Gun Control in a Socialist/Communist Society?

[TheWhiteStreak]

How do you think guns would be regulated in a Socialist/Communist society? Would you even want them to be regulated? I could see guns being used for hunting or maybe for military in extreme conditions like war and such but I think it would be a little dangerous to just hand out guns to anyone. I understand crime rates would go down significantly with Capitalism gone but there are always people who could be dangerous. What do you guys think?

[Tablo]

Guns for everyone!

Who would limit the guns and for whom? The people are in charge so the weapons should be in their hands.

[TheWhiteStreak]

Yeah, true. But I wasn't sure. Like are the people allowed to limit the guns for themselves? If we passed a rule that guns should only be used for specific reasons? I mean, what about dangerous chemicals? There should at least have to be some type of documentation filled out about these things so if someone went to hurt another person we'd have some type of idea as to who did it.

[#FF0000]

I think it's reasonable for individuals to own firearms and certain weapons. Heavier weapons like uh artillery can be one of those things that = collectively owned.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I like my guns.

But I also like #FF0000 (nice, hex code for red) idea of heavier weapons being collectively owned.

[Manic Impressive]

ban all guns, no guns for anyone. stop the production of guns there will be no need for weapons which are that efficient for killing.

[CommunityBeliever]

In socialist society everyone will have guns, and in communist society nobody will :tt2:

[PC LOAD LETTER]

ban all guns, no guns for anyone. stop the production of guns there will be no need for weapons which are that efficient for killing.
Weapons are made world-wide. What happens when, say, a group of fascists get ahold of a bunch of weapons and go to take over a community that's banned guns. Are they expected to resist with sticks and stones, or bow-and-arrow?

[Manic Impressive]

Weapons are made world-wide. What happens when, say, a group of fascists get ahold of a bunch of weapons and go to take over a community that's banned guns. Are they expected to resist with sticks and stones, or bow-and-arrow?
post revolution? why would fascists exist in a post revolutionary society? fascists only exist now due to the antagonisms created by capitalism, a system which pits workers against each other.

Socialism can only exist on a global scale so if we (meaning the population of the planet) decide that all production of guns will stop then it will stop simple as that. We'll close down the factories that make guns and decommission any guns in circulation. There will simply be no need for weapons of that quality, they will cease to be useful to society.

[Smyg]

I feel like a horrible anarchist :D when the words "no gun control" makes me think of American rednecks teaching their children how to use anti-infantry assault rifles from the Vietnam War. Documentaries on America creeps me out, man.

[Tablo]

I feel like a horrible anarchist :D when the words "no gun control" makes me think of American rednecks teaching their children how to use anti-infantry assault rifles from the Vietnam War. Documentaries on America creeps me out, man.
Gotta teach those kids firearms safety while they're still young. ;)

[CommunityBeliever]

Gotta teach those kids firearms safety while they're still young.

Contemporary American schools trail 137 different countries in the world in child soldier aptitude including vital skills like marksmanship, mine clearing, and machete accuracy. [1] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmvw7N-Nn1U) We should reverse this trend immediately.

[Nox]

What would be the need for guns/artillery in a Communist society?

[Tablo]

What would be the need for guns/artillery in a Communist society?
Recreation. Guns big and small are a shit ton of fun to shoot.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Heavier weapons like uh artillery can be one of those things that = collectively owned. Do we gotta come to a consensus on targets before firing on them?

[Manic Impressive]

Recreation. Guns big and small are a shit ton of fun to shoot.
while this is true I'm sure the same could have been said of chariot races or gladiator fights but we don't do those any more as they have become defunct and replaced by safer alternatives.

[Tablo]

while this is true I'm sure the same could have been said of chariot races or gladiator fights but we don't do those any more as they have become defunct and replaced by safer alternatives.
Guns are totally safe as long as you use them responsibly. Of course accidents happen, but that is no reason to get rid of them entirely. If we use that logic we should get rid of cars, skateboards, and snowboarding/skiing.

We still have gladiator fights, they just aren't to the death type of things. We have several martial arts. As far as chariot races go.. we have horse racing, formula 1, nascar, and a billion other types of dangerous high speed racing.

[Rocky Rococo]

After the revolution, we'll all be ninjas, able to slap away bullets with our bare hands and doing spinning back flips up into trees. Life will be like one endless presentation of Black Belt Theater. Jackie Chan just wishes he could live in our revolution.:thumbup:

[Manic Impressive]

Guns are totally safe as long as you use them responsibly. Of course accidents happen, but that is no reason to get rid of them entirely. If we use that logic we should get rid of cars, skateboards, and snowboarding/skiing.
certainly transportation needs to be made safer and more efficient but we need cars for the foreseeable future, until we can replace them with better technology. The only need we have for guns is to kill people.


We still have gladiator fights, they just aren't to the death type of things. We have several martial arts. As far as chariot races go.. we have horse racing, formula 1, nascar, and a billion other types of dangerous high speed racing.
I'm glad we agree. An outdated form of technology was replaced by a safer and more efficient one because we needed it. What makes you think that the same won't happen with guns......except oh wait......without war there will be no need to replace the technology as it's main purpose will have ceased to exist.

"And before you say oh well they're great because they make a loud noise and shooting targets is fun and the mechanics of a gun are really amazing and and and"

And.....I'll do you a deal you can have paint guns. They'll be unlikely to cause fatal injury you can take them apart and do all the mechanical stuff, you can shoot targets to test your skill and whatever else you want, we'll even make them go bang but they can only fire soft balls of paint. Fair compromise?

[ВАЛТЕР]

People aren't going to give up their guns.They make them feel safe, as history has shown mankind has always had weapons with them. Be it for hunting, or defending themselves. I know I am not going to give my guns to anybody who demands them. Who is going to go about to disarm the populace? Police? Some kind of a state apparatus? I'll just bury my Kalashnikov wrapped in plastic and in a nylon bag, but give it up to somebody? No, I don't think guns can ever be banned or gotten rid of all out because people simply will suspect foul play from the group demanding that the weapons be confiscated.

I wish there was no need for guns in this world however, unless I am 100% sure every single human being has gotten rid of their weapons, I am going to hold on to mine.
Sorry but that is the way it is for now.

Those are at least my feelings on this matter. Plus, what of those people who like to hunt? What are they going to use? A slingshot?

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry but that is the way it is for now.
We're talking about a post revolutionary society not present day.

Plus if a majority don't feel safe because you and a minority have guns we have a vote and guns get banned you're going to get out your AK and shout "fuck you"?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I would be glad to give it up if the people say so, however until there is a strong consensus on what is to be done I am holding on to mine.

A nice compromise would be setting up peoples armories where the people can go and shoot guns for recreation and whatnot as well as arm themselves should some unforeseen event occur.

[Manic Impressive]

A nice compromise would be setting up peoples armories where the people can go and shoot guns for recreation and whatnot as well as arm themselves should some unforeseen event occur.
How's about we get rid of all live ammunition and deactivate all the guns then if any reactionaries pop up they won't have any guns either and since reactionaries will always be in the minority we can kick the shit out of them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

How's about we get rid of all live ammunition and deactivate all the guns then if any reactionaries pop up they won't have any guns either and since reactionaries will always be in the minority we can kick the shit out of them.

No, because people have a lot of fun shooting guns and going hunting. I feel like such a hill billy defending gun rights but I don't think it is wise to completely disarm the populace.

[Manic Impressive]

well like I said you can shoot paint ball guns, special paint ball guns that go BANG.

Hunting is a little barbaric when there is no need for it but I guess if it's the weird "man against beast" thing that floats your boat perhaps we could fit some deer with a laser tag vests and you could see how many times you hit them without killing them.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Meh, how else are you going to get deer meat?
I personally don't hunt, but I know people that do. I always felt like hunting is a sport where the other team doesn't even know your playing.

Idk, I wouldn't mind giving up my weapons for the greater good, but to completely abolish them is going to cause problems with a lot of people.

This is one of those things that is going to have to be put through serious consideration and debate before a consensus is reached.

[Psy]

How's about we get rid of all live ammunition and deactivate all the guns then if any reactionaries pop up they won't have any guns either and since reactionaries will always be in the minority we can kick the shit out of them.

Firearm technology is so basic one ban build them in a garage metal shop. The only reason people don't make them in garages is factory made firearms are so much cheaper with much higher quality, then you have military surplus where even WWII surplus weapons are still in serviceable shape.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Firearm technology is so basic one ban build them in a garage metal shop. The only reason people don't make them in garages is factory made firearms are so much cheaper with much higher quality, then you have military surplus where even WWII surplus weapons are still in serviceable shape.

Yeah this is true, I have a blueprint for a submachine gun, all I need is the machinery and some trial and error.

[Manic Impressive]

Firearm technology is so basic one ban build them in a garage metal shop. The only reason people don't make them in garages is factory made firearms are so much cheaper with much higher quality, then you have military surplus where even WWII surplus weapons are still in serviceable shape.
ah yes this why in countries with strict gun control everyone just makes their own :rolleyes:

Part of what I'm saying is when something ceases to be useful then demand for it drops. The only people who would want to continue using guns with live ammunition are people who would be doing it for "tradition".

We're talking in post revolutionary terms so we have world socialism there really should be no reason that reactionaries should be attempting a capitalist counter revolution. I mean it's not like we have reactionaries fighting for a feudal revolution now is there?

[thriller]

I think children (0-13ish) should be restricted from owning guns, but that is up to the parents in my opinion. Other than that, I see no need to restrict guns post-revolution.

[Iron Felix]

But how will we shoot small, defenseless animals that pose us no threat without guns? Eh? Ever think about that?!

[Smyg]

Good point, Felix. Won't someone please think of the animals?!

[Iron Felix]

More seriously, if you arm the people the people will fight for their rights. If there is no threat to their rights, arms are no longer neccesary. It's a simple question.

Regarding Hunting, how about we hunt criminals like rapists instead? Put them all in some woods and declare an open rapist hunting season. I'd totally participate. Oh, also, to make it more complicated for the hunter, give the rapists a large supply of viagra.

[Tenka]

More seriously, if you arm the people the people will fight for their rights. If there is no threat to their rights, arms are no longer neccesary. It's a simple question.

Regarding Hunting, how about we hunt criminals like rapists instead? Put them all in some woods and declare an open rapist hunting season. I'd totally participate. Oh, also, to make it more complicated for the hunter, give the rapists a large supply of viagra.
More seriously...? I really hope you aren't serious.

[EvilRedGuy]

Everyone should have and have training in using every weapon so they can self-defend themself. Like a bear attacking them, person, whatever.

[EvilRedGuy]

How's about we get rid of all live ammunition and deactivate all the guns then if any reactionaries pop up they won't have any guns either and since reactionaries will always be in the minority we can kick the shit out of them.


Good point, maybe i will change my opinion on this one.

Very good point, weapons in the hands of the minority can kill alot of innocents but without weapons its just hand-to-hand combat against all the worlds workers. ;)

[The Jay]

How else would the society defend itself from imperialist powers from capitalistic nations?

[El Louton]

Guns only used against the counter- revolutionaries!

[Art Vandelay]

Sorry but maybe some of you have never encountered certain animals before but if you think that people have never used weapons to defend themselves from animals then your sadly mistaken. Try hiking in the woods in B.C. and see cougar circling behind you (when they attack they swing their paw at the back of your neck to sever the spinal cord) and see how fast you want a gun on you.

[Manic Impressive]

Sorry but maybe some of you have never encountered certain animals before but if you think that people have never used weapons to defend themselves from animals then your sadly mistaken. Try hiking in the woods in B.C. and see cougar circling behind you (when they attack they swing their paw at the back of your neck to sever the spinal cord) and see how fast you want a gun on you.
you're right I have never come across a dangerous wild animal. I had a look to see how many cougar deaths there have been and wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North_America#2000 s)says 19 deaths since 1970.
My question would be what would a cougar do if you shot it with a paint ball gun or an air soft gun that makes a loud noise? My guess is that it would run away very fast.

[Manic Impressive]

How else would the society defend itself from imperialist powers from capitalistic nations?
The question was

How do you think guns would be regulated in a Socialist/Communist society?

Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.
Further, it has co-ordinated the social development of the civilized countries to such an extent that, in all of them, bourgeoisie and proletariat have become the decisive classes, and the struggle between them the great struggle of the day. It follows that the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.
It will develop in each of these countries more or less rapidly, according as one country or the other has a more developed industry, greater wealth, a more significant mass of productive forces. Hence, it will go slowest and will meet most obstacles in Germany, most rapidly and with the fewest difficulties in England. It will have a powerful impact on the other countries of the world, and will radically alter the course of development which they have followed up to now, while greatly stepping up its pace.
It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a universal range.

So in socialism/communism there are no countries and certainly no imperialist/capitalist states

[eric922]

Plus, what of those people who like to hunt? What are they going to use? A slingshot?
Well if the primitiveists have their way, they can hunt with a spear made of sharpened rock. :)

[Aspiring Humanist]

How can you ban something in a non-hierarchical society

[The Douche]

People who have this irrational fear or misunderstanding of guns really fucking confuse me.

Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun if I want, like, what are you scared is gonna happen?

[Manic Impressive]

People who have this irrational fear or misunderstanding of guns really fucking confuse me.

Why shouldn't I be able to own a gun if I want, like, what are you scared is gonna happen?
that you might shoot me or someone else or yourself. I don't understand why you need ammunition which is lethal, perhaps you could explain why you need live ammunition to shoot targets?

[Manic Impressive]

How can you ban something in a non-hierarchical society
By popular consent. If a majority do not feel comfortable with a minority owning weapons then why should the minorities rights outweigh the fears of the majority.

[Aspiring Humanist]

By popular consent. If a majority do not feel comfortable with a minority owning weapons then why should the minorities rights outweigh the fears of the majority.

I don't know how I feel about that...seems like it could be abused like in a racist entrenched area like southern Mississippi or something would ban non-whites from owning guns

[Manic Impressive]

I don't know how I feel about that...seems like it could be abused like in a racist entrenched area like southern Mississippi or something would ban non-whites from owning guns
Well modern racism is mainly caused by the antagonisms created by capitalism and before that by other effects of an explotative society so I would hope that there would be no racist areas left. Black and White would cease to exist as concepts if racial divisions still exist then we have not yet reached socialism.

[Kitty_Paine]

By popular consent. If a majority do not feel comfortable with a minority owning weapons then why should the minorities rights outweigh the fears of the majority.

Just because the majority believes one thing doesn't mean it should affect the rights of the minority. That's ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that if the majority was able to outlaw everything they were afraid of... this would be an even more fucked up country.

The majority not ruling over the minority is a very basic law of equality. And to take equality away would be very anti-communist if you ask me. It would be wrong to have a communist uprising only to take away the people's weapons of liberation. What if another uprising was required to get rid of a dictator? But there are no weapons because 51% felt uncomfortable.

[The Douche]

that you might shoot me or someone else or yourself. I don't understand why you need ammunition which is lethal, perhaps you could explain why you need live ammunition to shoot targets?

Have you ever shot a gun? Shooting a BB gun or paintball gun is not the same. Your fears are irrational, you don't know me but assume I will shoot you or myself.

[Manic Impressive]

Just because the majority believes one thing doesn't mean it should affect the rights of the minority. That's ridiculous. I think it's safe to say that if the majority was able to outlaw everything they were afraid of... this would be an even more fucked up country.except there would be no countries.......
A minority of people might think that it's ok to have sex with children are we going to allow that? No because it harms people. Please tell me why you feel you need efficient killing machines?


