Psycho shoots up school in Brazil, home of intense gun control laws

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

'RIO DE JANEIRO – A gunman roamed the halls of an elementary school in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday and killed 11 children, lining them up against a wall and shooting them in the head at point-blank range as he shouted, "I'm going to kill you all!"' - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_brazil_school_shooting

This despite tight gun control laws.

'Because of gun politics in Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25 and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence, extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

And:

'Although Brazil has 110 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 50% more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

Will these sorts of events and facts sway the liberals who advocate regulation of firearm ownership and use by the capitalist state? Of course not, because their position is not based on logic. It's based on the desire of bosses and wannabe bosses to boss; to control the masses and bring them in line with their "enlightened" ways.

[a rebel]

the fact is that most gun control is kind of pointless, if someone kills someone with a rifle, anti-gun people will use that case to outlaw rifles. Then another nut who can't get a rifle, will kill someone with a pistol, and anti-gun people will use that case to outlaw pistols. I can't speak for Brazil, but most U.S gun murders are committed with illegal fire arms. By tightening gun control, you are only making it harder for people who want to own guns responsibly. And creating more of a black market for illegal guns.

All it takes is one crazy person to make it incredibly hard on the rest of us.

[Die Rote Fahne]

the fact is that most gun control is kind of pointless, if someone kills someone with a rifle, anti-gun people will use that case to outlaw rifles. Then another nut who can't get a rifle, will kill someone with a pistol, and anti-gun people will use that case to outlaw pistols. I can't speak for Brazil, but most U.S gun murders are committed with illegal fire arms. By tightening gun control, you are only making it harder for people who want to own guns responsibly. And creating more of a black market for illegal guns.

All it takes is one crazy person to make it incredibly hard on the rest of us.

Or you know, have it like the US and have "gun shows" and gun "flea markets" where all you need is a state ID to walk away with 3 or 4 guns.

[Luís Henrique]

This despite tight gun control laws.

Gun control is tight in Brazil? News to me.

Luís Henrique

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Will these sorts of events and facts sway the liberals who advocate regulation of firearm ownership and use by the capitalist state? Of course not, because their position is not based on logic. It's based on the desire of bosses and wannabe bosses to boss; to control the masses and bring them in line with their "enlightened" ways.

That's a bit of an excessive assumption there I think, I don't think it is necessarily based on some boss-mentality...

There's around 31 murders a day in São Paulo alone. The situation in Brazil is a good illustration of that the most important factor in what determines the prevalence of gun violence is the social situation and the nature of the gun-culture rather than gun ownership as such; there are many similarities with the United States, with the paranoia of the wealthy people in their walled cities guarded by private para-military security companies to separate themselves from the toiling masses-

[a rebel]

Or you know, have it like the US and have "gun shows" and gun "flea markets" where all you need is a state ID to walk away with 3 or 4 guns.

it depends on the state, where I live in New Jersey, you need a background check, and one year waiting period to buy a rifle or shotgun. And for a pistol, a very expensive, concealed weapon permit. The states where you can do that are more rural, where there is more hunting, and sport shooting.

[a rebel]

Or you know, have it like the US and have "gun shows" and gun "flea markets" where all you need is a state ID to walk away with 3 or 4 guns.

its says on your location your Canadian, I know it's very easy to get a gun there as well

[#FF0000]

lol in pa you can just buy a weapon out of someone's basement and all but wave that shit around as you skip home

[PhoenixAsh]

Was I alone in thinking Psycho went mental? :)


More on topic: psycho's are going to be psycho's. Brasil deals with completely different problems from other countries with rampant overt gang warfare in no-go areas fueled by drug bosses and private armies.

[a rebel]

exactly, criminals who will rather buy an unregistered, illegal gun, than wait to buy a legal one. You are restricting responsible ownership, and punishing the wrong people.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's a bit of an excessive assumption there I think, I don't think it is necessarily based on some boss-mentality...

That's exactly what it's based on. It's why these calls come from the oppressing and exploiting classes. They're headed up by people like billionaire New York Mayor Bloomberg, and backed by other bosses, wannabee bosses and loyal idiots. These are the same people that appeal to the blood-soaked capitalist state to provide "peace" and "safety" by preventing firearms from falling into the hands of the masses.

The bosses know what's best! :rolleyes:


There's around 31 murders a day in São Paulo alone. The situation in Brazil is a good illustration of that the most important factor in what determines the prevalence of gun violence is the social situation and the nature of the gun-culture rather than gun ownership as such; there are many similarities with the United States, with the paranoia of the wealthy people in their walled cities guarded by private para-military security companies to separate themselves from the toiling masses-

Agreed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Gun control is tight in Brazil?

It's much tighter than it is in the United States.

"'Because of gun politics in Brazil, all firearms are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25 and although it is legal to carry a gun outside a residence, extremely severe restrictions were made by the federal government since 2002 making it virtually impossible to obtain a carry permit.... Although Brazil has 110 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 50% more gun deaths; other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States.'" - - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Brazil

Of course the laws are circumvented, and that's part of the point. Restriction of firearm ownership is mainly aimed at disarming the general population. Career criminals who want firearms for use in committing crimes aren't going to go through legal avenues to purchase them.

