cheese company CEOs conflicted.
It’s ok, they don’t work for themselves they work for an entity that legally requires them to prioritize profits, they have to endorse the murder of CEO’s up to and including themselves in cases of conflict.
No one is going to be gunning down the CEO of Cabbot.
Fun fact, they’re a co-op!
That is a good fact to share. (I actually had to Google if they had a CEO before making my comment lol)
There’s a nice whiskey in my cabinet I haven’t had occasion to pop open for a while…
Not like it affects your average person. Probably improves things a little bit if anything.
Something, something…good guy with a gun. I get it now!
Republicans are going to start being in favor of gun control laws if the gun violence pendulum starts swinging in that direction. Not sure if that would be a win or not.
Shame school kids don’t have that same lobbying power.
In fairness to CEOs, those schoolkids aren’t job creators, so.
Or “donate” money to political campaigns.
No they’re going to call for a police state
I would say they have a reckoning ahead of them either way because I don’t think that the 2nd amendment is actually all that compatible with fascism.
As a universal right it is not, which is one of the reasons they try so hard to make being non-white a felony.
Turns out 1 CEO is worth more than all the school children combined.
Gun control is fundamentally a right wing policy. Just because it aligned with *some people’s preferred right wing party on a culture war wedge issue doesn’t make it right.
Like look at California; the only reason their gun laws are so strict is because they were scared of the Black Panthers doing open carry observation of police. It was a targeted, racist attack on a political movement that was completely bipartisan, because the political class has solidarity with one another against the rest of us.
Like what do *liberals think about abortion bans? Do they reduce the number of abortions? What about drug & alcohol bans? Do they work? We know these things don’t actually stop anyone from doing anything, they just make those behaviours more dangerous.
So why do *they think gun bans will actually be effective? Do *they think the cops will actually use it to protect children? They had all the power at Uvalde and they used it to keep parents from saving their kids.
The US is an unprecedentedly violent police state with the largest military, the largest criminal population in history and a fetishistic obsession with guns, of course their children turn to guns to take out their rage. That’s what they see modelled all around them.
Edit: removed the words that assume this is the position of the person I’m replying to. I still stand by the points.
Nobody said anything about gun bans. Just gun control laws. I’m also well aware that gun control laws disproportionately affect minorities and I myself am not in favor of strict gun laws. (Though common sense screenings make a lot of sense to me)
I was merely poking fun at the right’s pro gun rhetoric and proclivity to completely disregard rhetoric when it inconveniences the rich.
Fair enough, sorry I assumed your position on that.
deleted by creator
Do you think bans reduced the amount of drinking & driving, or was it education?
Like you can’t just name another thing that you’re confident I disagree with and assume I’m going to suddenly support the ban.
You’re doing the thing ban advocates always do: “thing bad”. Okay, thing bad. So how do we actually, effectively, reduce it? Because bans don’t work.
This is a stupid conversation but just so someone cites actual data and not just opinion slapfighting:
Ban
In 1982, President Reagan created a national commission on drunk driving which resulted in several important recommendations that would become foundations to the U.S. approach to stopping drunk driving. The commission issued a report in 1983 which called for raising the minimum drinking age to 21 and for tough enforcement of drunk driving laws. src
… there has been a 38 percent drop in drunk driving deaths since 1982. src
Education
Laws aimed at alcohol-impaired driving have been shown to change behavior in ways that reduce the problem. Alcohol education and public information programs, in contrast, rarely result in short-term behavior change. In part, this is because drinking, and combining drinking with driving, are lifestyle behaviors shaped and supported by many ongoing social forces, and they are not readily amenable to change through brief, one-time education/public information efforts. Moreover, those who contribute most to the problem have characteristics that make them least susceptible to behavior change through educational programs. However, education and public information programs have an important role to play in combating alcohol-impaired driving. They can provide support and impetus for passing laws; transmit knowledge about the provisions and penalties of laws in ways that increase their deterrent effect; and generate public support for law enforcement programs. src (emphasis mine)
In contrast, an education program that research has shown to be effective simply refers back to the ban itself in the first place, i.e., the You Drink, You Drive, You Lose program was successful, and was focused around informing people that DUI activity will be caught and punished. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ktc_researchreports/244/
In summary, chill out. Both bans and education have contributed to the improvement we see today and your narrative that bans are conservative and somehow ineffective is so easily refuted by the data.
The “since 1982” statistic, unless there’s something I’m missing, is literally confusing correlation for causation.
Your other quote on education has a strange emphasis on “short term” changes, especially given that the part regarding bans is talking on the order of decades. Presumably that is a long term effect, yes?