The majority not ruling over the minority is a very basic law of equality. And to take equality away would be very anti-communist if you ask me. It would be wrong to have a communist uprising only to take away the people's weapons of liberation. What if another uprising was required to get rid of a dictator? But there are no weapons because 51% felt uncomfortable.
equality does not mean doing whatever you like and fuck everyone else if they don't like it. How could there be a dictator? There will be no leaders direct democracy through the work place. I swear some of you think that communism is going to be soviet union 2.0

[Manic Impressive]

Have you ever shot a gun? Shooting a BB gun or paintball gun is not the same. Your fears are irrational, you don't know me but assume I will shoot you or myself.
Yes I have, shot my first smith and wesson age 14 and went to a firing range regularly while living in Thailand where I shot a variety of hand guns, shot guns and an AK. Yes I know that feeling, it's fucking great, it's a feeling of power. I was once with a pacifist friend of mine it was the first time he had ever shot a gun and he actually got an erection from the experience :p

But does the feeling come from the knowledge that you are firing live ammunition or does it come from the sound, the kick back, the feeling of being in control of something dangerous? Why could that feeling not be recreated using safer ammunition which is not designed to kill people? Because if not then the feeling is from the knowledge that you have the power over life and death

[Kitty_Paine]

except there would be no countries.......
A minority of people might think that it's ok to have sex with children are we going to allow that? No because it harms people. Please tell me why you feel you need efficient killing machines?


equality does not mean doing whatever you like and fuck everyone else if they don't like it. How could there be a dictator? There will be no leaders direct democracy through the work place. I swear some of you think that communism is going to be soviet union 2.0

Come on, no need to bring "having sex with children" into this. Yes, that is fucked up. But how is owning a gun harming anybody? You speak as if someone owning a gun automatically means they're going to shoot someone.

"Kiling Machines"? Yes, because as soon as someone gets their hands on a gun... they go fucking nuts and try and start killing people... :p

You act as if in a communist society, or any society for that matter, there would be no possibility of a dictator or some nut job coming to power. "Soviet Union 2.0"? I don't like that wording but I know what you mean, and how could you say that would be out of the question? You can't just predict how everything will be... Their are always possibilities. And as much as I'd like it if a perfect communist society sprang into being... not much ever goes as planned. It requires struggle... hence... a rifle. But maybe I'm wrong...

If a man wants to kill someone, he's gonna kill him weither he has a gun or not. You act as if guns make people blood thirsty and dangerous. Having a gun doesnt suddenly make you irrational...

Plus a communist revolution would probably involve the people rising up with weapons. I would just find it very hypocritical for their weapons to be taken away after that...

Plus I don't think you'd be so "Majority Rules" if you were in the minority about some things you felt strongly about...

[The Douche]

I don't shoot cause of how it feels or sounds or because of the "power".

The ballistics of replica guns are not the same as the ballistics of real guns. Shooting is a sport and a challenge which I enjoy.

And you have not addressed how it is in fact irrational to fear people who you know nothing about, your default assumption of people is that they will hurt themselves/others? That's irrational.

[Manic Impressive]

Come on, no need to bring "having sex with children" into this. Yes, that is fucked up. But how is owning a gun harming anybody? You speak as if someone owning a gun automatically means they're going to shoot someone.

"Kiling Machines"? Yes, because as soon as someone gets their hands on a gun... they go fucking nuts and try and start killing people... :p

If a man wants to kill someone, he's gonna kill him weither he has a gun or not. You act as if guns make people blood thirsty and dangerous. Having a gun doesnt suddenly make you irrational...

Plus a communist revolution would probably involve the people rising up with weapons. I would just find it very hypocritical for their weapons to be taken away after that...


I tell you what if I get in a fight and I have a gun tucked in the small of my back I'm pulling it and someone's getting dead. If I get in a fight with my fists then someone's only getting bruised. People can't control their anger in the heat of the moment. And because you know I might have a gun you need one as well because I'm a hot head and if we get in a fight I might pull my gun. you gotta defend yourself right? well so have I boom one of us died.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, If you've got a gun I need one to defend myself but if neither of us have guns then neither of us needs one.


You act as if in a communist society, or any society for that matter, there would be no possibility of a dictator or some nut job coming to power. "Soviet Union 2.0"? I don't like that wording but I know what you mean, and how could you say that would be out of the question? You can't just predict how everything will be... Their are always possibilities. And as much as I'd like it if a perfect communist society sprang into being... not much ever goes as planned. It requires struggle... hence... a rifle. But maybe I'm wrong...
Because if society is organized in a democratic and equal way where people have their basic needs met then there would be absolutely no way they could ever get enough support to reinstate a class society. Say there's one guy who wants to be dictator he gets a bit of support from other people who will form his new ruling class. They can't persuade enough people to enslave the population of the planet because who in their right mind is going to submit to being exploited when they are not already? How would they get enough people on side?


Plus I don't think you'd be so "Majority Rules" if you were in the minority about some things you felt strongly about...
actually that's not quite true there was a smoking ban thread here recently. I didn't comment on it but I will now. I'm a heavy smoker, I can smoke up to 40 a day and I love smoking, I really enjoy it, it was even better when I could smoke in a pub or a club. But then the smoking ban came in in 2007 and I was majorly pissed off about it. I mean how fucking dare they? It's always been like this. How have they got the right to make me smoke outside?

But now 4 years later I realise I was wrong my right to smoke inside does not trump the right of the majority of people around me who want to enjoy a drink without breathing second hand smoke.

[Psy]

By popular consent. If a majority do not feel comfortable with a minority owning weapons then why should the minorities rights outweigh the fears of the majority.

Well odds are the majority will own weapons by the time you have global communism, due to the revolutionary army having armed as much of the world proletariat as it could. So you'd have it the other way, the majority of the workers around the world armed thanks to the revolutionary army and the minority complaining about it.

[Manic Impressive]

I don't shoot cause of how it feels or sounds or because of the "power".

The ballistics of replica guns are not the same as the ballistics of real guns. Shooting is a sport and a challenge which I enjoy.
no sorry don't understand. further explanation of why you must use live ammo is needed.


And you have not addressed how it is in fact irrational to fear people who you know nothing about, your default assumption of people is that they will hurt themselves/others? That's irrational.
I did in my reply to the other guy. If we get in a fight and I know you might have a gun then I'm gonna need one too. There by you infringe on my right to security with your frivolous fetish for killing machines.

[Manic Impressive]

Well odds are the majority will own weapons by the time you have global communism, due to the revolutionary army having armed as much of the world proletariat as it could. So you'd have it the other way, the majority of the workers around the world armed thanks to the revolutionary army and the minority complaining about it.
and eventually the primary use of that tool becomes defunct and interest in it drops.

[Geiseric]

I'm with the anarchists, everybody should have guns in order to make sure Stalin doesn't happen again. Or to make sure the leaders of their movements don't go menshevik and sell out everybody to the nationalists.

In order for advanced guns, you'd need to have some sort of responsibility attatched though.

[Kitty_Paine]

I tell you what if I get in a fight and I have a gun tucked in the small of my back I'm pulling it and someone's getting dead. If I get in a fight with my fists then someone's only getting bruised. People can't control their anger in the heat of the moment. And because you know I might have a gun you need one as well because I'm a hot head and if we get in a fight I might pull my gun. you gotta defend yourself right? well so have I boom one of us died.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, If you've got a gun I need one to defend myself but if neither of us have guns then neither of us needs one.


Because if society is organized in a democratic and equal way where people have their basic needs met then there would be absolutely no way they could ever get enough support to reinstate a class society. Say there's one guy who wants to be dictator he gets a bit of support from other people who will form his new ruling class. They can't persuade enough people to enslave the population of the planet because who in their right mind is going to submit to being exploited when they are not already? How would they get enough people on side?


actually that's not quite true there was a smoking ban thread here recently. I didn't comment on it but I will now. I'm a heavy smoker, I can smoke up to 40 a day and I love smoking, I really enjoy it, it was even better when I could smoke in a pub or a club. But then the smoking ban came in in 2007 and I was majorly pissed off about it. I mean how fucking dare they? It's always been like this. How have they got the right to make me smoke outside?

But now 4 years later I realise I was wrong my right to smoke inside does not trump the right of the majority of people around me who want to enjoy a drink without breathing second hand smoke.

I think people should be aloud to have guns but walking around with them in public is another story...

If people are aloud to have guns and people are all killing eachother and getting shot then I believe if you take away all of the guns their will still be violence... If people are shooting each other I don't necessarily think the major issue is the weapons, I think it's something else that needs to be addressed. Like living conditions and quality... But if we get this communist-democratic society you speak of... I believe people would be happier with their living situations and therefore the violence would go down accordingly... do you agree? So I'm just saying at that point if violence is (hypothetically) at an all time low, people having guns wouldnt affect that... but anyway...

You really think that in your hypothetical democratic society there is no possible way anybody could ever get into power and abuse it? I think you misunderestimate some people's greed and lust for power... I don't think a society or a system can ever be "perfect"... everything is corruptible...

I'm glad that you feel better about the smoking situation, I really do because feeling misrepresented does suck. Unfortunately everyone thinks and feels differently...

[Psy]

and eventually the primary use of that tool becomes defunct and interest in it drops.
If that is the case then there would be no need to ban firearms as nobody would be using them violently thus no reason to fear them. Plus culturally you'd be in a society where the last memory of firearms where them being the tool that liberated workers from their capitalist masters.

[The Douche]

no sorry don't understand. further explanation of why you must use live ammo is needed

Because nothing else performs like a bullet? I don't really know how you can't understand? Can you shoot a BB gun at a target 800 meters away? No. The ballistic performance of things like pellets and paintballs is not the same as a bullet and so you can't do the same things.


I did in my reply to the other guy. If we get in a fight and I know you might have a gun then I'm gonna need one too.

So you just assume everybody is going to fight you? And that everybody who has an interest in fighting you also wants to kill you? And you don't think that is irrational?


There by you infringe on my right to security with your frivolous fetish for killing machines.

1) the only thing infringing on your security is your own paranoia.

2) You are the one who conceives of guns as powerful tools for destruction and who is aroused and empowered by wielding one. Not me. I have them cause I enjoy target shooting as a fun and challenging sport which I can engage in with my friends. I also enjoy collecting guns for their history and building/customizing them, much like many people enjoy classic cars.

3) My guns have never killed anybody, at least not while I've owned them. So they are not "killing machines".

[Manic Impressive]

I think people should be aloud to have guns but walking around with them in public is another story...

If people are aloud to have guns and people are all killing eachother and getting shot then I believe if you take away all of the guns their will still be violence... If people are shooting each other I don't necessarily think the major issue is the weapons, I think it's something else that needs to be addressed. Like living conditions and quality... But if we get this communist-democratic society you speak of... I believe people would be happier with their living situations and therefore the violence would go down accordingly... do you agree? So I'm just saying at that point if violence is (hypothetically) at an all time low, people having guns wouldnt affect that... but anyway...

You really think that in your hypothetical democratic society there is no possible way anybody could ever get into power and abuse it? I think you misunderestimate some people's greed and lust for power... I don't think a society or a system can ever be "perfect"... everything is corruptible...

I'm glad that you feel better about the smoking situation, I really do because feeling misrepresented does suck. Unfortunately everyone thinks and feels differently...
yes I largely agree.
In regards to someone wanting to take power and reinstate a class system. It's not that I don't think someone would want to exploit people there may well be a few people like that. What I'm saying is once we have gotten to a certain stage it's going to be near impossible to go back and taking away powerful weapons only helps the majority who will by definition outnumber those trying to exploit others. Also an exploitative society cannot function with a majority ruling class, something to think about.
And of course there will still be violence, I'm saying take away a tool which enables that violence to escalate into something really serious.

[#FF0000]

Do we gotta come to a consensus on targets before firing on them?

"I just stacked up a bunch of milk jugs out by the lake so who wants to break out the mortars? All in favor say aye!"

[#FF0000]

Regarding Hunting, how about we hunt criminals like rapists instead? Put them all in some woods and declare an open rapist hunting season. I'd totally participate. Oh, also, to make it more complicated for the hunter, give the rapists a large supply of viagra.

Oh man you sound so tough.

I bet you'd shit yourself trying to shoot a .22 and feeling the kickback. Get the fuck outta here

[Manic Impressive]

Because nothing else performs like a bullet? I don't really know how you can't understand? Can you shoot a BB gun at a target 800 meters away? No. The ballistic performance of things like pellets and paintballs is not the same as a bullet and so you can't do the same things.
That's it? That's your answer fucking hell I thought you were going to come up with something better than that. So just because YOU want to shoot targets 800 meters away I have to put up with your ability to kill me if I piss you off?


So you just assume everybody is going to fight you? And that everybody who has an interest in fighting you also wants to kill you? And you don't think that is irrational?
It ain't about me personally :rolleyes:. I can actually think of others besides myself and my frivolous hobbies. The fact is a persons ability to kill someone is far easier with a gun than any other weapon. There will be violence in a socialist society, people falling out getting jealous or whatever and people are still going to want revenge. If one of those people has a gun then they both need one and they will both get one more people are likely to die because you enjoy shooting targets which are 800 meters away.


1) the only thing infringing on your security is your own paranoia.
So it's impossible for someone with a gun to shoot someone in anger. Thanks for clearing that up.


2) You are the one who conceives of guns as powerful tools for destruction and who is aroused and empowered by wielding one. Not me. I have them cause I enjoy target shooting as a fun and challenging sport which I can engage in with my friends. I also enjoy collecting guns for their history and building/customizing them, much like many people enjoy classic cars. Actually I told a story about a pacifist friend of mine which I thought was quite funny due to the irony of the situation, I was trying to keep the mood of this thread light.
You want to collect historical guns fine by me as long as they are completely decommissioned in a way in which they can never be fired again.
Get a new hobby or adapt it into one which cannot result in death.
You like building guns? good for you build one that fires paint balls.
I've never heard the phrase "don't bring a knife to a classic car fight"


3) My guns have never killed anybody, at least not while I've owned them. So they are not "killing machines".
ah so the guns you used in Afghanistan were for what? tickling the enemy to death?

Also just look at the stats http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

seriously is your hobby worth all that death?

[#FF0000]

seriously is your hobby worth all that death?

Yeah I mean after all there are no other factors in gun violence other than the gun. Why, if we had no guns, no one would ever hurt anyone else!

Cars kill more people than guns, btw.


So it's impossible for someone with a gun to shoot someone in anger. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is not but it's a whole lot rarer than you seem to think it is.

[Bardo]

You don't protect a revolution by disarming the populace, you protect a revolution by arming the populace.

[Psy]

And of course there will still be violence, I'm saying take away a tool which enables that violence to escalate into something really serious.

The problem is you can't take away the tool of firearms, what are you going to do if worker states start breaking away over this? What do you do when factories start pouring out brand new arms to arm brand new revolutionary armies defend their sovereignty as regional communist governmental bodies no longer trust the world communist body and you have massive military buildups as regional governments have become paranoid and scared over all this talk of leaving them defenseless?

[Misanthrope]

Arm the workers!!

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah I mean after all there are no other factors in gun violence other than the gun. Why, if we had no guns, no one would ever hurt anyone else!
Of course there are other factors but did you actually look at the stats?
UK 600 murders per year
population about 60 million

US 12,996 murders per year
260 million population?

of those 12,996 murders per year 8,775 were caused by fire arms

Now I realise that poverty levels may be slightly higher in the US and you may have a slightly more exploitative society but I'm sorry that doesn't completely account for the massive number of murders from guns. It's obvious that a society with guns results in more deaths than a society with tight restrictions on guns. Now imagine a society with no guns at all, doesn't take a genius to work out that it would result in less deaths.


Cars kill more people than guns, btw.
uh how many times have I repeated myself in this thread. Cars are necessary until we can find a safer and more efficient form of transport to replace them. Same won't happen with guns because their primary use will cease to exist, if people want to continue to shoot targets they can use non lethal tools to do so.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Firearms will most likely be regulated to an extent. I have no reason to believe they will be banned.

Arming the workers is something we strive for. "Gun control" that liberals propose is a hindrance to us all.

[Rufio]

Well odds are the majority will own weapons by the time you have global communism, due to the revolutionary army having armed as much of the world proletariat as it could. So you'd have it the other way, the majority of the workers around the world armed thanks to the revolutionary army and the minority complaining about it.
Then we'd stop making them...
Then they'd all rust, fall apart, or go beyond use no matter how much people sit at home polishing their barrell.
Then there won't be any more guns, except perhaps in museums.

I don't think revolution will be by the barrell of the gun anyway, not to the extent you describe. But whether it is or isn't, there will be guns afterwards for a while. I really don't see why they won't pass out of working existence eventually though.