The liberal calls to the capitalist state to disarm the population are out and out bullshit.


News to me.

A lot of what goes on in the real world seems to be.

[Nolan]

I don't think you could compare Brazil and the U.S., but gun control has no good argument anyway.

And psycho, I never knew you were such an evil bastard.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't quite understand gun control under a logic level. We shouldn't make gun possession illegal, because it then stamps out regulation over those who carry weapons. Any nut could then acquire weaponry through the black market. I mean, this is essentially the same topic as drugs are. You criminalize, consumption rate goes up and is misused, due to lack of regulation. If you legalize, then the consumption rate goes down and the misuse of such would be limited, due to regulation.

[Salyut]

I don't quite understand gun control under a logic level. We shouldn't make gun possession illegal, because it then stamps out regulation over those who carry weapons. Any nut could then acquire weaponry through the black market. I mean, this is essentially the same topic as drugs are. You criminalize, consumption rate goes up and is misused, due to lack of regulation. If you legalize, then the consumption rate goes down and the misuse of such would be limited, due to regulation.

You can fabricate submachine guns, explosives, and chemical weapons in a basement workshop if you can work with your hands and know what to read (its VERY easy to find and read up on).

I've yet to see how gun control is going to address that. People actually have managed to synthesize nerve agents on their own (or got caught before they could).

[Pretty Flaco]

my brother was working in nevada and a guy he worked with bought an operating ak-47

[synthesis]

my brother was working in nevada and a guy he worked with bought an operating ak-47

Fully automatic?

[Nolan]

my brother was working in nevada and a guy he worked with bought an operating ak-47

That's not that amazing.


Fully automatic?

Not unless he has a permit, which costs a lot.

[The Man]

That's not that amazing.



Not unless he has a permit, which costs a lot.


There is no license involved in buying Class III weapons.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don't quite understand gun control under a logic level.

The control is the logic. That's what it's all about.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There is no license involved in buying Class III weapons.

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=02

[The Man]

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/default?set=02

I know. I own C3 Firearms. There is no 'license' it is a form 3/4, on which one weapon is registered onto. This form does not grant you access to Machine guns.

[Luís Henrique]

Of course the laws are circumvented, and that's part of the point.

So the "tight control" amounts to... very lax law enforcement, isn't it?


A lot of what goes on in the real world seems to be.

Getting aggressive, are we?

Luís Henrique

[Black Sheep]

anti-gun nuts
The association of 'anti-gun' with 'nuts' tells me you are a gun-loving macho man.
the f is wrong with you?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

So the "tight control" amounts to... very lax law enforcement, isn't it?

The point is that tighter laws and more restriction does not take arms out of the hands of career criminals. The contrary is the case here. Since that's one of the main arguments liberals put forward in an attempt to rationalize their call for "gun control" it's very relevant.

[synthesis]

I don't necessarily think that calls for "gun control" are some sort of conspiracy against the working class. Individuals using guns for political purposes, as far as I can tell, has only been an effective prerogative of the right.

That's not to say that the working class has anything to gain from it, of course.

[Luís Henrique]

The point is that tighter laws and more restriction does not take arms out of the hands of career criminals. The contrary is the case here. Since that's one of the main arguments liberals put forward in an attempt to rationalize their call for "gun control" it's very relevant.

The guy who went nuts and shoot children in Rio de Janeiro was by no means a "carreer criminal".

Tighter laws, of course, mean nothing if their enforcement is lax. Whether thighter laws plus thighter enforcement can or cannot "take arms out of the hands of carreer criminals" - or of law abiding citizens that eventually snap and go on shooting sprees - cannot be demonstrated by a fact that happened in a country where law enforcement is extremely lax.

But thanks for toning down.

Luís Henrique

[dez]

You can easily get a gun in brazil, because in general there is no state of law there.
Usually from corrupt policemen.

Doesn't count as gun control. Effective gun control would be what they have in japan, with an actual sealing of borders, tight state regulation of the few people who are allowed (higher patent officers) to have guns (less people, easier to regulate), and law enforcement concerning lawbreakers.

Until 2005 you could only get a gun in brazil if you acquired an authorization, which meant that you could prove you were under threat of life, worked as security or was a judge/prosecutor.
In 2005 there was a referendum that wanted to tighten gun laws, and the brazilian population's response actually made it laxer. Brazilians want guns. They don't feel safe and they don't trust the state to actually control guns. They're right, brazilian state is currently unable to carry on that task. Not that guns would make them any safer, but it always makes people, and specifically people in power, more polite.