That paper talks a lot about changing social norms and increasing public support for laws. So if laws pass with broad public support, then presumably that broad public support is indicative of a change in social norms which confounds the data. In the end the drink-driving issue is a bad example for this kind of discussion of bans because it’s not banning things that the public broadly would otherwise want to do.
Also, the logic that the “high-risk-but-hard-to-reach” group won’t be reached by education also supports the notion that they won’t be reached by laws either. It makes this point:
Various studies, mostly of male populations, have noted the interrelationship among certain personality traits (rebelliousness, risktaking, independence, defiance of authority ), deviant driving practices (speeding, drinking and driving), and crashes and violations. Deviant driving and crash involvement have also been found to be related to a syndrome of problem behavior including marijuana use, heavy alcohol use, smoking, trouble with the law, and various other delinquent behaviors.
The obvious thing that would reach people like this is social pressure, which again is something that requires broad social support, which confounds any notion that bans have any real effect.
Sorry, but you have a bunch of sources but they don’t seem to say what you want them to say.
deleted by creator
Just so we’re clear: you’re not going to answer the question about whether it even works?
Why would you care if it’s legal if you can’t even say that it’s an effective measure? If you don’t even stand by it to that extent, why are you asking?
deleted by creator
Don’t forget, the CEO is always the fall guy for the owners
So fall he shall. Something something humble beginnings, auspicious prospects.
CEOs are almost always part owners. A large part of their massive “compensation” for all the amazing value they add to the company is usually given in the form of stocks.
Water the tree of liberty with the blood of the tyrant
Killing people is never right, but some of these rich bastards have dome so much to make themselves a target that I don’t feel bad for them anymore.
Killing people is never right
What is this nonsense? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Putin? Khan? There is a never ending list of people that should have been killed sooner.
Those are just the obvious example. There are many more people that cause suffering and death of millions and they deserve to be removed from society.
Yeah, my comment was worded poorly. What I meant to say was that I hate the general idea of just killing everyone who stands in the way of societal progress. I don’t want that to become the default option.
You are being reasonable and nothing wrong with that. I think everyone understands this.
With that being said, clearly many people don’t this as murder and society is pretty unified on this.
The message has been sent by this denial of life and society is amounting a psyop on the ruling class.
It doesn’t look like they actually took note and are digging in.
Things will get worse.
Do you think killing for example Hitler would’ve changed anything? He just was some random guy who joined an already existing movement (and even without that movement ww2 was inevitable after the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint-Germain). They’d just have picked someone else to lead it
Do you think killing Putin would change anything? He put complete loyalists everywhere, if he’s gone his political line will continue.
These are systematical issues, you can’t fix them as long as a large majority of those who have power to change anything (in a democracy thankfully that’s everyone who’s eligible for voting) simply accept it.
Side note: In the USA’s recent election ~32% voted for the Republicans and ~32% for the Democrats while over a third just didn’t care at all. That’s not how you get something to change in a democracy!
Just because you keep making trash doesn’t justify never taking it out.
Personally, I handle it like this: Killing people is never right, but it isn’t always the best decision to do “the right” thing. The right thing, morally, would have been, to collectively not create a system that has CEOs and billionaires. Just like, the ideal revolution would only depose and take the power from the ruling classes and would have no need for terror. But it’s usually impossible to follow a completely ideal situation.
I think the distinction is important, mainly because the enjoyment of revenge for revenge’s sake and violence for violence’s sake is pretty real and can become very dangerous to the success of revolutionary action. So it is good to remind yourself of the ideal situation (no killing), as to curb any excesses if at all possible. It does not mean you cannot go against those ideals - in the end, ideals are trumped by material reality and its necessities.
Killing people is never right…
Uvalde P.D. checking in.
Sometimes killing is the only way some people can receive their justified consequences.
Kings had to be reminded of this every once in a while, now the CEOs.
Let them hate so long as they fear.
Attributed to Caligula, but guess what ya rich bastards? It goes both ways, and we outnumber you. By a lot.
i hope he’s next
Societies are NEVER known for violently overthrowing elite classes or anything
…
is this the same elon musk that’s been rapidly expanding his security detail? he seems awfully scared to me
No CEO with a clean conscience needs to worry given the circumstances of the murder but I bet I could count those in one hand.
You’re right, and it’s spelled conscience.
Idk, both kind of work here.
Not seeing it. Please explain.
Conscious has a noun form as well, aka a mind. Mostly you’d want to phrase it as consciousness but you could definitely play it from a “even psychopaths had more sense than this guy” angle.
It wouldn’t be a good idea, as this conversation proves, but you could do it.
Huh. TIL. Had always seen consciousness or conscious mind.
Live in fear, cunt.
Seems pretty based to me