[#FF0000]

words

But the problem is that you're suggesting that people commit crimes because they have guns, which is ludicrous. You jump from one overly-simplistic explanation for violent crime (poverty) to another overly-simplistic explanation that makes even less sense (guns).


uh how many times have I repeated myself in this thread. Cars are necessary until we can find a safer and more efficient form of transport to replace them. Same won't happen with guns because their primary use will cease to exist, if people want to continue to shoot targets they can use non lethal tools to do so.

Who says that the primary use of guns is to kill people? Tons of people I know own guns. They use them for target shooting, for hunting, for anything except killing people.

I mean, shit dude, I do archery and target-shoot with slings too. Should those be outlawed?

[Manic Impressive]

The problem is you can't take away the tool of firearms, what are you going to do if worker states start breaking away over this? What do you do when factories start pouring out brand new arms to arm brand new revolutionary armies defend their sovereignty as regional communist governmental bodies no longer trust the world communist body and you have massive military buildups as regional governments have become paranoid and scared over all this talk of leaving them defenseless?

Although society as a whole could not just ban guns without a general consensus and some sort of vote. I would think the differing opinions would not be confined to one area but spread out across the entire planet. For these people to break away in some kind of autonomist region, people from all over the world would have to move to that area. Hopefully people would be educated sufficiently about the dangers of this and we would solve our disagreements through debate. And Frankly not using ammunition designed specifically to kill is a pretty fair compromise imo.

This speculation is kind of getting out of control but good point

[Manic Impressive]

hey man you know when you quote someone and replace their statement with "words" that's quite disrespectful and provocative. I'm not trying to piss anyone off I'm quite enjoying this debate it's been good fun. It's a shame you have to resort to those tactics. :(

But the problem is that you're suggesting that people commit crimes because they have guns, which is ludicrous. You jump from one overly-simplistic explanation for violent crime (poverty) to another overly-simplistic explanation that makes even less sense (guns).
ok what's your explanation for 3/4 of all murders in the US being caused by guns and your explanation for the much higher murder rate in the US?


Who says that the primary use of guns is to kill people? Tons of people I know own guns. They use them for target shooting, for hunting, for anything except killing people.

I mean, shit dude, I do archery and target-shoot with slings too. Should those be outlawed?
I don't even know how to answer this it's like saying "the sky is purple and the sea is orange prove me wrong?"
Why do guns exist as weapons of war. No war No use for guns designed to kill people.

[#FF0000]

hey man you know when you quote someone and replace their statement with "words" that's quite disrespectful and provocative. I'm not trying to piss anyone off I'm quite enjoying this debate it's been good fun. It's a shame you have to resort to those tactics. :(

Oh, no I don't intend it to be like that. I just do that when I think I'm quoting a lot of text.


ok what's your explanation for 3/4 of all murders in the US being caused by guns and your explanation for the much higher murder rate in the US?


I can't really speculate. What one should do is find out how many of those guns were legally owned in the first place, and then compare the number of legally owned guns used in violent crime to the number of legally owned guns overall.


I don't even know how to answer this it's like saying "the sky is purple and the sea is orange prove me wrong?"
Why do guns exist as weapons of war. No war No use for guns designed to kill people.

I don't own my guns for use in war, though. I own them to shoot at paper that's really, really far away. Most people I know who own guns own them for this reason.

[Manic Impressive]

Oh, no I don't intend it to be like that. I just do that when I think I'm quoting a lot of text.
fair enough


I can't really speculate. What one should do is find out how many of those guns were legally owned in the first place, and then compare the number of legally owned guns used in violent crime to the number of legally owned guns overall.
So you would require licensing in a socialist society?

What I was trying to get at is you're more likely to kill someone if you are using a gun rather than any other kind of weapon. Because that's what they are designed for, their primary design purpose is to inflict serious injury. This does not even include the serious injuries and deaths from accidents.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this and now seems like a good a time as any :p
am-Qdx6vky0




I don't own my guns for use in war, though. I own them to shoot at paper that's really, really far away. Most people I know who own guns own them for this reason.
OK so you have to use something that can hit something far away. A laser can do that, I bet they could even simulate wind and other factors into it for targets which are really really far away. You do not need ammunition designed to kill. + it'll save on waste paper :p

[Psy]

Then we'd stop making them...
Then they'd all rust, fall apart, or go beyond use no matter how much people sit at home polishing their barrell.
Then there won't be any more guns, except perhaps in museums.

With cosmoline guns in storage can last in storage for practically forever and come out as good as they went into storage. And any metal shop can produce more and it is not like you could get all the regional bodies to agree so people would just buy their guns and ammo from worker run factories in regions that still produce firearms and smuggle them in.



I don't think revolution will be by the barrell of the gun anyway, not to the extent you describe. But whether it is or isn't, there will be guns afterwards for a while. I really don't see why they won't pass out of working existence eventually though.
Because peace would exist based on the heavily distribution of arms, meaning any counter-revolutionary force would have to fight the entire community of each community they tried to occupy as 100% of the global population would be armed.

[Manic Impressive]

Because peace would exist based on the heavily distribution of arms
That was the logic that European powers made before WW1. Two massive alliances means they cancel each other out. I think not

[Psy]

Although society as a whole could not just ban guns without a general consensus and some sort of vote. I would think the differing opinions would not be confined to one area but spread out across the entire planet.

Why would the entire planet ban firearms? Why would regions dependent on hunting ban the tools of the primary industry? What about pest control on farms? You do farmers now use firearms to deal with pests? What about population control of wildlife?



For these people to break away in some kind of autonomist region, people from all over the world would have to move to that area.

And we are talking about a communist world, there would be no barrier in the way of migration of people from one region to another.



Hopefully people would be educated sufficiently about the dangers of this and we would solve our disagreements through debate.

Given history they would probably be more concerned with counter-revolution.

[Psy]

That was the logic that European powers made before WW1. Two massive alliances means they cancel each other out. I think not
In the context of a communist world it means each community would have a massive armed garrison due to a armed population. So if a counter-revolutionary forces tried to attack the community the community would easily out gun it.

[#FF0000]

So you would require licensing in a socialist society?

Sure, that's reasonable.


What I was trying to get at is you're more likely to kill someone if you are using a gun rather than any other kind of weapon. Because that's what they are designed for, their primary design purpose is to inflict serious injury. This does not even include the serious injuries and deaths from accidents.


Sure, but there's a lot of things you can do as a hobby that could seriously hurt you. Any kind of sport, for example, and especially ones like skateboarding, skiing, snowboard, and things like rally car in which spectators and drivers both stand a chance of getting killed.

I think an important thing to do to make accidents less common is to demystify guns, and treat them as tools that people use, rather than act like they are some kind of unholy scourge that kills people.

Honestly I think a lot of gun safety is extremely simple. Don't point it at anyone, don't keep it loaded, keep it clean, and keep it in a safe place.


OK so you have to use something that can hit something far away. A laser can do that, I bet they could even simulate wind and other factors into it for targets which are really really far away. You do not need ammunition designed to kill. + it'll save on waste paper :p

That kind of thing sounds a lot more expensive than a gun, though.

And I'll have you know my targets are 100% recycled paper thank you very much

[Manic Impressive]

Why would the entire planet ban firearms? Why would regions dependent on hunting ban the tools of the primary industry? What about pest control on farms? You do farmers now use firearms to deal with pests? What about population control of wildlife?
Well I guess that would depend on what kind of pests we're talking about. In the UK they use poisons to make animals infertile. I don't support this personally but it's an option, just saying. Also I really like some of the stuff that comes from the technocrats like vertical farming (http://www.verticalfarm.com/). That would certainly help solve the impact on wildlife.



And we are talking about a communist world, there would be no barrier in the way of migration of people from one region to another.
true that. But I reckon it will still be a pain in the arse to move half way round the world just to be able to shoot guns. Leaving behind all your friends and family and what have you. I don't really have much more to say on this but it was a very good point that you made.



Given history they would probably be more concerned with counter-revolution.
If people aren't happy then we ain't doing it right. As long as a majority stays happy then counter revolution won't be possible. And really do you think that people educated to think in a materialist way will want to regress society?

[Manic Impressive]

Sure, but there's a lot of things you can do as a hobby that could seriously hurt you. Any kind of sport, for example, and especially ones like skateboarding, skiing, snowboard, and things like rally car in which spectators and drivers both stand a chance of getting killed. Yep but how many people die from skateboarding accidents and how many cases have there been where the murder weapon was a snowboard?
Like I said with cars they'll eventually cease to exist because they'll no longer be useful and we'll move on to something more efficient and less dangerous. But with all dangerous sports safety precautions will become more important.


I think an important thing to do to make accidents less common is to demystify guns, and treat them as tools that people use, rather than act like they are some kind of unholy scourge that kills people.I know I got a little melodramatic with my responses, it was meant to be tongue in cheek but that is what they are tools and you're right it is important to see them as such. But the best answer so far for continuing to use lethal ammunition is "so I can shoot targets that are far away". In which case there would at least be no need for hand guns and machine guns to use ammunition that is designed to be lethal, would there?


That kind of thing sounds a lot more expensive than a gun, though.
What's expensive in a society without money? Intellectual labour + manpower + resources nah it's not that expensive especially if it's going to help stop a counter revolution over not being allowed to fire tools designed to kill. :D


And I'll have you know my targets are 100% recycled paper thank you very much
Glad to hear it :thumbup:

[ellipsis]

I like guns. The people should have guns.

Also, not this thread again...

[Psy]

Well I guess that would depend on what kind of pests we're talking about. In the UK they use poisons to make animals infertile. I don't support this personally but it's an option, just saying. Also I really like some of the stuff that comes from the technocrats like vertical farming (http://www.verticalfarm.com/). That would certainly help solve the impact on wildlife.

Farmers use firearms to deal with: wild dogs, foxes, wolves and even rats. The advantage of firearms is it is cheap and effective and environmentally friendly as you are not harming other animals.



If people aren't happy then we ain't doing it right. As long as a majority stays happy then counter revolution won't be possible. And really do you think that people educated to think in a materialist way will want to regress society?
It is more then people being happy, counter-revolutionary movements can easily over rule a happy majority if they are the only ones with firearms. You can't keep firearms out of the hands of those that will use them against their fellow humans so a ban would just give counter-revolutionaries a monopoly on firearms. If there was a ban and Neo-Nazis took over the town there is nothing the people could do as they got nothing to fight back with, yet if most people had firearms then when the Neo-Nazis decided to use their firearms to overthrow communism the town could easily gun them down with superior firepower before they were ever a serious threat to the town as a whole and the most damage they could do is only killing a few people (without guns a Neo-Nazi group could shoot every last person in a town before the workers could put a stop to them).

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I feel like a horrible anarchist :D when the words "no gun control" makes me think of American rednecks teaching their children how to use anti-infantry assault rifles from the Vietnam War. Documentaries on America creeps me out, man.
I was taught how to shoot and about gun safety around age 6-7. My parents are not rednecks, though.

I was shooting .22 rifles at that age.

When I was in high school I was on the 10-meter air rifle marksmanship team, top 3 positions at any given time. Unmagnified closed-sights, target about the size of a half-dollar from 0 (outside) to 10 (dead center). 10 targets per sheet, one shot per target, each sheet is a different position (prone, kneeling, standing). I'd average 250-260/300

I guess the US has a gun fetish.

I've never killed anything, though.

[Nox]

We will have no need for guns whatsoever in a Communist society, but we will need some stored away for when the aliens invade.

[Bardo]

Silly Earthling, resistance is futile.

[EvilRedGuy]

1: Cars are unnecessary. We have railway electric super-speed trains, ask a technocrat he will give you a better picture on transportation(even TVP have a better view on this), cars are dangerous , polluting and completely UNNECESSARY.
2: Tyranny of the majority is as bad as tyranny of the minority. Thats not democracy, thats reverse dictatorship. We are Egalitairans, we believe in Egalitariocracy not Democracy.
3: Guns should be used to protect yourself against animals, NOT TO HUNT ANIMALS.

Bye.


PS- Please positive rep this post, i need more REPUTATION!!!!!!!

[#FF0000]

3: Guns should be used to protect yourself against animals, NOT TO HUNT ANIMALS.

Well in Pennsylvania when you hunt deer you pretty much are protecting yourself, given how much they like standing in front of cars on the highway.

[EvilRedGuy]

Well thats fair. Same can be said about Kangaroos in Australia, way too many of them causing incidents.

[Nox]

The same can be said about humans, always bloody crossing the road.

[Smyg]

Goddamn pedestrians. Always in the way. It's their own fault, really. Maybe we should start culling the population? Wildlife management and all.

[Psy]

The same can be said about humans, always bloody crossing the road.
The problem is humans don't lick roads for salt and don't eat grain spilled on railroad tracks. Also humans don't have the mass to seriously damage vehicles when hit by most vehicles, while one ton animals getting in the way of vehicles is a serious problem as their mass is enough to not only damage vehicles but injure the driver.

[Manic Impressive]

.
2: Tyranny of the majority is as bad as tyranny of the minority. Thats not democracy, thats reverse dictatorship. We are Egalitairans, we believe in Egalitariocracy not Democracy.

Actually that is democracy, because if you have a vote and the majority vote for something then the vote passes.

[Manic Impressive]

The problem is humans don't lick roads for salt and don't eat grain spilled on railroad tracks. Also humans don't have the mass to seriously damage vehicles when hit by most vehicles, while one ton animals getting in the way of vehicles is a serious problem as their mass is enough to not only damage vehicles but injure the driver.
The animals don't know any better we do, that means we must modify our behaviour so that animals cannot put people at risk.

[Dogs On Acid]

Gun ownership is up to a democratic vote.

Ceasing firearm production is silly, just a few examples:

-Hikers and Campers might need a firearm to fend off wild animals.
-Farmers need guns to protect their farm and control cattle.
-Militia needs guns to protect from Reactionaries or violent individuals.
-Recreation and Shooting Sports.

And the list goes on...

Although I do believe guns should be kept in gun clubs or proper militia warehouses. I don't find keeping them under your pillow at all necessary.

In the end of the day, a popular vote will decide.

[Dogs On Acid]

Tyranny of the majority is as bad as tyranny of the minority. Thats not democracy, thats reverse dictatorship. We are Egalitairans, we believe in Egalitariocracy not Democracy.


I'm sure we will eventually find a much more efficient and fair system than democracy. Especially in Communal society wherein people with different ideas can form their own Communes altogether.

[Tifosi]

1: Cars are unnecessary. We have railway electric super-speed trains, ask a technocrat he will give you a better picture on transportation(even TVP have a better view on this), cars are dangerous , polluting and completely UNNECESSARY.

Dude, the nearest train station is 20 miles away from my house and I ain't walking that. It takes 4 god damm hours to get to the nearest city on the train to.

[Dogs On Acid]

Cars are unnecessary. We have railway electric super-speed trains, ask a technocrat he will give you a better picture on transportation(even TVP have a better view on this), cars are dangerous , polluting and completely UNNECESSARY.

Do you even drive?

[Manic Impressive]

Ceasing firearm production is silly, just a few examples:
already answered all of these.


-Hikers and Campers might need a firearm to fend off wild animals.
An airsoft gun or a paintball gun which makes a loud noise would be sufficient. Tranquillizer guns if absolutely necessary. There is no need for ammunition designed to kill.


-Farmers need guns to protect their farm and control cattle.
Drugs which cause infertility are a more efficient way to control animal population which causes far less distress to the animal. Also we should modify our behaviour to not only make farming better but to stop animals hurting production. See Vertical Farming


-Militia needs guns to protect from Reactionaries or violent individuals.
You should know that reactionaries exist because of the material conditions they face in an exploitative society. In a classless society why would reactionaries exist?


-Recreation and Shooting Sports.
Don't need lethal ammunition for that though do you? It's not like you need a hollow point to shoot a piece of paper is it?


And the list goes on...
bring it

[Psy]

An airsoft gun or a paintball gun which makes a loud noise would be sufficient.

To larger animals they won't even notice them hitting them.



Tranquillizer guns if absolutely necessary. There is no need for ammunition designed to kill.

Don't act fast enough to put down larger animals when they are charging at the shooter.