[Sasha]

-double-

[Sasha]

firstly, i take offence to the title of this thread, it trows me off every time i see it.

also, some nutcase just shot up an shoppingcenter here in the netherlands with an automatic, to european standards we have quite moderate gun laws (if you want one, you can probably legaly get one, but only semi pistols and rifles). yet, until now, if stuff like this happens people are not pushing for tighter gun controll. because 99% of the time these (for the netherlands very rare) things happen with illegal weapons or by an cop/soldier with an mental breakdown.
intrestingly enough everybodys first reaction here is "jezus, we are not in the US here are we?" wich is closely related to the point i continuously try to make in threads here where i argu for guncontroll. its not about banning guns outright. its about furthering responsible gun culture.
countrys like switserland and canada have more guns per person than the US, but people have an pistol to protect the house and an rifle to hunt, and if you are irresponsible with them the state takes them away. No picking up machineguns at an fleamarket.
same here, as long as you have an clean record its pretty easy to get an legal gun. but everything arround it is about furthering responisble gun possesion. No waving it arround, no cayring unless underway to the range, exstensive and regular training, you have to keep them under lock and key and the state comes to check wheter you do etc etc.
thats what i talk about when i say i support guncontrol, everybody who want them should be able to get them unless your nuts or irresponsible with them.
just as these people arent allowed to drive on the road.

[PhoenixAsh]

Its actually quite like getting a drivers license. You have to pass a psychological and criminal background check and then you have to learn how to responsibly use it.

[Das war einmal]

Its actually quite like getting a drivers license. You have to pass a psychological and criminal background check and then you have to learn how to responsibly use it.

If the "psychological background check" for gun ownership is the same as getting a drivers license here then it is like this

Q: Do you have any psychological disorders
A: Y/N

No wonder then if the killer was able to get through the background check

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Doesn't count as gun control. Effective gun control would be what they have in japan, with an actual sealing of borders, tight state regulation of the few people who are allowed (higher patent officers) to have guns (less people, easier to regulate), and law enforcement concerning lawbreakers.

And yet that "effective gun control" hasn't kept firearms out of the hands of organized criminals. Ever heard of the Yakuza? Career criminals and people with money find ways to get firearms despite restriction, just like people with money can get safe medical abortions even after they're banned. That's why working people are the ones most affected.

And it certainly hasn't stopped violent crime, which is one of the main liberal talking points when they want to enforce gun control.

It didn't stop this car/knife attack (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jun/09/world/fg-stab9) that killed seven in Tokyo. It didn't stop this knife attack (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/japanese-bus-passengers-slashed-in-knife-attack/story-e6frg6so-1225972847663) on a bus that injured 14. It didn't stop this car (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374463) attack on workers at a Mazda factory. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need arms to launch the sarin gas attack in Tokyo.

The underlying source for such things is never the existence of firearms (or swords, since those are also controlled in Japan).

What has it done? It's kept firearms out of the hands of regular working people, as intended. The control of weapons in Japan originated with ruler Toyotomi Hideyoshi's "Sword Hunt," when he decreed that the swords of all members of the lower classes be seized. (Later the Tokugawa Shogunate put peasant groups under the supervision of landowners who regulated their lives and enforced the ban on sword and gun ownership).

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

also, some nutcase just shot up an shoppingcenter here in the netherlands with an automaticThat's right. He killed 7 and wounded 15 more despite gun control.

"Only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors may obtain licenses for firearms. In the case of shooting club members they will get a license for category III weapons (a firearms category which includes all non- full automatic firearms up to .50 cal.). Possession is generally limited to 5 firearms per license. Collectors may obtain a license for any category of firearm, including full automatic arms, but stringent rules apply to achieving collector status. There is no limit to the number of firearms a collector may obtain. Generally the collector license does not cover shooting these weapons."

Which proves once again that gun control doesn't stop violent crime.


intrestingly enough everybodys first reaction here is "jezus, we are not in the US here are we?" wich is closely related to the point i continuously try to make in threads here where i argu for guncontroll. I think it's probably more related to anti-American chauvinism, which is pretty widespread in parts of Europe.


its not about banning guns outright. its about furthering responsible gun culture.Which would in reality mean providing firearms training to all who want it and mental health services to all who need them. But don't count on it. The answer is obviously further regulation by the capitalist state. :rolleyes:


cayring unless underway to the range, exstensive and regular training, you have to keep them under lock and key and the state comes to check wheter you do etc etc.Maybe they learned from Japan, where those few who have gun permits are visited randomly at home so the cops can count their bullets.


thats what i talk about when i say i support guncontrol, everybody who want them should be able to get them unless your nuts or irresponsible with them.So you support the capitalist state's control over firearms, up to and including home inspections??

[Sasha]

Yup, its an necessary evil I accept. Don't enjoy i need an police check for my work as an teacher or my permit for being an bouncer, nor that I need an drivers exam or that I'm not allowed to fly boeing 747s and perform open heart surgery either. But both before and after the revolution we are going to need some communal controll on all these things. And in capitalist society its sadly the capitalist government who does that.

[Pretty Flaco]

Fully automatic?

It's fully automatic.

[PhoenixAsh]

That's right. He killed 7 and wounded 15 more despite gun control.

"Only citizens who are hunters, members of shooting sports clubs or legitimate collectors may obtain licenses for firearms. In the case of shooting club members they will get a license for category III weapons (a firearms category which includes all non- full automatic firearms up to .50 cal.). Possession is generally limited to 5 firearms per license. Collectors may obtain a license for any category of firearm, including full automatic arms, but stringent rules apply to achieving collector status. There is no limit to the number of firearms a collector may obtain. Generally the collector license does not cover shooting these weapons."