Drugs which cause infertility are a more efficient way to control animal population which causes far less distress to the animal. Also we should modify our behaviour to not only make farming better but to stop animals hurting production. See Vertical Farming

Ammo is cheaper is far more controllable as only the animals the hunter targets go down. See the problems with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane to see why firearms are a far more environmentally sound solution to controlling animal populations.



You should know that reactionaries exist because of the material conditions they face in an exploitative society. In a classless society why would reactionaries exist?

Because there would still be those suffering from megalomania.



Don't need lethal ammunition for that though do you? It's not like you need a hollow point to shoot a piece of paper is it?

The problem is range, this is why firearms are the tool of choice for hunters as they can take down a animal at rangers greater then the animal can even detect the hunter's presence.

[Dogs On Acid]

To larger animals they won't even notice them hitting them.


Don't act fast enough to put down larger animals when they are charging at the shooter.


Ammo is cheaper is far more controllable as only the animals the hunter targets go down. See the problems with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane to see why firearms are a far more environmentally sound solution to controlling animal populations.


Because there would still be those suffering from megalomania.


The problem is range, this is why firearms are the tool of choice for hunters as they can take down a animal at rangers greater then the animal can even detect the hunter's presence.

Excellent refutation, you took the words out of my mouth.

[The Douche]

I like how this debate is totally irrelevant. The reality of the situation is that the majority of people will never be in favor of a general firearms ban.

And if it were to be forced on a population, people would just make their own guns, probably to inflict violence on those who want to prevent them from having them.


It doesn't matter how scared you are of guns, there are still so many people who are never going to agree, and are going to be made so suspicious of your desire to control them that they will not submit.

It boggles my mind that people believe the working class is mature and reasonable enough to handle the administration of manufacturing/distributing goods, and sustaining life on the whole planet, but are somehow not capable of being trusted with a gun.

[Manic Impressive]

To larger animals they won't even notice them hitting them.
Don't act fast enough to put down larger animals when they are charging at the shooter.
Which animals are we talking about Lions? There are two reasons animals attack people.
One they're hungry because we've expanded our farms into their territory causing a lack of food.
Two because we've provoked them.

The solution more efficient farming concentrated in smaller areas and better education about how to behave around animals.


Ammo is cheaper is far more controllable as only the animals the hunter targets go down. See the problems with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane to see why firearms are a far more environmentally sound solution to controlling animal populations.
Cost is not an issue when money has been abolished. Is that more commonly known as DDT? The same DDT which was banned in the 80's? Today there are more efficient drugs which they use on badgers and foxes here in the UK.


Because there would still be those suffering from megalomania.
But how will they ever gain enough support to take power?
Megalomaniac: "hey guy you mind if I employ you and reintroduce currency so that I can extract surplus value from your labour"
Citizen: "fuck off"


The problem is range, this is why firearms are the tool of choice for hunters as they can take down a animal at rangers greater then the animal can even detect the hunter's presence.
Hunting is unnecessary with increased production of food.

[Manic Impressive]

I like how this debate is totally irrelevant.
yeah but it's fun though :p


The reality of the situation is that the majority of people will never be in favor of a general firearms ban.
herp derp assertion without any reasoning. I've already given plenty of reason why guns will become defunct causing the decline of popularity. The only reason people will want to carry on using them is tradition. And well Fuck Tradition


And if it were to be forced on a population, people would just make their own guns, probably to inflict violence on those who want to prevent them from having them.

It doesn't matter how scared you are of guns, there are still so many people who are never going to agree, and are going to be made so suspicious of your desire to control them that they will not submit.
If they're willing to KILL PEOPLE to overturn a democratic vote then that's the primary reason they should not have guns.

Shot yourself in the foot there comrade? figuratively speaking ;)


It boggles my mind that people believe the working class is mature and reasonable enough to handle the administration of manufacturing/distributing goods, and sustaining life on the whole planet, but are somehow not capable of being trusted with a gun.
People don't always think clearly in the heat of the moment, accidents happen people get killed. Your hobby ain't worth people dying or is it?

[Psy]

Which animals are we talking about Lions?

All large animals for example bears.



There are two reasons animals attack people.
One they're hungry because we've expanded our farms into their territory causing a lack of food.
Two because we've provoked them.

The problem is that work crews in the wilderness have to focus on their job not about wildlife. For example why should survey crews take the unnecessary risk of going into the wilderness unarmed? Why would a workers state put the lives of animals above the lives of workers?



The solution more efficient farming concentrated in smaller areas and better education about how to behave around animals.

It is not just a problem of farming, there is many telecommunication towers on uninhabited mountains just because it is a high point where work crews every so often are helicoptered in to maintain the equipment then fly back out.



Cost is not an issue when money has been abolished.

It would still be an issue, as society still has to labor to produce



Is that more commonly known as DDT? The same DDT which was banned in the 80's? Today there are more efficient drugs which they use on badgers and foxes here in the UK.

Yes yet ammo still only effects what in the path of the round.



But how will they ever gain enough support to take power?
Megalomaniac: "hey guy you mind if I employ you and reintroduce currency so that I can extract surplus value from your labour"
Citizen: "fuck off"

More like they launch terror attacks on the public because they don't understand their greatness.



Hunting is unnecessary with increased production of food.
Not really, rural communities are too far from the means of production for it to make any logistical sense to end hunting especially when you factor in weather cutting them off from the industrial world regularly.

[The Douche]

If they're willing to KILL PEOPLE to overturn a democratic vote then that's the primary reason they should not have guns.

There are approx. 270 million personally owned guns in the US. That is about 90 guns for every 100 people. Obviously many of these people own multiple guns. But nonetheless, that is a whole, whole lot of people who own guns. Why do you think they will be willing to just throw them away to assuage you of your irrational paranoia?

If you tell me I'm not capable of owning a gun, I'm going to be pretty damn suspicious of just how much control you want over my life.

And again, I don't understand why you think people ought to be trusted with the administration of society, but they shouldn't be trusted with private ownership of firearms. Its illogical.

[piet11111]

And yet in Switzerland with a population of 6 million and an estimated 600.000 automatic rifles and about 500.000 pistols somehow violent crime is extremely rare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Seems they just aren't angry enough then with such a huge % of gun ownership they should have been european somalia by Manic impressive's reasoning.

[Magón]

People don't always think clearly in the heat of the moment, accidents happen people get killed. Your hobby ain't worth people dying or is it?

The same can be said for those who carry a small pocket knife. Heat of the moment type events can end with someone with a knife sticking out of them somewhere, or with a cut here and there.

Allowing people to own guns, and use them responsibly up at a range (which they do nowadays), does no harm to people or wildlife.

[Manic Impressive]

All large animals for example bears.
Well then my response especially refers to the behaviour of bears. They are really tame animals if you behave properly around them and they aren't hungry.


The problem is that work crews in the wilderness have to focus on their job not about wildlife. For example why should survey crews take the unnecessary risk of going into the wilderness unarmed? Why would a workers state put the lives of animals above the lives of workers?
It is not just a problem of farming, there is many telecommunication towers on uninhabited mountains just because it is a high point where work crews every so often are helicoptered in to maintain the equipment then fly back out.

How many animal attacks are there compared to fatal injuries from fire arms? and by caused I mean that the use of a fire arm as opposed to another weapon resulted in a fatality.


It would still be an issue, as society still has to labor to produce Not really a problem though is it? If we need something then we have to produce it.


Yes yet ammo still only effects what in the path of the round.
Yep especially if it's a person. As far as we know the drugs do not effect anything higher up the food chain.


More like they launch terror attacks on the public because they don't understand their greatness.
yeah because we have loads of guns now there are no terrorist attacks. Having guns does not prevent terrorism the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that more than adequately


Not really, rural communities are too far from the means of production for it to make any logistical sense to end hunting especially when you factor in weather cutting them off from the industrial world regularly.
So if rural communities can't hunt they'll starve to death? of course not they'll be supplied with food just like everywhere else

[Manic Impressive]

There are approx. 270 million personally owned guns in the US. That is about 90 guns for every 100 people. Obviously many of these people own multiple guns. But nonetheless, that is a whole, whole lot of people who own guns. Why do you think they will be willing to just throw them away to assuage you of your irrational paranoia?
If they are defeated by a vote then yes. And if these people think it's ok to then overturn that vote by killing people is that justified in your opinion.

And btw I'm being incredibly rational you are the one hiding in your own subjective bubble.


If you tell me I'm not capable of owning a gun, I'm going to be pretty damn suspicious of just how much control you want over my life.
What you gonna do shoot me?


And again, I don't understand why you think people ought to be trusted with the administration of society, but they shouldn't be trusted with private ownership of firearms. Its illogical.
Well you've already said that people having there guns taken away would go round killing people to overturn a popular vote. I think you've answered your own question there

[Manic Impressive]

The same can be said for those who carry a small pocket knife. Heat of the moment type events can end with someone with a knife sticking out of them somewhere, or with a cut here and there.

Allowing people to own guns, and use them responsibly up at a range (which they do nowadays), does no harm to people or wildlife.
yes that's true but as has been pointed out by the gun fetishists guns are far more efficiant weapons than pocket knives as they can kill from range. How many knife fights which didn't result in death would have if one or both of the people involved had a gun?

[Magón]

yes that's true but as has been pointed out by the gun fetishists guns are far more efficiant weapons than pocket knives as they can kill from range. How many knife fights which didn't result in death would have if one or both of the people involved had a gun?

Well of course guns are more efficient, that's why humanity dropped swords and spears, for muskets, etc. But as has been said on here and countless other threads and discussions between people on gun ownership/rights: if people are properly supplied with food, and things they need, then some crimes committed now, would become nonexistent and some would become a lot less likely to happen. Guns are simply a tool people choose to use, in crimes, but crimes do not, and never have, made up the large percentage of why people own and buy guns.

[Psy]

Well then my response especially refers to the behaviour of bears. They are really tame animals if you behave properly around them and they aren't hungry.

That is a problem when work crews are disturbing them like a railway is being built right through their home (and lets be realistic, we won't reroute a railway being built because bears just happen to in the way).



How many animal attacks are there compared to fatal injuries from fire arms? and by caused I mean that the use of a fire arm as opposed to another weapon resulted in a fatality.

So you'd trust work crews with high explosives yet not firearms?



Not really a problem though is it? If we need something then we have to produce it.

Efficiency would still matter, meaning you still have to care about how much labor has to go into a production process compared to what society gets out of it.



Yep especially if it's a person. As far as we know the drugs do not effect anything higher up the food chain.

As far as we know there is no effect.



yeah because we have loads of guns now there are no terrorist attacks. Having guns does not prevent terrorism the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prove that more than adequately

Iraq and Afghanistan are insurgencies against occupying armies not terrorist attacks against society.



So if rural communities can't hunt they'll starve to death? of course not they'll be supplied with food just like everywhere else
It would require more labor to supply rural communities from industry then let rural communities fend for themselves and there would be no benefit in supporting far flung isolate rural communities.

[Manic Impressive]

Well of course guns are more efficient, that's why humanity dropped swords and spears, for muskets, etc. But as has been said on here and countless other threads and discussions between people on gun ownership/rights: if people are properly supplied with food, and things they need, then some crimes committed now, would become nonexistent and some would become a lot less likely to happen. Guns are simply a tool people choose to use, in crimes, but crimes do not, and never have, made up the large percentage of why people own and buy guns.
yes I agree. But there will still be crimes of passion and if a fight occurs between two people with fists or even pocket knives then the chances of death are lower than if they both have guns.

[Obs]

Yeah, let's get rid of every single weapon in existence. While we're at it, let's give everyone a mansion and build a ladder to the moon out of matches and glue.

[piet11111]

And yet in Switzerland with a population of 6 million and an estimated 600.000 automatic rifles and about 500.000 pistols somehow violent crime is extremely rare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Seems they just aren't angry enough then with such a huge % of gun ownership they should have been european somalia by Manic impressive's reasoning.

*ahem* before manic impressive overlooks this one again.

[Manic Impressive]

That is a problem when work crews are disturbing them like a railway is being built right through their home (and lets be realistic, we won't reroute a railway being built because bears just happen to in the way).
We can do it in a more responsible way than the current ruling cllass do.


So you'd trust work crews with high explosives yet not firearms?
yes I would trust work crews with explosives over everybody in society owning guns.


Efficiency would still matter, meaning you still have to care about how much labor has to go into a production process compared to what society gets out of it.
yes but if it's necessary then it's not a problem. You still have to manufacture ammunition I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it takes greater labour power to create ammunition than it does for drugs. But if there's a short fall we can just make that up from the ceased production in firearms and ammunition.


Iraq and Afghanistan are insurgencies against occupying armies not terrorist attacks against society.
OK but a society with lots of guns has not prevented terrorist attacks has it?



It would require more labor to supply rural communities from industry then let rural communities fend for themselves and there would be no benefit in supporting far flung isolate rural communities.
So people in rural areas would suffer just because it requires more labour power? Call me an optimist but i think we'll cope

[Magón]

yes I agree. But there will still be crimes of passion and if a fight occurs between two people with fists or even pocket knives then the chances of death are lower than if they both have guns.

I'm sorry, but that's just wishful thinking. Yes, guns cause more damage usually than a knife would, but if you take away guns, you're gonna want to go after knives because the next thing you'll hear about, is a rise of people having their jugular cut, or getting stabbed somewhere vital (or just in general), because they were fighting during a crime of passion or whatever.

Most guns people own are used at a range, not in a crime, plain and simple. I'm sure if there's a study out there somewhere, or someone did a study on a large group of people who own guns and/or knives, the majority of the gun percentage, would be up at a range, and would have a small percentage of use in crimes. While the knives would have a generally higher use in crimes compared to guns, (because really you're not going to just pull out your pocket knife to cut some bread or cheese) but still comparatively small to their general all around use.

[Manic Impressive]

*ahem* before manic impressive overlooks this one again.
Damn you piet1111 I thought I'd dodged a bullet with that one :D until you foiled my dastardly plan. But you know gimme a break it's like 5:1 here :p


And yet in Switzerland with a population of 6 million and an estimated 600.000 automatic rifles and about 500.000 pistols somehow violent crime is extremely rare.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm

Seems they just aren't angry enough then with such a huge % of gun ownership they should have been european somalia by Manic impressive's reasoning.
I don't know much about switzerland tbh. But it's a far more equal society than the UK or the US which is where the stats I used were from.

I've never disputed that deaths from guns would go down in a socialist society. But I still maintain that 1 death that could have been prevented if fire arms had not been present is enough to justify a complete ban.

[∞]

If communism bans guns, then I'm not a communist.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm sorry, but that's just wishful thinking. Yes, guns cause more damage usually than a knife would, but if you take away guns, you're gonna want to go after knives because the next thing you'll hear about, is a rise of people having their jugular cut, or getting stabbed somewhere vital (or just in general), because they were fighting during a crime of passion or whatever.
Have you ever been stabbed? I have in two separate incidents, if they'd had a gun instead of a knife I'd be dead.

[Kitty_Paine]

Damn you piet1111 I thought I'd dodged a bullet with that one :D until you foiled my dastardly plan. But you know gimme a break it's like 5:1 here :p


I don't know much about switzerland tbh. But it's a far more equal society than the UK or the US which is where the stats I used were from.

I've never disputed that deaths from guns would go down in a socialist society. But I still maintain that 1 death that could have been prevented if fire arms had not been present is enough to justify a complete ban.

I understand where you're coming from and I understand the argument, yet...

I still maintain that 1 life that could have been saved if fire arms had been present is enough to justify them.

I do applaud your fortitude though for not blowing up or leaving despite being vastly out numbered... :p

[Manic Impressive]

I understand where you're coming from and I understand the argument, yet...

I still maintain that 1 life that could have been saved if fire arms had been present is enough to justify them.
I know it was a shitty argument but shhh don't tell the others ;)


I do applaud your fortitude though for not blowing up or leaving despite being vastly out numbered... :p
thanks man I'm having fun but it is a little tiring. when it stops being fun I'll stop :D

[Magón]

Have you ever been stabbed? I have in two separate incidents, if they'd had a gun instead of a knife I'd be dead.

You still could have easily lived, if you'd been shot in the stomach, or somewhere. Most people who use guns, don't shoot in vital areas, just like most knife attacks aren't striking in vital areas. Knives can be just as deadly as guns, if used correctly. But in either case, with a knife or gun, they're usually not, and the person has a 50/50 chance of living or dying.

If you really think, 1 crime committed with a gun, is enough to have a complete ban on them, then you will probably end up having the same on knives or whatever other, that's been in use as a weapon for a lot longer than a gun.

[piet11111]

I don't know much about switzerland tbh. But it's a far more equal society than the UK or the US which is where the stats I used were from.

Now that we have established that gun violence is linked to inequality then why would we stop at the modern example of Switzerland ?

Logic would dictate that under socialism/communism gun related violence would be statistically non-existent.

And yet you continue to argue against firearms despite the many that enjoy using them for recreational purposes.

[Psy]

We can do it in a more responsible way than the current ruling cllass do.

So now industry has to walk on egg shells when it comes to wildlife?



yes I would trust work crews with explosives over everybody in society owning guns.

And what happens when people figure out that explosives is a runner up to firearms? Is TNT being used for self-defense safer then firearms?




yes but if it's necessary then it's not a problem. You still have to manufacture ammunition I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if it takes greater labour power to create ammunition than it does for drugs. But if there's a short fall we can just make that up from the ceased production in firearms and ammunition.

The problem is that you require much more labor to store chemicals then to store ammo and firearms, then you have the labor to ensure the chemicals are not having unwanted side effects.



OK but a society with lots of guns has not prevented terrorist attacks has it?

Well Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because Switzerland issued every adult male was issued a rifle and given firearm training thus Hitler saw it as not worth it due to the amount of resistance Switzerland could put up.



So people in rural areas would suffer just because it requires more labour power? Call me an optimist but i think we'll cope
Isolated rural communities, we are not going to build roads into the northern tribes of Siberia, those tribes lasted without constant supply lines to industrial society and will continue to survive in a communist world that lets them to remain isolated.

[Manic Impressive]

You still could have easily lived, if you'd been shot in the stomach, or somewhere. Most people who use guns, don't shoot in vital areas, just like most knife attacks aren't striking in vital areas. Knives can be just as deadly as guns, if used correctly. But in either case, with a knife or gun, they're usually not, and the person has a 50/50 chance of living or dying.
I disagree


If you really think, 1 crime committed with a gun, is enough to have a complete ban on them, then you will probably end up having the same on knives or whatever other, that's been in use as a weapon for a lot longer than a gun.
no because the difference with knives is they have a useful purpose and all a knife is is a sharpened piece of metal whereas a gun is a complex machine designed to inflict serious injury to it's target. If guns stop having a useful purpose (war) then they will cease to be needed and can be replaced with alternatives. If we can replace a knife with something better then knives would cease to be used.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people
It's like with knives, you can do the same thing to someone with a hammer

[Manic Impressive]

Now that we have established that gun violence is linked to inequality then why would we stop at the modern example of Switzerland ? That was established on like page 2 or 3 keep up :rolleyes:


Logic would dictate that under socialism/communism gun related violence would be statistically non-existent. Now that's utopian.


And yet you continue to argue against firearms despite the many that enjoy using them for recreational purposes.
yep keep 'em coming there haven't been many original arguments and I've defeated them all.

[Manic Impressive]

Psy is my favourite you make me smile comrade :D

So now industry has to walk on egg shells when it comes to wildlife?
Industry has to be responsible when managing the natural world.


And what happens when people figure out that explosives is a runner up to firearms? Is TNT being used for self-defense safer then firearms?
explosives will have a use value guns won't and you were talking about using explosives as a tool in the appropriate way not everyone in society being issued with TNT.


The problem is that you require much more labor to store chemicals then to store ammo and firearms, then you have the labor to ensure the chemicals are not having unwanted side effects.
I'm sorry Broski I don't agree that there will be such a huge labour shortage as you suggest.


Well Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because Switzerland issued every adult male was issued a rifle and given firearm training thus Hitler saw it as not worth it due to the amount of resistance Switzerland could put up.
Well there will be no countries to invade will there?


Isolated rural communities, we are not going to build roads into the northern tribes of Siberia, those tribes lasted without constant supply lines to industrial society and will continue to survive in a communist world that lets them to remain isolated.
socialism must be global for it to be socialism

eh I've quoted Piet as Psy that's it time for a break I'll be back in a couple of hours. Before you post your next comment read back through before making your next point as answering the same thing over and over is boring

[Magón]

I disagree

Why? What proves it wrong? If you're shot once or twice, you've got a 50/50 chance of living, just like if you're stabbed, you've got a 50/50 chance of living. Most people who get shot, don't get shot in the head or somewhere that's going to put them down for good, and even then there's obviously been events where people have survived a head wound by a bullet, just like there have been people with knife blades stuck in their skull.



no because the difference with knives is they have a useful purpose and all a knife is is a sharpened piece of metal whereas a gun is a complex machine designed to inflict serious injury to it's target. If guns stop having a useful purpose (war) then they will cease to be needed and can be replaced with alternatives. If we can replace a knife with something better then knives would cease to be used.

Guns have a useful purpose of as it's been said, but you just don't want to accept, of keeping wild life populations down in areas where if they weren't, they'd cause trouble like car accidents and other things like that. Guns are efficient, because they bring results immediately, not a week or more like an injection or whatever does. And by your logic, that's good enough to keep them around, because who's going to want to wait for a deer population to go down several years or so, after a new generation or so is born? In between that time, car accidents and all sorts of things can happen, and would probably go on the rise.

And as someone who's been in an accident involving a deer more than once, I can say it would have been rather convenient if the local hunters in the area, had been given the chance to pick off more of the deer population in the area (which at the time was apparently rather large by what the police told me), so I wouldn't have gotten into those accidents.

[Nox]

The problem is humans don't lick roads for salt and don't eat grain spilled on railroad tracks. Also humans don't have the mass to seriously damage vehicles when hit by most vehicles, while one ton animals getting in the way of vehicles is a serious problem as their mass is enough to not only damage vehicles but injure the driver.

I was being sarcastic ;)

But seriously, I've seen someone lick 'grit' (salt) from the road before.

[piet11111]

Now that's utopian.

The socialism part ?


yep keep 'em coming there haven't been many original arguments and I've defeated them all.Obviously you haven't otherwise we would all be agreeing with you.

Look guns are here to stay but they will need to be regulated in certain ways.

I would support

- a very limited tolerance of easily concealed weapons (handguns)
- mandatory psychological evaluations
- mandatory gun safety courses for those that have weapons
- weapons and munitions separately locked away with routine check ups
- severe sentences on having weapons loaded or unloaded on your person (or in your vehicle) while under the influence of alcohol and or drugs
- severe sentences on carrying a loaded weapon outside of the area you are using it in

Weapons should be available to all those that want to enjoy using them recreationally or those that need them for self defense (militia or those that are in areas with dangerous wild life)

Ps i would much rather get shot then stabbed because knives do not need reloading

[The Douche]

If they are defeated by a vote then yes. And if these people think it's ok to then overturn that vote by killing people is that justified in your opinion.

And btw I'm being incredibly rational you are the one hiding in your own subjective bubble.


What you gonna do shoot me?


Well you've already said that people having there guns taken away would go round killing people to overturn a popular vote. I think you've answered your own question there

What you don't seem to understand is that you're making an unfounded assertion based only on your own paranoia that people are terrible creatures out to hurt each other.

If the majority of people wanted guns to be banned then they would be banned right now. They aren't. You think everybody agrees with you, but even on this website your voice is the minority. So who is hiding in a subjective bubble, me or you?

[thefinalmarch]

PS- Please positive rep this post, i need more REPUTATION!!!!!!!
bro that implies this post is worth it

[Obs]

bro that implies this post is worth it

Well, you can't blame ERG for not understanding how reputation is supposed to work. "Not understanding stuff" is kind of his thing.

[tbasherizer]

certainly transportation needs to be made safer and more efficient but we need cars for the foreseeable future, until we can replace them with better technology. The only need we have for guns is to kill people.


I'm glad we agree. An outdated form of technology was replaced by a safer and more efficient one because we needed it. What makes you think that the same won't happen with guns......except oh wait......without war there will be no need to replace the technology as it's main purpose will have ceased to exist.

"And before you say oh well they're great because they make a loud noise and shooting targets is fun and the mechanics of a gun are really amazing and and and"

And.....I'll do you a deal you can have paint guns. They'll be unlikely to cause fatal injury you can take them apart and do all the mechanical stuff, you can shoot targets to test your skill and whatever else you want, we'll even make them go bang but they can only fire soft balls of paint. Fair compromise?

On top of all that, you can even shoot other people and have them shoot you without either of you dying! Paintball is great. Trouble is, real firearms have a kind of heft that lends them some power, which I think is also appreciated but not easily stated by gun appreciators. "I like having guns because they make me feel more powerful" is hard to articulate without sounding like a fetishist. Don't get me wrong- I'm not accusing gun appreciators of being bad or abnormal people- I loved when I had the opportunity to fire a C-7 during my cadet training.

I think that the power draw of guns might be diminished in a socialist society. Lots of the sentiment among rightist gun-lovers is that they have their guns because the 'gubment' will come and try to steal their stuff. Marxists know that this is only a result of their alienation from their labour, which won't exist under socialism. A socialist order probably wouldn't have to do something as voluntaristic as ban guns- the people in whose hands they were dangerous under capitalism won't find the need to use them for their dangerous purposes, and people who like the feel of recoil and the skill of marksmanship will still have their rifle and pistol ranges.

[EvilRedGuy]

The same can be said about humans, always bloody crossing the road.

WTF? Get banned you fucking troll. First you are against animal rights and now you are for?

You're a fucking idiot. Together with Smyg. Whats wrong with you?


Actually that is democracy, because if you have a vote and the majority vote for something then the vote passes.


No its, tyranny/fascism, fuck you.

[EvilRedGuy]

The animals don't know any better we do, that means we must modify our behaviour so that animals cannot put people at risk.

Fuck animal rights? WTF? LEARN TO DECIDE.

Dude, the nearest train station is 20 miles away from my house and I ain't walking that. It takes 4 god damm hours to get to the nearest city on the train to.

Fuck you. idiot.


Do you even drive?

Fuck you.


bro that implies this post is worth it

Fuck you. Fascist.


Well, you can't blame ERG for not understanding how reputation is supposed to work. "Not understanding stuff" is kind of his thing.

Lol coming from the guy supporting on the racist danish "communist" party. :rolleyes::lol:

[thefinalmarch]

Fuck you. Fascist.
hahaha. "fascist"? seriously?

I wouldn't have made that post if you hadn't so desperately begged for rep and hadn't said some really dumb things... like "egalitariocracy";tell me please what the bleeding fuck is that? Direct democracy is in fact what you label as a "tyranny of the majority". Fortunately for you there are ways around this, like consensus democracy for example.

Cars are certainly necessary in today's world, and in tomorrow's, but with major design changes of course - chiefly changes to the energy source and added safety features. Private vehicles are, of course, not restricted to specific routes and aren't crowded and noisy like all conceivable forms of public transport are. They also offer much more privacy to the driver and the passengers. As for cars being dangerous, if we were to replace all private vehicles with buses and trams overnight we'd still have quite similar death tolls on the roads. Trains can also crash and they can derail, potentially causing as many deaths in one go as there are deaths from road accidents in a large city annually (usually around the 300-mark (http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/statistics/roadtollrolling.do?areaID=12&tierID=1&navID=16)). Granted, they aren't that common today, but you can expect to see an increase if there were more trains.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Fuck animal rights? WTF? LEARN TO DECIDE.


Fuck you. idiot.



Fuck you.



Fuck you. Fascist.



Lol coming from the guy supporting on the racist danish "communist" party. :rolleyes::lol:

Watch the flaming before you get infracted. People receive them for far less sometimes.

[EvilRedGuy]

Fuck you all.



:)

[thefinalmarch]

Fuck you all.



:)
Happy five hundredth post!

PS What is egalitariocracy?

[Obs]

Lol coming from the guy supporting on the racist danish "communist" party. :rolleyes::lol:

I'm not gonna let you slander my organisation. Please come with an example of KP being racist, or be exposed as a lying rat.

[Le Libérer]

Fuck animal rights? WTF? LEARN TO DECIDE.


Fuck you. idiot.



Fuck you.



Fuck you. Fascist.



Lol coming from the guy supporting on the racist danish "communist" party. :rolleyes::lol:Infraction for flaming. I suggest you get a hold of your emotions, ERG.

[Comintern1919]

Dudes, really, those americans with their weapons. Here in Europe you're not allowed to carry weapons as a normal civilian, and no ones complaining.

In fact, here in Europe, America is known, and hated, for their high and very violent criminal rate and criminals. If you hear about an american killing 10 or more people with a shotgun or similiar, everyone thinks "Again? Those americans again, always the same", but if a european kills 2 or 3 with a pistol, everyone's wondering "where the hell did he get that from?".

The most badass thing a criminal will have here is a little pistol, in America it's common for them to carry Maschine Guns.

Honestly, I can't understand people saying that they need weapons for defense, if at all, it only leads to more death and suffering due to poeple shooting each other instead of relying on more non-violent, non-lethal methods.

[Obs]

Dudes, really, those americans with their weapons. Here in Europe you're not allowed to carry weapons as a normal civilian, and no ones complaining.

In fact, here in Europe, America is known, and hated, for their high and very violent criminal rate and criminals. If you hear about an american killing 10 or more people with a shotgun or similiar, everyone thinks "Again? Those americans again, always the same", but if a european kills 2 or 3 with a pistol, everyone's wondering "where the hell did he get that from?".

The most badass thing a criminal will have here is a little pistol, in America it's common for them to carry Maschine Guns.

Honestly, I can't understand people saying that they need weapons for defense, if at all, it only leads to more death and suffering due to poeple shooting each other instead of relying on more non-violent, non-lethal methods.

It's polite to read the entirety of a thread before responding.

[Comintern1919]

It's polite to read the entirety of a thread before responding.

Yeah, but I can't contribute anything to the discussin before me , but wanted to say my opinion about that matter.

If you don't want to respond to it, or don't like it being there, just ignore it.

I mean, I don't see anyone from the first page saying something on the last page, right?

I could of course create a own thread about that, but then people would complain that there already is a thread about it, this one.

But let's not spam, not here, just ignore it then.

[RedRevolution1938]

Dudes, really, those americans with their weapons. Here in Europe you're not allowed to carry weapons as a normal civilian, and no ones complaining.

In fact, here in Europe, America is known, and hated, for their high and very violent criminal rate and criminals. If you hear about an american killing 10 or more people with a shotgun or similiar, everyone thinks "Again? Those americans again, always the same", but if a european kills 2 or 3 with a pistol, everyone's wondering "where the hell did he get that from?".

The most badass thing a criminal will have here is a little pistol, in America it's common for them to carry Maschine Guns.

Honestly, I can't understand people saying that they need weapons for defense, if at all, it only leads to more death and suffering due to poeple shooting each other instead of relying on more non-violent, non-lethal methods.

I wouldn't say Americans being able to own firearms is responsible for a high crime rate, rather I would say what is responsible for it is the high amounts of poverty and lack of education. Studies have shown how poverty can be related to crime.

I find your statement that criminals can only someone how get machine guns to be a little unbelievable. If you outlaw guns, criminals will just find an illegal way to get them, and I am sure they can smuggle in more than just a 9mm.

The workers should be armed, so once we have our freedom, we can make sure no one takes it away from us.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As far as weapons and firearms are concerned, if you can carry it, you should be able to possess it.


I'm glad we agree. An outdated form of technology was replaced by a safer and more efficient one because we needed it. What makes you think that the same won't happen with guns......except oh wait......without war there will be no need to replace the technology as it's main purpose will have ceased to exist.

I must question this assumption that war will cease to exist with the passing of capitalism. Considering that the passing of previous socioeconomic orders did not also result in the passing of war, what is the basis for your assumption?

This is not to say that I do not think that war will not change along with the social order - indeed, if history is any guide, then such a thing is inevitable.