Which proves once again that gun control doesn't stop violent crime.

Given the amount of violent crime in Holland of this nature or involving fire arms it does prove that no gun controll does not do so either....in fact...a lot less so.

Now what is a bit strange is that the anti-legislation people always jump on the excesses and freak occurances in other countries with gun legislation to prove taht it does not stop violent crime. but are not able or completely unwilling to see the rampant crime rates involving firearms in their own country. the argument that legislation will not stop crime and you need gus to rpotect yourself against crime....are a bit short sighted.

Now...what...would free and wide spread gun ownership have done to:
1). prevent this?
2). stop this?

Because it seesm to me that when two highly armed military forces, expecting attack are engaged but one of them is surprised that usually leads to their defeat.

These people in the shopping mall were surprised. Things like this do not happen in Holland. If they had all been carrying guns there would still be a lot of people dead and wounded simply because firing an automatic weapon into a crowd of people will generally have that effect.

Even if all these people were armed...and shot back...what the hell do you think would have happened in a crowed mall in all the confusion? Do you gather that people would have jsut started shooting at the person they see wifth a gun? Perhaps leading to much, much more wounded people and many more deads?

Criminals will be criminals and crazy people will be crazy people. With or without gun legislation if somebody wants to kill a lot of people he/she can obtain a gun on the black market or through legal means and tehre is no stopping them.

Thats an inconvenient fact.

Its a completely irrational argument to argue for or against gun legislation.



I think it's probably more related to anti-American chauvinism, which is pretty widespread in parts of Europe.

No...its simple statistics. These kind of violent crimes and those involving firearms....or firearms involved accidents and fatalities happen more in the US than in any European country which has gun legislation.

These are not biasses...these are the simple statistics.

So either unrestricted acces to guns increases crime, or the argument for defence is baseless.


Which would in reality mean providing firearms training to all who want it and mental health services to all who need them. But don't count on it. The answer is obviously further regulation by the capitalist state. :rolleyes:

I completely agree with the first part.

The second part is unfortunate. But even in an anarchist society there should be some regulation to who gets to own a gun and who can not and some form of social responsibility on assuring everybody is responsible with it.




Maybe they learned from Japan, where those few who have gun permits are visited randomly at home so the cops can't count their bullets.

That is an other excess all together. Its not a black and white issue here.



So you support the capitalist state's control over firearms, up to and including home inspections??

Personally I think nobody should be allowed to own a firearm who did not have trainig in its use and at least showed he/she can responsibly handle and store a gun.

Police and authorities need to stay out of sombodies home. That said...there should be some civil council which checks if people keep upholding responsibility standards with objects manufactures with the specific aim to be able to wound, kill or maim living beings.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't necessarily think that calls for "gun control" are some sort of conspiracy against the working class. Individuals using guns for political purposes, as far as I can tell, has only been an effective prerogative of the right.

Well except for the Black Panthers who protested inside the California Capital building while armed. NRA-loved Ronald Regan quickly passed sweeping gun laws (only for urban areas). Fast-forward to the present and in the Bay Area, right-wing nuts are fighting for the right to have a gun on their hip while checking their stocks on their laptop at Starbucks (and they did regularly show up about 6 months ago until a coffee shop invited them to come in, armed). If black people tried to walk into a Walnut Creek coffee shop with guns on their hips... well they'd probably be shot by the first cop that showed up.

So "gun-rights" have always been tied to class-politics IMO and the reason that it's a right-wing issue has less to do with guns in the abstract and more to do with cultivating a certain reactionary ideology.

Psycho makes some good points on gun licensing and that makes sense to me, but "gun control" in US politics is not really about regulating guns as it is the liberal response/explanation for violent crime and I don't think lefists should argue for this. While the right fights to make it easier for the white petty-bourgeois and some workers to build up ridiculous home arsenals to protect themselves from all sorts of imagined bogymen (from fear of home invasion robberies in remote low-crime upwardly mobile areas to the even stranger fear of the UN or black helicopters), liberal gun-control laws end up only being enforced on the urban working class and poor anyway. Ironically probably the people who have the most legitimate claim to needing arms to protect themselves from government oppression (compared to some "sovereign citizen" nut who works at an IT firm or whatnot).

But I think Synthesis is right in that guns or gun ownership aren't really that important for our movements at this point. Fantasies about taking on cops or training in the hills are almost as unreasonable for the left in the US as right-wingers stockpiling weapons in fear of the UN taking over the country. Workers will probably have to take up arms somewhere to some extent (just look at Egypt which wasn't even a worker's revolution) but it's really a secondary concern to building class self-organization and consciousness in the present.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

ITT: Two anarchists arguing for increased control by the capitalist state.


Now...what...would free and wide spread gun ownership have done to:
1). prevent this?
2). stop this?

Nothing. Who said anything like that? The point is that gun control is not about making people safer. It's simply a (false) argument used by liberals to rationalize their appeals to the blood-soaked murderous capitalist state to take control of firearms.