[thefinalmarch]

Considering that the passing of previous socioeconomic orders did not also result in the passing of war, what is the basis for your assumption?
Whilst I'm in favour of "guns for whoever can carry them" as you mentioned immediately before this, I'll take a shot at this and wager that war will become an anachronism in communist society due to the lack of inter- and intra-class interests which may be at odds with each other, the [in all likelihood] abundance of resources and the (again in all likelihood) gradual disappearance of ethnic and religious bigotry which could escalate further (and presently does under capitalism).

As you should be well aware of, the passing of the most recent socioeconomic order gave rise to two main hostile classes, as well as intra-bourgeois conflict in the form of imperialism, and artificial scarcity which are generally the main reasons for any armed conflict today.

[Manic Impressive]

I must question this assumption that war will cease to exist with the passing of capitalism. Considering that the passing of previous socioeconomic orders did not also result in the passing of war, what is the basis for your assumption?

This is not to say that I do not think that war will not change along with the social order - indeed, if history is any guide, then such a thing is inevitable.
I'm not talking about the process of the actual revolution, I said that in regards to when we have actually reached socialism.

Assuming you knew that.

Yes there has been war in all other changes to society but there has never been a change to a society where states and classes are abolished. Unless you are looking at pre history before states formed and then battles and raids occurred due to scarcity of resources. Once we've reached socialism and resources are divided equally then what possible reason would there be for war?

Unless of course you try to take people's guns away by a democratic vote because of course then they'll go around murdering the people without guns. According to cmoney and Psy at least.

[Manic Impressive]

No its, tyranny/fascism, fuck you.
I would say that tyrrany would be the threat of violence from the minority of the population who is armed and who will not abide by a democratic decision. That would be the minority ruling over the majority.

[Manic Impressive]

Why? What proves it wrong? If you're shot once or twice, you've got a 50/50 chance of living, just like if you're stabbed, you've got a 50/50 chance of living. Most people who get shot, don't get shot in the head or somewhere that's going to put them down for good, and even then there's obviously been events where people have survived a head wound by a bullet, just like there have been people with knife blades stuck in their skull.
I don't know common sense, of course an attack from a gun is going to be fatal in more cases than a knife. It wouldn't be the same, it's not 50/50 if it was then the entire history of the last 500 years would be different.


Guns have a useful purpose of as it's been said, but you just don't want to accept, of keeping wild life populations down in areas where if they weren't, they'd cause trouble like car accidents and other things like that. Guns are efficient, because they bring results immediately, not a week or more like an injection or whatever does. And by your logic, that's good enough to keep them around, because who's going to want to wait for a deer population to go down several years or so, after a new generation or so is born? In between that time, car accidents and all sorts of things can happen, and would probably go on the rise.
Actually I've answered all of those points more than adequately and provided alternatives where necessary.


And as someone who's been in an accident involving a deer more than once, I can say it would have been rather convenient if the local hunters in the area, had been given the chance to pick off more of the deer population in the area (which at the time was apparently rather large by what the police told me), so I wouldn't have gotten into those accidents.
But hunting is not the most efficient means of animal population control.

[Manic Impressive]

What you don't seem to understand is that you're making an unfounded assertion based only on your own paranoia that people are terrible creatures out to hurt each other.
It's nothing to do with my paranoia :laugh: that's an unfounded assertion that you are making. I realise that people do not always act rationally your conclusions in this thread are evidence of that. But I definitely do not think of people as "terrible creatures" in fact you are the one who was saying that people will start killing people if a majority voted to ban guns?


If the majority of people wanted guns to be banned then they would be banned right now. They aren't. You think everybody agrees with you, but even on this website your voice is the minority. So who is hiding in a subjective bubble, me or you?
LoL you think in today's society that if a majority wants something then they get it? how naive
The arms industry is big business, you think they'd close it down just because we asked nicely?

[Kitty_Paine]

In fact, here in Europe, America is known, and hated, for their high and very violent criminal rate and criminals. If you hear about an american killing 10 or more people with a shotgun or similiar, everyone thinks "Again? Those americans again, always the same", but if a european kills 2 or 3 with a pistol, everyone's wondering "where the hell did he get that from?".

The most badass thing a criminal will have here is a little pistol, in America it's common for them to carry Maschine Guns.


What about Anders Behring Breivik? He bombed government buildings in Oslo, then killed around 69 people at a youth camp with a pistol and an assault rifle.

Plus, tons of people in Norway, etc. have rifles for hunting, etc. It's not like weapons are terribly hard to get, at least in some places in Europe. So don't generalize everything please :)

[Comintern1919]

I wouldn't say Americans being able to own firearms is responsible for a high crime rate, rather I would say what is responsible for it is the high amounts of poverty and lack of education. Studies have shown how poverty can be related to crime.

I find your statement that criminals can only someone how get machine guns to be a little unbelievable. If you outlaw guns, criminals will just find an illegal way to get them, and I am sure they can smuggle in more than just a 9mm.

The workers should be armed, so once we have our freedom, we can make sure no one takes it away from us.


Of course, most criminals here have pistols, but that's it, pistols, no fucking shotgun, maschine gun etc.

If here in germany a criminal would use more than a pistol, you bet your ass it would be a big, giantic media hype, with everyone talking about it.

In america, if at all, he'd be laughed at for using only a little pistol.

You may be right that it doesn't necesarly is the only reason for a high criminal rate, however it certanly raises the violence of crimes.

And people are more likely to do crimes.
If you want to have a tiny 9mm here, you have to use very risky highly illegal methods, in America you just go to a shop and buy a Ak-47 or whatever.

And I wouldn't trust every single worker to have the maturity of knowing when and how to use a gun.

Of course I agree that poverty is a, if not the, main reason for crimes. I think everyone can agree about that.



What about Anders Behring Breivik? He bombed government buildings in Oslo, then killed around 69 people at a youth camp with a pistol and an assault rifle.

Plus, tons of people in Norway, etc. have rifles for hunting, etc. It's not like weapons are terribly hard to get, at least in some places in Europe. So don't generalize everything please :)

Well, rifles are something very different than maschin guns, at least the ones for hunting :). And of course there are always exceptions.

Besides, you need a government controlled license as a hunter, as well a license for every single gun you have. And you are checked regulary. And you are not allowed to have a criminal record at all.

[Kitty_Paine]

Of course, most criminals here have pistols, but that's it, pistols, no fucking shotgun, maschine gun etc.

If here in germany a criminal would use more than a pistol, you bet your ass it would be a big, giantic media hype, with everyone talking about it.

In america, if at all, he'd be laughed at for using only a little pistol.

You may be right that it doesn't necesarly is the only reason for a high criminal rate, however it certanly raises the violence of crimes.

And people are more likely to do crimes.
If you want to have a tiny 9mm here, you have to use very risky highly illegal methods, in America you just go to a shop and buy a Ak-47 or whatever.

And I wouldn't trust every single worker to have the maturity of knowing when and how to use a gun.

Of course I agree that poverty is a, if not the, main reason for crimes. I think everyone can agree about that.




Well, rifles are something very different than maschin guns :).

Besides, you need a government controlled license as a hunter, as well a license for every single gun you have

Our states regulate gun laws so you can't generalize how easy it is to get a certain weapon for the entire country.

Laughed at for using a pistol?! What do you think murder is a competition over here? "Look at that guy only used a pistol, HA!" *grabs a shotgun* "I'll show him up. Hey, jimmy! Count how many I get."

And by the way its harder to get a pistol in the U.S., and probably in Europe too, than a rifle or shotgun because you can conceal pistols more easily.

And you can't just get whatever the fuck you want. What's with these huge assumptions? You have to get a special certification for automatic rifles and it costs a huge amount, plus in some states people cant own automatic rifles...

Europe is not limited to just small shootings. Did you see my last post? (you did just saw your post)

What about these people: Thomas Hamilton, Tim Kretschmer, Robert Steinhause?

What about Germany's weapons trade fair?

In switzerland and finland there are about 45 guns out of every 100 people.

Tim Kretschmer got his pistol from a collection of 15 guns his dad owned (In Germany).

So please stop with the massive generalizations :)

[Kitty_Paine]

Of course, most criminals here have pistols, but that's it, pistols, no fucking shotgun, maschine gun etc.

Well, rifles are something very different than maschin guns, at least the ones for hunting :). And of course there are always exceptions.


You say that as if rifles can't be as deadly or even more deadly than an automatic rifle... Anders used a M14, very accurate and a weapon which our military still uses because of its effective killing power.

What would rifles be than? Just as much of a joke as pistols?

[Comintern1919]

Our states regulate gun laws so you can't generalize how easy it is to get a certain weapon for the entire country.

Yeah, I now think I should have said that from the beginning: Sorry for any wrong assumptions I make. I never was in the USA, so I don't know any specific law. It's just the view most Europeans have about the US.


Laughed at for using a pistol?! What do you think murder is a competition over here? "Look at that guy only used a pistol, HA!" *grabs a shotgun* "I'll show him up. Hey, jimmy! Count how many I get."

Nah, sorry, that was meant as a exaggeration. You just don't see many US criminals with anything less than a shotgun or maschine gun etc., at least not outside of the USA. And you hear of many criminals in the USA here.


And by the way its harder to get a pistol in the U.S., and probably in Europe too, than a rifle or shotgun because you can conceal pistols more easily.

I don't get your Point. Wouldn't the fact that you can conceal pistols make it easier to get them?


And you can't just get whatever the fuck you want. What's with these huge assumptions? You have to get a special certification for automatic rifles and it costs a huge amount, plus in some states people cant own automatic rifles...

Yeah, sorry for that, if it's wrong. However, most europeans think so. You always hear about those conservatives, and also the common people, bragging about their weapon freedom, and how every US citizen should be able to get all kinds of weapons, and you never hear about any regulations etc., only how relaxed the gun law is over there.


Europe is not limited to just small shootings. Did you see my last post? (you did just saw your post)

What about these people: Thomas Hamilton, Tim Kretschmer, Robert Steinhause?

What about Germany's weapons trade fair?

In switzerland and finland there are about 45 guns out of every 100 people.

Tim Kretschmer got his pistol from a collection of 15 guns his dad owned (In Germany).

So please stop with the massive generalizations :)

Of course we have such too, however, it's far not common, and much more less than in the USA. And especially in more common crimes. You always hear about big shooting in the USA, for example in a bank robery, with the criminals have more than just pistols, while you rarly have so big ones in Europe, and then almost never with more than pistols.

[Comintern1919]

You say that as if rifles can't be as deadly or even more deadly than an automatic rifle... Anders used a M14, very accurate and a weapon which our military still uses because of its effective killing power.

What would rifles be than? Just as much of a joke as pistols?

Nah, I'm just saying that the rifles you mentioned, the ones for hunting, not the one Anders used, ain't nearly as dangerous as the rifles you can get in the USA, let alone maschine guns.

[Kitty_Paine]

Nah, sorry, that was meant as a exaggeration. You just don't see many US criminals with anything less than a shotgun or maschine gun etc., at least not outside of the USA. And you hear of many criminals in the USA here.

Of course we have such too, however, it's far not common, and much more less than in the USA. And especially in more common crimes. You always hear about big shooting in the USA, for example in a bank robery, with the criminals have more than just pistols, while you rarly have so big ones in Europe, and then almost never with more than pistols.

Why does it matter what the gun is? If a man kills 12 people with a pistol and another man kills 12 with a rifle or a machine gun whats the difference? I understand rifle bullets go further and have more penetrating power but a shot to the face is a shot to the face and your dead either way. I just dont think its fair to say "Oh, well we usually only kill with pistols so its not as bad as your people killing eachother with rifles and shotguns."



I don't get your Point. Wouldn't the fact that you can conceal pistols make it easier to get them?


:lol: No, let me explain. It's easier to conceal a pistol and bring it into public places and other places you aren't aloud to have weapons because you can so easily hide it. A rifle or shotgun is much larger so you can't as easily hide it and sneak it into places, etc. Understand?

Therefore it's harder to obtain/buy a pistol because the "potential" for law breaking is greater.

Did you know in Switzerland people keep auromatic weapons in their homes? And because of the rise in gun violence in Europe they voted on wether to ban this practice and it didn't pass. So its still allowed... Yes, they isn't a huge gun violence rate in Switzerland but I'm just pointing out that the U.S. isn't the only country that allows people to have "more dangerous weapons".

A rifle is a rifle, it can kill from long ranges... what would you define as a more deadly rifle that people in the U.S. can get but people in Europe can't?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Whilst I'm in favour of "guns for whoever can carry them" as you mentioned immediately before this, I'll take a shot at this and wager that war will become an anachronism in communist society due to the lack of inter- and intra-class interests which may be at odds with each other, the [in all likelihood] abundance of resources and the (again in all likelihood) gradual disappearance of ethnic and religious bigotry which could escalate further (and presently does under capitalism).

Conflicts sufficient for war need not have a class basis, it's an escalation of force between at least two groups of antagonists with at least one of them being big enough to form organised forces and being willing in sufficient numbers to risk life and limb. I have no reason to think humans are going to settle all of their current differences before new ones come along.

If people no longer fight over material resources, what's to stop them fighting over non-material differences?

For example, transhumanism. As a transhumanist I would whole-heartedly support, within a communist society, research into human genetic engineering, organic/electromechanical interfacing, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. I recognise there are dangers, possibly even existential ones, but I also recognise that a communist society is one best placed to take advantage of such technologies. There are those who would disagree, and who would say that any research into such fields, and even the idea of transhumanism itself, represents an existential threat to civilisation.

Nothing like the threat of humanity going down the toilet to get the war drums beating, eh? The antis have already started, by the way (http://chronicle.com/article/Nanotechnologists-Are-Targets/128764/).


I'm not talking about the process of the actual revolution, I said that in regards to when we have actually reached socialism.

Assuming you knew that.

Yes there has been war in all other changes to society but there has never been a change to a society where states and classes are abolished. Unless you are looking at pre history before states formed and then battles and raids occurred due to scarcity of resources. Once we've reached socialism and resources are divided equally then what possible reason would there be for war?

Just because you can't imagine a reason doesn't mean there won't be one.


Unless of course you try to take people's guns away by a democratic vote because of course then they'll go around murdering the people without guns. According to cmoney and Psy at least.

I find to be utterly repulsive the idea that I can be disarmed by a "democratic vote" when I have committed no crime, apart from the "crime" of being armed.

[Obs]

Nah, I'm just saying that the rifles you mentioned, the ones for hunting, not the one Anders used, ain't nearly as dangerous as the rifles you can get in the USA, let alone maschine guns.

Do you even know what a machine gun is?

[Manic Impressive]

Conflicts sufficient for war need not have a class basis, it's an escalation of force between at least two groups of antagonists with at least one of them being big enough to form organised forces and being willing in sufficient numbers to risk life and limb. I have no reason to think humans are going to settle all of their current differences before new ones come along.
But surely you realize that without the antagonisms created by an exploitative system that such factions and conflicts will be greatly reduced? And in the unlikely event that a conflict escalated into violence wouldn't it be best if people were not armed with efficient tools with which to dispatch each other? Do you not also agree that with these chances greatly reduced that when a technology ceases to be needed for the purpose that it was created for it is either replaced by something more efficient or slowly becomes completely defunct?


If people no longer fight over material resources, what's to stop them fighting over non-material differences?

For example, transhumanism. As a transhumanist I would whole-heartedly support, within a communist society, research into human genetic engineering, organic/electromechanical interfacing, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. I recognise there are dangers, possibly even existential ones, but I also recognise that a communist society is one best placed to take advantage of such technologies. There are those who would disagree, and who would say that any research into such fields, and even the idea of transhumanism itself, represents an existential threat to civilisation.

Nothing like the threat of humanity going down the toilet to get the war drums beating, eh? The antis have already started, by the way (http://chronicle.com/article/Nanotechnologists-Are-Targets/128764/).
I don't know enough about transhumanism to pass a judgement on whether it's a threat to civilisation. But if it did become a problem for some who think it threatens humankind then I would like to see both sides put forward their arguments and have it put to a vote. Regarding the article about the bombing campaign, it seems to be being committed by a primitivist group. Well as with all reactionaries their ideology has come about as an answer to an exploitative system. If their was no exploitation why would you suppose that reactionaries like that would continue to exist?


I find to be utterly repulsive the idea that I can be disarmed by a "democratic vote" when I have committed no crime, apart from the "crime" of being armed.
I find individualist principles just as repulsive if I'm honest. Our right to security trumps your right to be able to kill us easily or to shoot targets 800 meters away. And if one person has a gun then everybody needs one, the escalation of who's got the biggest and best weapon has always plagued society, this escalation empowers people to enslave and exploit others. It offers no liberty.

[Magón]

The most badass thing a criminal will have here is a little pistol, in America it's common for them to carry Maschine Guns.

What the fuck are you talking about? The days of Al Capone, John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, etc. have long since past, and I mean LONG since. This isn't the Roaring 20s or 1930s America anymore, it's the 21st Century America where criminals don't walk around with cops carrying a machine-gun.


I don't know common sense, of course an attack from a gun is going to be fatal in more cases than a knife. It wouldn't be the same, it's not 50/50 if it was then the entire history of the last 500 years would be different.

You can easily be stabbed just as many times, as being shot, an in fact, even quicker since most criminals aren't too smart when they use a gun, and would probably be more deadly if they had a knife on them and could just jab it into someone as many times as they like, until they're dead or whatever.


But hunting is not the most efficient means of animal population control.

No, but it sure as hell does help a lot more than temporary sterilization. It's either get results quick, and prevent possible future accidents and deaths from happening, or wait for a slower result, seeing along the way a possible continuation in number, or rise, in car/deer collisions.

[Manic Impressive]

What the fuck are you talking about? The days of Al Capone, John Dillinger, Bonnie & Clyde, etc. have long since past, and I mean LONG since. This isn't the Roaring 20s or 1930s America anymore, it's the 21st Century America where criminals don't walk around with cops carrying a machine-gun.
Nope but you do hand out rifles in banks :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jGtAcDefHg&feature=fvst


You can easily be stabbed just as many times, as being shot, an in fact, even quicker since most criminals aren't too smart when they use a gun, and would probably be more deadly if they had a knife on them and could just jab it into someone as many times as they like, until they're dead or whatever.
Yeah you can kill someone with a piece of wood or a pen but they're not as efficient as a gun are they?


No, but it sure as hell does help a lot more than temporary sterilization. It's either get results quick, and prevent possible future accidents and deaths from happening, or wait for a slower result, seeing along the way a possible continuation in number, or rise, in car/deer collisions.
No the sterilization is not temporary. However, as I said earlier I don't actually support that but I do think it's a better alternative than hunting. I think we should responsibly plan our agriculture to help to maintain ecosystems and take preventative measures during planning stages against animals being able to either damage production or to damage people such as deer crossing the roads. I should also mention we do have wild deer in the UK but we're not allowed to hunt them, I wonder if accidents caused by deer are more regular here.

[Magón]

Yeah you can kill someone with a piece of wood or a pen but they're not as efficient as a gun are they?

Uh, strawman? Who's seriously going to pick up a piece of wood or pen, and go rob a bank or corner store? Unless they're completely idiotic, they're going to use a gun or knife, plain and simple. How many stories have you heard of someone robbing someone/store/bank with a piece of wood or pen?


No the sterilization is not temporary. However, as I said earlier I don't actually support that but I do think it's a better alternative than hunting. I think we should responsibly plan our agriculture to help to maintain ecosystems and take preventative measures during planning stages against animals being able to either damage production or to damage people such as deer crossing the roads. I should also mention we do have wild deer in the UK but we're not allowed to hunt them, I wonder if accidents caused by deer are more regular here.

No, it's not a better alternative. For someone who's actually been in parts of the world, where hunting is a major thing for keeping animal populations down, and also where hunting isn't so central or even an activity, I can safely say that hunters being able to hunt a certain amount of the deer population for control (with the benefit of them being able to do with what they like of the deer(s) they kill), is a lot better and safer than places I've been when it comes to deer being able to roam a lot freer and larger in numbers.

As for the accidents caused between the UK and US, I think you'd have to look it up if there was a study.

[Manic Impressive]

Uh, strawman? Who's seriously going to pick up a piece of wood or pen, and go rob a bank or corner store? Unless they're completely idiotic, they're going to use a gun or knife, plain and simple. How many stories have you heard of someone robbing someone/store/bank with a piece of wood or pen?
I'd like to see someone try and rob a bank with one sharpened piece of metal especially in the US where you have armed security guards. People are talking about anders Brehvik or what about any other of the shootings are you seriously telling me that a knife can cause as much devastation in such a short period of time?

If I used a ridiculous argument then it was only to counter one as equally ridiculous.


No, it's not a better alternative. For someone who's actually been in parts of the world, where hunting is a major thing for keeping animal populations down, and also where hunting isn't so central or even an activity, I can safely say that hunters being able to hunt a certain amount of the deer population for control (with the benefit of them being able to do with what they like of the deer(s) they kill), is a lot better and safer than places I've been when it comes to deer being able to roam a lot freer and larger in numbers.But you said yourself that hunting probably wasn't the most efficient way of dealing with animal control.

ME: But hunting is not the most efficient means of animal population control.

YOU:No, but it sure as hell does help a lot more than temporary sterilization.

come to think of it is temporary sterilization even possible? I wasn't talking about giving animals the morning after pill or educating them about safe sex and providing prophylactics.

And you continue to ignore the rest of what I said about preventative measures being put in place to prevent animals causing injury and harming production. Do you not think that would be better than a few people walking around the woods with rifles?


As for the accidents caused between the UK and US, I think you'd have to look it up if there was a study.
Yeah that was just a general wondering I doubt those statistics even exist in a format which would be useful to us in this debate.

[Psy]

No the sterilization is not temporary. However, as I said earlier I don't actually support that but I do think it's a better alternative than hunting. I think we should responsibly plan our agriculture to help to maintain ecosystems and take preventative measures during planning stages against animals being able to either damage production or to damage people such as deer crossing the roads. I should also mention we do have wild deer in the UK but we're not allowed to hunt them, I wonder if accidents caused by deer are more regular here.
Which is useless for work crews working in the wilderness. The problem is humans only need to occasionally occupy remote sites. For example work crews being flown into remote microwave transmission repeater towers on mountains, they would have to have guns encase wildlife decided to make the structures a home (they are a shelter and the constantly powered equipment provides warmth).

Bears do bust into remote buildings and hibernate, so other then the current solution of a shotgun to the bear's face how would work crews be protected from pissed off bears guarding the equipment they have to repair?

[Manic Impressive]

Which is useless for work crews working in the wilderness. The problem is humans only need to occasionally occupy remote sites. For example work crews being flown into remote microwave transmission repeater towers on mountains, they would have to have guns encase wildlife decided to make the structures a home (they are a shelter and the constantly powered equipment provides warmth).

Bears do bust into remote buildings and hibernate, so other then the current solution of a shotgun to the bear's face how would work crews be protected from pissed off bears guarding the equipment they have to repair?
So because all those evil bears are plotting and scheming against us, just waiting for us to implement socialism so that they can finally take over, this means everyone must have a gun with ammunition designed to inflict maximum damage because there are no alternatives like a taser or a tranq gun or sonic frequencies which discourage bears or scent markings which do the same and there is absolutely nothing we can do differently to modify our behaviour to stop the bears from going on a rampage committing mass genocide, so the only conclusion is to arm everybody.

Is that your argument?

[Magón]

I'd like to see someone try and rob a bank with one sharpened piece of metal especially in the US where you have armed security guards. People are talking about anders Brehvik or what about any other of the shootings are you seriously telling me that a knife can cause as much devastation in such a short period of time?

If I used a ridiculous argument then it was only to counter one as equally ridiculous.

Absolutely a knife can cause just as much serious damage in a short amount of time, it's even quicker in some cases, than a gun. You've obviously never shot a gun, or maybe you have, but just haven't shot enough to know much about a gun, but even with something as small as a .22, someone could probably get enough jabs in with a knife, as a person popping off some .22s or something. A knife can be just as devastating and dangerous as a gun, and in some cases, even more so, and I would no doubt deny that using a knife would be a lot more devastating to someone than a gun because you can jab, cut, etc. someone a lot quicker than popping off a few wild rounds that may or may not end up having them die.

And like the wood and pen comment, I don't see anyone but an idiot, robbing a bank with a knife.


But you said yourself that hunting probably wasn't the most efficient way of dealing with animal control.

ME: But hunting is not the most efficient means of animal population control.

YOU:No, but it sure as hell does help a lot more than temporary sterilization.

come to think of it is temporary sterilization even possible? I wasn't talking about giving animals the morning after pill or educating them about safe sex and providing prophylactics.

No, hunting isn't the most efficient, as you pointed out, I never claimed that, but I think it's a hell of a lot better than trying to sterilize or whatever other wild idea you come up with, that will be slow and only continue to cause trouble until you finally get results some time later. There's only so much land on this planet, that man and wild animal can coexist and live on, that it's important, just like other wild animals killing another, to lower and kill one animal's population, so one can continue to at least be proficient and live on.

An example would be the American Grizzly Bear's coexistence with wild Salmon. When the Salmon come to spawn, the Grizzly's are there to snatch some and keep's the Salmon population in check. Humans hunting deer and what have you, so they don't infringe on a farmer's land, is just the same thing.


And you continue to ignore the rest of what I said about preventative measures being put in place to prevent animals causing injury and harming production. Do you not think that would be better than a few people walking around the woods with rifles?

That's because your other preventative measures are jokes, plain and simple. Farmers and what have you, will always kill wild animals that come onto their land and attack their cattle, or ruin their season produce, they're not going to knock them out and relocate them. It's always been like that, even when man was stuck using Bows and Spears, etc.

[Psy]

So because all those evil bears are plotting and scheming against us, just waiting for us to implement socialism so that they can finally take over, this means everyone must have a gun with ammunition designed to inflict maximum damage because there are no alternatives like a taser or a tranq gun or sonic frequencies which discourage bears or scent markings which do the same and there is absolutely nothing we can do differently to modify our behaviour to stop the bears from going on a rampage committing mass genocide, so the only conclusion is to arm everybody.

Is that your argument?
The problem is we can't manage wildlife in isolate areas yet still need to have infrastructure through isolated areas. The problem with taser and traq guns is they are too slow acting, and it takes too long to get another shot off it you miss or there are more hostile animals which is why armies don't use them. Plus they are not as reliable as firearms, for example you can use a firearm as a melee weapon while you clobbering a bear with a rifle stock would be ineffective it would work against weaker animals like wolves.

[thefinalmarch]

Conflicts sufficient for war need not have a class basis, it's an escalation of force between at least two groups of antagonists with at least one of them being big enough to form organised forces and being willing in sufficient numbers to risk life and limb. I have no reason to think humans are going to settle all of their current differences before new ones come along.
Of course war is never a technical impossibility; it just requires the escalation of an existing conflict or disagreement. However I've yet to hear of a war which didn't ultimately have its basis in class society, and since communism does away with class society and most of the conceivable social ills which come along with it, it's fair to say that any wars in a classless society will likely not be fought for the same reasons as they are today. We can definitely expect to see a clear and substantial decrease in the number of armed conflicts being fought at any given time.


If people no longer fight over material resources, what's to stop them fighting over non-material differences?
What could these non-material differences be? Surely people won't be bombing punk rock shows because they prefer jazz or hip hop.


For example, transhumanism. As a transhumanist I would whole-heartedly support, within a communist society, research into human genetic engineering, organic/electromechanical interfacing, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence. I recognise there are dangers, possibly even existential ones, but I also recognise that a communist society is one best placed to take advantage of such technologies. There are those who would disagree, and who would say that any research into such fields, and even the idea of transhumanism itself, represents an existential threat to civilisation.

Nothing like the threat of humanity going down the toilet to get the war drums beating, eh? The antis have already started, by the way (http://chronicle.com/article/Nanotechnologists-Are-Targets/128764/).
Fortunately these anti-h+ people are fringe movements - at least for the time being. After the destruction of the old walls of society, I think there would be people who could take to the extreme their opposition to the construction of new purported social "walls" in the form of any divide between unmodified humans and GM humans, or any sentient machines. However, this is by and large pure speculation.

[Manic Impressive]

Absolutely a knife can cause just as much serious damage in a short amount of time, it's even quicker in some cases, than a gun. You've obviously never shot a gun, or maybe you have, but just haven't shot enough to know much about a gun, but even with something as small as a .22, someone could probably get enough jabs in with a knife, as a person popping off some .22s or something. A knife can be just as devastating and dangerous as a gun, and in some cases, even more so, and I would no doubt deny that using a knife would be a lot more devastating to someone than a gun because you can jab, cut, etc. someone a lot quicker than popping off a few wild rounds that may or may not end up having them die.

And like the wood and pen comment, I don't see anyone but an idiot, robbing a bank with a knife.
I can't believe that you are arguing that a knife is as efficient at killing as a gun. Of course it can kill someone but as I said so can anything it's just a gun is better at it than almost anything else. That's why if guns are available then more people will get killed.


No, hunting isn't the most efficient, as you pointed out, I never claimed that, but I think it's a hell of a lot better than trying to sterilize or whatever other wild idea you come up with, that will be slow and only continue to cause trouble until you finally get results some time later. There's only so much land on this planet, that man and wild animal can coexist and live on, that it's important, just like other wild animals killing another, to lower and kill one animal's population, so one can continue to at least be proficient and live on.
I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not against animal control but if hunting is less efficient then it is unnecessary due to our ability to cope with the problem in a different way.


An example would be the American Grizzly Bear's coexistence with wild Salmon. When the Salmon come to spawn, the Grizzly's are there to snatch some and keep's the Salmon population in check. Humans hunting deer and what have you, so they don't infringe on a farmer's land, is just the same thing.
except the grizzly needs to hunt fish in order to survive. We do not need to walk around the woods with rifles hunting deer as we have agriculture.


That's because your other preventative measures are jokes, plain and simple.
OK detailed explanations of why you consider all of them to be implausible.


Farmers and what have you, will always kill wild animals that come onto their land and attack their cattle, or ruin their season produce, they're not going to knock them out and relocate them. It's always been like that, even when man was stuck using Bows and Spears, etc.
The fact is we are going to have to increase food production substantially which will mean radically altering our farming practices. Why then would we not include features to solve problems like animal control?

[Magón]

a gun is better at it than almost anything else.

No, it's that gun are a lot less personal than a knife or anything else. With a gun, you're apart, spaced, and away from the target. With a knife, sword, or whatever, you're right there, and many criminals aren't looking to get that intimate with their target(s). Guns are better in the sense that they're less intimate than a knife or whatever, but nothing more.


I'm glad we agree on that. And I'm not against animal control but if hunting is less efficient then it is unnecessary due to our ability to cope with the problem in a different way.

But there is no different way, that is able to get the results that hunting produces. That's the point you keep skirting around, or completely ignoring. Hunting may not be the most efficient, but there's nothing else to replace it when it comes to results of keeping wild animal populations at bay.


except the grizzly needs to hunt fish in order to survive. We do not need to walk around the woods with rifles hunting deer as we have agriculture.

Grizzly's don't need to hunt fish, the wild Salmon populations have been down for years in North America, and the Grizzly populations have other animals to eat like Deer and what have you.


OK detailed explanations of why you consider all of them to be implausible.

Because they're just not reasonable. Results are what matter, and are what people want. They don't want to have to wait 5 months or even 5 weeks, they want results in 5 days, which is what hunting results can give.


The fact is we are going to have to increase food production substantially which will mean radically altering our farming practices. Why then would we not include features to solve problems like animal control?

Where do I say we wouldn't include features to solve problems? I'm only debating, that the solutions many people like you come up with, aren't going to work, and some that have been, failed. Vertical farming isn't going to help cut down on the wild animal's population coming into some city or town. And even if you relocated them, they'd just stumble off into some other town/city, or come back and you'd have to do it all over again. Guns that kill, are efficient in keeping numbers down, there's no way you can't deny that, and is why they'd still be needed.