That said...there should be some civil council which checks if people keep upholding responsibility standards with objects manufactures with the specific aim to be able to wound, kill or maim living beings.

But we're talking about the capitalist society we live in now, in which "regulation" means control by the state.

And even if we were talking about a future society, think about what this proposal, as it is worded, would mean in practice. I can see it now: The People's Commission on Potentially Dangerous Objects will be visiting homes at random tonight to make sure individuals are in line with the social standards on the usage of tools like guns, knives, forks, ropes, bricks, vehicles and all other devices which can be used to kill, injure or maim. :rolleyes:


Criminals will be criminals and crazy people will be crazy people. With or without gun legislation if somebody wants to kill a lot of people he/she can obtain a gun on the black market or through legal means and tehre is no stopping them.

Thats an inconvenient fact.

No, it's exactly the point. If career criminals and violent people with mental problems will get the means to kill others no matter what, who exactly are you calling for the capitalist state to disarm?


No...its simple statistics. These kind of violent crimes and those involving firearms....or firearms involved accidents and fatalities happen more in the US than in any European country which has gun legislation.

These are not biasses...these are the simple statistics.

So either unrestricted acces to guns increases crime, or the argument for defence is baseless.

First, there's no "unrestricted access" to firearms anywhere in the United States.

Second, a larger percentage of the population in Switzerland has firearms than in the United States. Despite this, there are not only many fewer gun attacks in Switzerland than in the United States, there are also fewer gun attacks than knife attacks in Switzerland itself. So no, wider firearm possession doesn't necessarily correlate to more gun assaults.


That is an other excess all together. Its not a black and white issue here.

That's exactly what it is. Why? Because you don't get to decide how the capitalist state carries out its objectives. By actively calling for the capitalist state to regulate firearm ownership you're writing a blank check for the ruling class to strengthen its grip and further interfere with the lives of workers in your name, however it sees fit. It's quite pathetic really.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

And I'll again point out these facts:

"Gun control" is an aspect of liberalism, bureaucratic control (of those who know what's best over the "unwashed masses"), etc. It has nothing to do with the revolutionary struggle to do away with all exploitation and oppression.

The First, Second and Third internationals up until Stalin's reign argued for the right to bear arms.

"...the disarming of the workers was the first commandment for the bourgeois, who were at the helm of the state. Hence, after every revolution won by the workers, a new struggle, ending with the defeat of the workers." - Engels

"Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army." - Eduard Bernstein

"No standing army or police force, but the armed people." - Lenin

"Every possibility for the proletariat to get weapons into its hands must be exploited to the fullest." - Guidelines on the Organizational Structure of Communist Parties, on the Methods and Content of their Work (Adopted at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Communist International, 12 July 1921)

Timothy McVeigh didn't need guns to level the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need arms to launch the sarin gas attack in Tokyo. You can kill someone with any number of things, from cars to kitchen knives to explosives. Should they all be "controlled" too? Do countries in which gun ownership is more restricted not have murders, assassinations and violent attacks by rightists and people with mental issues?

Firearms aren't the problem.

* * *

The people making the US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan so difficult are mainly using small arms.

Firearms were/are usually present in miners strikes in the coal fields (West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania) from the early days up until the 70's, 80's and even 90's. Ever see the documentary Harlan County U.S.A.? I have stories, friends and family with experiences, etc. that would surprise a lot of people, "leftist revolutionaries" included.

* * *

When you call for limiting gun ownership, for whatever reason you, you are arguing for the capitalist state to regulate our lives further, since that's the only force capable of regulating such a thing.

The bourgeois armed the proletariat when it needed it, and tried to reverse that when it didn't. Some countries went through mass revolutions involving huge swaths of the population. Others did not.

It should be mentioned that Switzerland has wide firearm ownership, and makes firearms training available to any boy or girl who wants it. All Swiss men enter boot camp around age 20 and remain a part of the militia until they reach 30. All those people keep their firearms (mostly Sig 550s) at home. After their militia term ends they're allowed to keep their firearms after having the autofire function removed. You need a permit to carry firearms.

There are some 3,000,000 firearms in homes across Switzerland. There are 7,600,000 people. There were 34 instances of gun violence in the entire country 2006. There were nearly twice as many instances of knife violence.

[The Red Next Door]

I actually was thinking the mod pyscho, have actually did something like that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^I totally would have given him a negative rep if he had.

[PhoenixAsh]

ITT: Two anarchists arguing for increased control by the capitalist state.

Yes...I think no american or american institution should be allowed to own any guns at all. You can own supersoakers.


Nothing. Who said anything like that? The point is that gun control is not about making people safer. It's simply a (false) argument used by liberals to rationalize their appeals to the blood-soaked murderous capitalist state to take control of firearms.

You did. By approaching the subject as a crime reducing or increasing subject only in your OP....using Brasil...which is not really a comparably country to the US...as an example of how guns don not lower crime and therefore guns should not be restricted.

And when you would have read my post you would have seen that i agree that either increasing or decreasing regulation based on the crime argument is a false argument.



But we're talking about the capitalist society we live in now, in which "regulation" means control by the state.

Yes...some things need regulating. Its as simple as that. And we may not like the state but right now that is the only form we have.

Unless you advocate people to fly planes without proper education and no institution to check the pilots.



And even if we were talking about a future society, think about what this proposal, as it is worded, would mean in practice. I can see it now: The People's Commission on Potentially Dangerous Objects will be visiting homes at random tonight to make sure individuals are in line with the social standards on the usage of tools like guns, knives, forks, ropes, bricks, vehicles and all other devices which can be used to kill, injure or maim. :rolleyes:

Because knifes, forks, bricks, vehicles are all specifically designed with the aim to kill, maim, or injure. :rolleyes:

Guns however ARE....and serve no usefull purpose otherwise.

Wanting to own a gun is IMO wanting to have an object with which you can kill something effectively.

If you want to own a gun in post rev society then you voluntarilly ascribe to the fact that you have to deal with responsible handling and the fact that society needs to check that you continue to do so. You can ridicule it into absurd extremes any which way you want....





No, it's exactly the point. If career criminals and violent people with mental problems will get the means to kill others no matter what, who exactly are you calling for the capitalist state to disarm?

I am calling for society to disarm everybody and destroy any firearms, bombs, or military equipment.


First, there's no "unrestricted access" to firearms anywhere in the United States.

it is however very easy to get posession of a gun legally.


In somestate within 12 hrs from your desired wish to own one. Even if you can not buy a gun legally because you fall into the barred categories...these people can buy one at gun shows which are allowedd to sell guns with no questions asked...all legal.

Irony.



Second, a larger percentage of the population in Switzerland has firearms than in the United States. Despite this, there are not only many fewer gun attacks in Switzerland than in the United States, there are also fewer gun attacks than knife attacks in Switzerland itself. So no, wider firearm possession doesn't necessarily correlate to more gun assaults.

Nice you brought Switserland up.

First off all. THe country has a militia which may keep its firearms at home. These people are trained and "certified" in the use, maintenance and responsible handling of the guns.

Second these people only get a specific quantity of amunition. This amunition is packed and is inspected regularly by officials. If you leave the militia the weapon is disabled for full automatic function.

THirdly you require trainig and certification to own a gun if you are not in the militia. Criminals, mental patients and those posing secutiry problems are not allowed to own guns.

Fourthly you can not carry your weapon in public unless you go to barracks and range.


So...yeah...basically, excdept for the last point, the system I advocate.

:thumbup1:




That's exactly what it is. Why? Because you don't get to decide how the capitalist state carries out its objectives. By actively calling for the capitalist state to regulate firearm ownership you're writing a blank check for the ruling class to strengthen its grip and further interfere with the lives of workers in your name, however it sees fit. It's quite pathetic really.

Think about your statement long and hard...and then think about its implication if applied to all aspects of society.

[synthesis]

But I think Synthesis is right in that guns or gun ownership aren't really that important for our movements at this point. Fantasies about taking on cops or training in the hills are almost as unreasonable for the left in the US as right-wingers stockpiling weapons in fear of the UN taking over the country. Workers will probably have to take up arms somewhere to some extent (just look at Egypt which wasn't even a worker's revolution) but it's really a secondary concern to building class self-organization and consciousness in the present.

I think my point was more or less that the idea of "taking on cops/training in the hills" is generally more effective for reactionaries than it is for communists and the working class - same goes for assassinations and such. Our strength is in numbers.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Definitely. Self-defense is only for reactionaries.

http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/Deacons_for_Defense_0.jpg

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1443/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1443-634.jpg

http://www.loe.org/images/content/101008/blair%20mountain.jpg

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQte7iNKA-ZSQrCgeVS5EHl4fjaLpvFvQ5-m6XcCOhef0X4nHRkfA&t=1


http://www.wvculture.org/history/labor/mw07.jpg

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/01/19/p465/090119_r18111_p465.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC-A4NF5BkWwpwYPGY3Yvl2_gTOw_pBCdq_adIKhRchEiafw-Tfg&t=1

http://www.labornet.org/images/ludstrkrs.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tBqi5ja-dgs/SefxFfIDwuI/AAAAAAAAAtw/Etaf0GDf0Fc/s320/spanish_republicans.jpeg

http://www.truefilms.com/HarlanCounty4.jpg

[synthesis]

Definitely. Self-defense is only for reactionaries.

I would argue, again, that in every one of the situations you posted, individual ownership of guns benefited reactionaries far more than anyone else.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right. Beating back armed attacks on your picket lines, homes, seized work places, etc., and freeing imprisoned workers benefits reactionaries.

[Public Domain]

I was raised all dopey, apathetic, and pacified in Canada. The Liberals here have had it on their agenda for awhile to 'crack down on gun violence' and had implemented a registry. Included pistols, long-guns, etc. You get to have a gun, there's just an inconvenience and they have your name. But it's indoctrinated into your mind as a child of Canada that 'Canadians are peaceful and unarmed', 'Guns are for the Americans' and other fun lies and distortions.

I used to believe that guns were a scourge of the earth and that we should all melt the guns down into metal for buildings or some crap. When I argued about it I would notice that the arguments are always about which side can most atrocities be attributed too. "This person died because of guns", and "This person died because there were no guns". The argument didn't have much for it or against it, just a ton of petty emotion and debate on controlling the proletariat.

Well anyway I believe that gun control is useless except for disarming the poor. I don't really discuss it... I'll let the disillusioned right-wingers ***** for loosened restrictions while we can focus on bigger pictures.

[synthesis]

Right. Beating back armed attacks on your picket lines, homes, seized work places, etc., and freeing imprisoned workers benefits reactionaries.

Thing is, when reactionaries use guns, nobody's really surprised, for the most part. It doesn't stick out; it's considered "business as usual." When we use guns, the whole state apparatus comes crashing down on us; we don't even get a chance to build up to a Waco-type situation.

[Philosopher Jay]

This is all NRA propaganda shit.

This is from an article from infosur hoy entitled
‘More firearms generate more crime’

Brazil’s murder rate decreasing
By Nelza Oliveira for Infosurhoy.com — 13/05/2010




RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – For researchers Daniel Cerqueira and Júlio Jacobo Waiselfisz, the reason the country’s murder rate has decreased in recent years is simple: Fewer guns equal fewer deaths.
Cerqueira’s recent study on behalf of the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea) shows that between 2001 and 2007, the number of armed robberies that ended with a fatality and the overall murder rate fell by 61% in the state of São Paulo.
Waiselfisz, of the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Sangari Institute, released his Map of the Violence, which shows the number of homicides nationwide has decreased since 2004, a level of improvement South America’s biggest country hadn’t experienced in decades.
Cerqueira and Waiselfisz attribute the decrease in homicides to the Statute of Disarmament, a 2003 federal law that restricted citizens’ access to firearms and increased the purchase price and registration of weapons. It also promoted a campaign for gun owners to give up their weapons to authorities, with compensation payments varying from R$100 to R$400 (US$56 to US$224).
Since 2003, laws against carrying firearms became more rigid, since the crime is no longer subject to bail.
Cerqueira says that for every 18 firearms apprehended by the São Paulo police a life was saved, meaning 13,000 lives were saved from 2001 to 2007.


Believing that a single tragic incident like this shows that gun control laws do not work is equivalent to saying that wearing safely belts doesn't work because 5,000 people die a year in traffic accidents who wear safety belts. Just as there has been a decrease in traffic deaths after countries instituted strong safety belt laws, there has been a decrease in murder rates in virtually every country that has instituted strong gun control laws.

[PhoenixAsh]

Interesting.

The shooter in Holland had a gun license. (which you can get in Holland after 11 year of being a member of a shooting club). Unfortunately the background checks were not adequately performed and neither were the check ups....otherwise they would have found several (pellet) gun related incidents in his past and evidence of mental instability.

The shooting itself was performed with an illegal full automatic firearm.

[Sasha]

Interesting.

The shooter in Holland had a gun license. (which you can get in Holland after 11 year of being a member of a shooting club). Unfortunately the background checks were not adequately performed and neither were the check ups....otherwise they would have found several (pellet) gun related incidents in his past and evidence of mental instability.

The shooting itself was performed with an illegal full automatic firearm.

few small technical bits; its not 11 years you need to be member of a shooting club in the netherland, its 1 year (i assume you made an typo) but in most cases it will take 1 or 2 years more before your allowed to take your weapon home, most shootingclubs force you to keep your gun first on the club.
Also the machine gun was probably an legal semi illegally converted to full.

but that's not to detract from the point you where trying to make which i fully agree on.
even more, this incident stresses the need to have gun control focused on responsible and save weapon possession, not disarming the poor like some other users rightly state happens often. its ridiculous that someone who was convicted of petty crime in the last 4 years can not get an permit and someone who was forcibly put in an psych hospital can. but that's not an argument against gun-control its an argument for better gun-control

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Definitely. Because our job is to advise the capitalist state on how to better enforce its rule.

[Sasha]

we do it all the time, to come back to the heartsurgeon or the 747 pilot, we want that everybody, regardless of class background can become one. The way to do that is to demand free, skill based training not demand that the OR's or cockpits are oppenend to anyone knocking on its door. That's almost as stupid as the old times where positions like army general where based on who your rich daddy was and not your actual skill and suitability.

stop putting up emotional strawmans, i'm for wide-spread gun-possesion, but regulated gun possesion. You need training, you need proven responsibility with an firearm and you need an regular check for mental stability. And the best way to do these is an form of permit. And like all permits in an pre-revolutionary situation they are enforced by the state. Which is an shame but imo better than the alternative.
i really see no reason why guns should be treated different than that other potential lethal object; the car
at least not for other than emotional reasons flowing from an cultural tradition, which is fine but don't expect others in other places to share your cultural emotions.

[PhoenixAsh]

few small technical bits; its not 11 years you need to be member of a shooting club in the netherland, its 1 year (i assume you made an typo)

:laugh: Yes....a rather big one it seems :-D


but in most cases it will take 1 or 2 years more before your allowed to take your weapon home, most shootingclubs force you to keep your gun first on the club.
Also the machine gun was probably an legal semi illegally converted to full.


Ah...ok... so he did manage to get the parts? Last I heard it was deemed unlikely he converted it himself.



but that's not to detract from the point you where trying to make which i fully agree on.
even more, this incident stresses the need to have gun control focused on responsible and save weapon possession, not disarming the poor like some other users rightly state happens often. its ridiculous that someone who was convicted of petty crime in the last 4 years can not get an permit and someone who was forcibly put in an psych hospital can. but that's not an argument against gun-control its an argument for better gun-control

Exactly. People should be allowed to own guns even in their own home. But there should be prerequisites.

Training and exercise in use, maintenance and responsibility being the first and foremost.

[Jazzratt]

I think my point was more or less that the idea of "taking on cops/training in the hills" is generally more effective for reactionaries than it is for communists and the working class - same goes for assassinations and such. Our strength is in numbers. Numbers don't really matter if everyone is standing around manu mentula - sometimes it is absolutely necessary that we face guns with guns. Especially when the state clamps down further on us.

[synthesis]

Sorry, that was a little unclear on my part. Our revolutions, however one defines them, will be dependent on having a strong social basis in the working class more so than on military tactics and the like. Without that social basis, "self-defense" generally translates to "suicide."

[Tim Finnegan]

ITT: Two anarchists arguing for increased control by the capitalist state.
Right, because it's not like anarchists have been active in anti-austerity activism in Europe, demanding that the state spend more time and effort extracting money from the populace at gunpoint. Instead, they dogmatically oppose everything the state does at all times, right down to deliberately walking on the grass when the sign says "keep off the grass", because fuck you, that's why.

Nuance: scary but necessary. ;)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Which says a lot about those anarchists. It's often the ones who are the most radical in words that are actually the most likely to adapt to official politics in practice.

Reformism requires a reformable capitalism. The "austerity" drive has to do with the workings of the capitalist system itself, not the policy decisions of individual politicians. Thus, there's no answer within bourgeois politics (whether voting, running candidates or trying to influence sitting politicians from the streets) or the capitalist system. There really is no other solution than the complete overthrow of all existing social conditions. That's what militant workers need to fight for if they want to get the boot off their necks.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sorry, that was a little unclear on my part. Our revolutions, however one defines them, will be dependent on having a strong social basis in the working class more so than on military tactics and the like. Without that social basis, "self-defense" generally translates to "suicide."

Right. Defending yourself puts you in more danger than not defending yourself. :confused:

[Die Rote Fahne]

exactly, criminals who will rather buy an unregistered, illegal gun, than wait to buy a legal one. You are restricting responsible ownership, and punishing the wrong people.

Where do those illegal guns come from?

People who buy them legally, and then sell them.

[Luís Henrique]

Where do those illegal guns come from?

People who buy them legally, and then sell them.

Or have them stolen.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Which says a lot about those anarchists. It's often the ones who are the most radical in words that are actually the most likely to adapt to official politics in practice.

Reformism requires a reformable capitalism. The "austerity" drive has to do with the workings of the capitalist system itself, not the policy decisions of individual politicians. Thus, there's no answer within bourgeois politics (whether voting, running candidates or trying to influence sitting politicians from the streets) or the capitalist system. There really is no other solution than the complete overthrow of all existing social conditions. That's what militant workers need to fight for if they want to get the boot off their necks.
Impossiblism is nice and all, but if you don't have any plans other than sitting there and talking about it, then you're really not doing anything at all. It's better to achieve a little than to achieve nothing, even if the latter option allows you to keep your personal credentials ideologically pristine.

Case in point, while there's certainly a debate to be had about gun control, "argh bourgeois state" is not a useful contribution to that debate, any more than it is to a debate about funding for education or healthcare. A capacity for nuance, whatever conclusions it leads you to, is necessary.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Right. Nuance is necessary. Pragmatism and realism are necessary. Principles are not; they're for the "ideologically pristine." Where have I heard all of this before? :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Right. Nuance is necessary. Pragmatism and realism are necessary. Principles are not; they're for the "ideologically pristine." Where have I heard all of this before? :rolleyes:

Well...the principle is that nobody at all should own guns, bombs and other such toys (inc. Governments etc.). Unfortunately...that is not a possibility...now and probably ever.

In a rev society my principle is therefore that gun acces should be limited to those who have proven themselves to be able to use and handle them correctly, keep them away from playing children and are of sound mind.

That means society should provide training for everybody, but also recquires the future owner to accept that he owes a certain matter of openness.

That also extends to the current situation.

[Tim Finnegan]

Right. Nuance is necessary. Pragmatism and realism are necessary. Principles are not; they're for the "ideologically pristine." Where have I heard all of this before? :rolleyes:
Principles are necessary, but without nuance, pragmatism and realism- in the proper senses of the words, and not the hollow rhetorical usage which you are quite rightly sceptical of- they are impotent.