[Manic Impressive]

No, it's that gun are a lot less personal than a knife or anything else. With a gun, you're apart, spaced, and away from the target. With a knife, sword, or whatever, you're right there, and many criminals aren't looking to get that intimate with their target(s). Guns are better in the sense that they're less intimate than a knife or whatever, but nothing more. yes but you cannot deny that a piece of metal flying through the air faster than 370 m/s will do more damage than a knife.


But there is no different way, that is able to get the results that hunting produces. That's the point you keep skirting around, or completely ignoring. Hunting may not be the most efficient, but there's nothing else to replace it when it comes to results of keeping wild animal populations at bay.Wait if hunting is not the most efficient form of animal control how can it also be the only way, which by the way would make it the most efficient?

And Like I said we don't hunt anything in the UK (except for birds) and so far we have not been overrun by deer or foxes.


Grizzly's don't need to hunt fish, the wild Salmon populations have been down for years in North America, and the Grizzly populations have other animals to eat like Deer and what have you.


Canadian or Alaskan grizzlies are larger than those that reside in the American Rocky Mountains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountains). This is due, in part, to the richness of their diet. In Yellowstone National Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_National_Park) in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the grizzly bear's diet consists mostly of whitebark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitebark_pine) pine nuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_nut), tubers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuber), grasses, various rodents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodent), army cutworm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_cutworm) moths and scavenged carcasses. None of these, however, match the fat content of the salmon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmon) available in Alaska and British Columbia.

So salmon is a necessary part of a grizzly bears diet they can't do without it.
(I love how diverse this debate is getting :p)

This whole hunting debate is getting nowhere and distracting from the point so even though I do not agree in the slightest that hunting is either necessary or efficient. It doesn't really matter in regards to everyone having guns. If you think that hunting rifles are necessary then please provide examples of why an assault rifle is necessary or a hand gun or a sub machine gun or a shot gun or any other type of fire arm which is not designed for the express purpose of dealing with the inevitable deer and bear armies which will sweep across the world destroying civilisation in the process as soon as we stop producing guns.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But surely you realize that without the antagonisms created by an exploitative system that such factions and conflicts will be greatly reduced?

I see no evidence for that.


And in the unlikely event that a conflict escalated into violence wouldn't it be best if people were not armed with efficient tools with which to dispatch each other?

I beg to differ. People organising themselves into armies and shooting each other according to the rules of war is a far more civilised affair than indiscriminate massacres carried out with machetes.


Do you not also agree that with these chances greatly reduced that when a technology ceases to be needed for the purpose that it was created for it is either replaced by something more efficient or slowly becomes completely defunct?

That provides a basis for war changing, but not for war going away completely.


I don't know enough about transhumanism to pass a judgement on whether it's a threat to civilisation. But if it did become a problem for some who think it threatens humankind then I would like to see both sides put forward their arguments and have it put to a vote.

It's not about what you want. It's about how far those who are opposed to transhumanism, or the technologies involved, are willing to go to fight them. As my link demonstrates, they are already willing to use violence regardless of what the general public thinks. In fact I imagine an anti would say that it's too important to risk putting to the vote; people might end up voting the "wrong" way.


Regarding the article about the bombing campaign, it seems to be being committed by a primitivist group. Well as with all reactionaries their ideology has come about as an answer to an exploitative system. If their was no exploitation why would you suppose that reactionaries like that would continue to exist?

There will always be reactionaries. The social zeitgeist is constantly on the move and not everyone can keep up.


I find individualist principles just as repulsive if I'm honest. Our right to security trumps your right to be able to kill us easily or to shoot targets 800 meters away. And if one person has a gun then everybody needs one, the escalation of who's got the biggest and best weapon has always plagued society, this escalation empowers people to enslave and exploit others. It offers no liberty.

Being made toothless for no other reason than one might commit a crime is what offers no liberty. If you can't trust people with the bullet box, why the fuck do you trust them with the ballot box?


Of course war is never a technical impossibility; it just requires the escalation of an existing conflict or disagreement. However I've yet to hear of a war which didn't ultimately have its basis in class society, and since communism does away with class society and most of the conceivable social ills which come along with it, it's fair to say that any wars in a classless society will likely not be fought for the same reasons as they are today. We can definitely expect to see a clear and substantial decrease in the number of armed conflicts being fought at any given time.

It's not just that we have the ability, but we also have the will. While it is true that violence is historically going down (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/1846140935), I think it's a mistake to assume that it will disappear completely without completely changing what it means to be human, like that irritating habit we have of disagreeing with each other on important issues.


What could these non-material differences be? Surely people won't be bombing punk rock shows because they prefer jazz or hip hop.

Well think about it, if everyone has a stake in the overall direction of society, some will want to go one way while others will want to go in a different way. It may not always be possible for people with different ideas to live them out in a geographically seperate fashion. This may be because the issue at hand is of global import, affecting everyone no matter where they are, or it may be because moving away is not possible for whatever reason, or indeed it may be simple pig-headedness on the part of the people who disagree with each other.


Fortunately these anti-h+ people are fringe movements - at least for the time being. After the destruction of the old walls of society, I think there would be people who could take to the extreme their opposition to the construction of new purported social "walls" in the form of any divide between unmodified humans and GM humans, or any sentient machines. However, this is by and large pure speculation.

Transhumanism was just an example. With the passing of the capitalist price system, I'm 90% confident that humans will find something else to squabble over, even if it seems petty or ridiculous today. If one wants for nothing in material terms and the means of production are held in common, then influence in the social sphere becomes all the more important - and the more important an issue is, the greater the chances are that people will be willing to risk life and limb to have their way.

[Psy]

This whole hunting debate is getting nowhere and distracting from the point so even though I do not agree in the slightest that hunting is either necessary or efficient. It doesn't really matter in regards to everyone having guns. If you think that hunting rifles are necessary then please provide examples of why an assault rifle is necessary or a hand gun or a sub machine gun or a shot gun or any other type of fire arm which is not designed for the express purpose of dealing with the inevitable deer and bear armies which will sweep across the world destroying civilisation in the process as soon as we stop producing guns.
Shot guns are hunting weapons, they have two functions depending on the ammo either they spread out the shot into little pellets (making it easier to hunt birds in flight) or a slug that has more mass then bullets making larger wounds on the target, also is a very useful tool to breach doors as they just totally destroy door latches, thus use for for police and armies breaching buildings. Then there is rock salt load out used by farmers to scare off wildlife without seriously injuring them, the down side is you have to be within 12 feet of the target for rock salt to even break the skin and the animal to feel the salt in its wounds and it fucks up your shot gun. Yet there is also modern replacements like rubber slugs used by riot police yet I don't know of anyone that tried to scare animals with them.

As for pistols they are more compact thus for rural work-crews take up less weight and space. This also makes it good for personal defense as it can easily be carried.

Sub machine guns are actually relativity rare outside the military and law enforcement due to their lack firepower (as they use pistol ammo) while being bulkier then a pistol with only advantage being rate of fire yet they burn through their magazine very quickly and have worse accuracy then pistols. They are only useful for police and troops assaulting enclosed areas where ranges are so short lack of accuracy isn't a issue. Machine pistols solve the bulkier issue but at the trade off of even smaller magazines and worse accuracy, the primary role of machine pistols is a placebo for tank crews so they don't feel naked when they have to abandon their tank, they are not much of a threat as they can't hit the broadside of a barn and burn through their ammo in 2 seconds.

Assault rifles are used in hunting as their weaker rounds means less recoil then conventional rifles and cheaper ammo. As for fully-automatic assault rifles well you have a point mostly in it is a waste of ammo when you fire in fully-automatic outside a combat situation.

[efficiency]

Very interesting thoughts everyone. Obviously, there is no consensus. Some feel safer with them; others without them. No revolution is going to hault psychos from committing heinous non-capitalist driven crimes such as sexual assaults and serial killings or mere cruelty to animals. Seems like the kind of thing you might want to let the people vote on state by state.

[Manic Impressive]

I see no evidence for that.
So you don't think that material conditions are behind human behaviour but that war is human nature and unavoidable?


I beg to differ. People organising themselves into armies and shooting each other according to the rules of war is a far more civilised affair than indiscriminate massacres carried out with machetes.
Perhaps you should take that up with Nin seeing as he's saying that knives are just as efficient at killing people as guns.


That provides a basis for war changing, but not for war going away completely.
That's only if you think that war is inevitable



It's not about what you want. It's about how far those who are opposed to transhumanism, or the technologies involved, are willing to go to fight them. As my link demonstrates, they are already willing to use violence regardless of what the general public thinks. In fact I imagine an anti would say that it's too important to risk putting to the vote; people might end up voting the "wrong" way.
What I meant was that I am not informed enough about Transhumanism to be able to debate it with you properly, so in effect I have no opinion on it which would be relevant to this debate.


There will always be reactionaries. The social zeitgeist is constantly on the move and not everyone can keep up.

Being made toothless for no other reason than one might commit a crime is what offers no liberty. If you can't trust people with the bullet box, why the fuck do you trust them with the ballot box?

Well think about it, if everyone has a stake in the overall direction of society, some will want to go one way while others will want to go in a different way. It may not always be possible for people with different ideas to live them out in a geographically seperate fashion. This may be because the issue at hand is of global import, affecting everyone no matter where they are, or it may be because moving away is not possible for whatever reason, or indeed it may be simple pig-headedness on the part of the people who disagree with each other.
Society will move forward when it is ready, when the people are ready. You can't force a revolution unless the majority are ready for it. Just as you cannot force people to accept something that will radically alter their lives just because you want to create robo cop.

It's interesting that you use the metaphor of being toothless, since teeth are necessary to a persons health, but owning a gun isn't. In fact if you own a gun you not only risk your own well being but those around you as well. As I've stated previously people can act in an irrational way in the heat of the moment. However, this is exactly why democracy solves that issue as it is unlikely that a majority will act irrationally, if they are fully aware of the facts of whatever is being decided.


Transhumanism was just an example. With the passing of the capitalist price system, I'm 90% confident that humans will find something else to squabble over, even if it seems petty or ridiculous today. If one wants for nothing in material terms and the means of production are held in common, then influence in the social sphere becomes all the more important - and the more important an issue is, the greater the chances are that people will be willing to risk life and limb to have their way.
why? because people like risking life and limb? people only do it now because they have no other option. I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to your human nature philosophy.

[Psy]

It's interesting that you use the metaphor of being toothless, since teeth are necessary to a persons health, but owning a gun isn't. In fact if you own a gun you not only risk your own well being but those around you as well. As I've stated previously people can act in an irrational way in the heat of the moment. However, this is exactly why democracy solves that issue as it is unlikely that a majority will act irrationally, if they are fully aware of the facts of whatever is being decided.

You can say the same thing about industrialization where industrial accidents made by individuals can kill far more then any single gun can, just look at the Bhopal disaster in India in 1984 where 558,125 were injured and 8,000 died, name me one shooting that approaches the level of carriage of industrial accidents. That brings up another other use for firearms, it is far more humane to let hopeless victims shot themselves then face a much more painful certain death.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So you don't think that material conditions are behind human behaviour but that war is human nature and unavoidable?

No, I'm saying I've seen no evidence that war will go away simply because everyone is materially secure. Even when there is more than enough food at the table, people can still argue over the place settings.


Perhaps you should take that up with Nin seeing as he's saying that knives are just as efficient at killing people as guns.

Erm, so what? I'm not Nin, I'm not making his arguments. My point was that it's better for there to be an official seperation between combatants and non-combatants.


That's only if you think that war is inevitable

So long as we are apes and not angels, how is it reasonable to believe otherwise?


What I meant was that I am not informed enough about Transhumanism to be able to debate it with you properly, so in effect I have no opinion on it which would be relevant to this debate.

Cop-out. Five minutes on Wikipedia should tell you all you need to know for the purposes of this exchange.

The most important thing, however, is that people can have wildly different ideas of what kind of direction the the humans species should go. This is a question worth fighting for, especially if one no longer has to worry about where one's next meal is coming from.


Society will move forward when it is ready, when the people are ready. You can't force a revolution unless the majority are ready for it. Just as you cannot force people to accept something that will radically alter their lives just because you want to create robo cop.

So by that reasoning people in the US and other parts of the world "aren't ready" to have equal rights for homosexuals? What patronising rot!

My point was that society doesn't "move forward" in some kind of singular lockstep - rather society is a great shambling mass of individuals, with the moral and social trailblazers right out in front and the regressives and reactionaries being dragged along their heels at the back.


It's interesting that you use the metaphor of being toothless, since teeth are necessary to a persons health, but owning a gun isn't. In fact if you own a gun you not only risk your own well being but those around you as well.

So does owning a car. But both cars and guns grant different kinds of freedoms - a car grants a much greater freedom of movement, while a gun grants one extra power against oppressors.


As I've stated previously people can act in an irrational way in the heat of the moment. However, this is exactly why democracy solves that issue as it is unlikely that a majority will act irrationally, if they are fully aware of the facts of whatever is being decided.

People are perfectly capable of ignoring the facts when it suits them. See: religion.


why? because people like risking life and limb? people only do it now because they have no other option. I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to your human nature philosophy.

People constantly risk their lives doing things they don't have to (whether they feel they have to or not is another question), and they have been doing that for as long as they have been human, if not longer. Hell, even other animals risk their lives and fight each other. Conflict and risk-taking are behaviours that pre-date sapience, let alone civilisation or class society.

[A Marxist Historian]

yes but you cannot deny that a piece of metal flying through the air faster than 370 m/s will do more damage than a knife.

Wait if hunting is not the most efficient form of animal control how can it also be the only way, which by the way would make it the most efficient?

And Like I said we don't hunt anything in the UK (except for birds) and so far we have not been overrun by deer or foxes.




So salmon is a necessary part of a grizzly bears diet they can't do without it.
(I love how diverse this debate is getting :p)

This whole hunting debate is getting nowhere and distracting from the point so even though I do not agree in the slightest that hunting is either necessary or efficient. It doesn't really matter in regards to everyone having guns. If you think that hunting rifles are necessary then please provide examples of why an assault rifle is necessary or a hand gun or a sub machine gun or a shot gun or any other type of fire arm which is not designed for the express purpose of dealing with the inevitable deer and bear armies which will sweep across the world destroying civilisation in the process as soon as we stop producing guns.

Is hunting necessary? Certainly not.

Are there large number of humans who like to hunt? Obviously.

Are there other considerable numbers of humans who think hunting is barbaric and evil? Yes.

Therefore there will be hunting in a socialist society. As well as lots of people who think hunting is disgusting and obnoxious.

For humans in general to evolve away from that primitive thrill of killing other vertebrates will require either a lot of education or, if it turns out that it is hardwired into our DNA, not at all impossible, lots of genetic engineering.

-M.H.-

[ColonelCossack]

Recreation. Guns big and small are a shit ton of fun to shoot.

There have been cases of people doing this- shooting assault rifles straight into the sky- and the bullets, after going up three miles, fall much faster than they went up and have killed people.

Even though that's incredibly unlikely, there's still a risk. Precautionary principle ftw.

[A Marxist Historian]

No, I'm saying I've seen no evidence that war will go away simply because everyone is materially secure. Even when there is more than enough food at the table, people can still argue over the place settings.

Yes, but do they go to war over them?

Behind almost all wars are conflicts between nations, conflicts between classes, and sometimes even conflicts between religions.

Abolish nations, classes and religions, and that goes away.

On the place settings level, there is a direct correlation between violence between individuals and the social system.

The extreme example being the Soviet Union, which had a remarkably low *violent* crime rate under Brezhnev (though what we would call "white collar crime" was at a very high level indeed, given the extreme corruption of the system), whereas as soon as capitalism was restored, the violent crime rate shot up to a degree surpassing even the American.

And yes, in case you're wondering, guns were widely available to the citizenry.



...
So long as we are apes and not angels, how is it reasonable to believe otherwise?

We are neither. Let us leave the angels to dance on their heads of pins. As for apes, we have many of the same instincts as they do, though in fact gorillas are rather more peaceable than humans (unlike chimpanzees). But we have something they don't have, namely self-consciousness.

Nurture is much more important than nature in determining what sort of folk we are, as a result of that. Humans are remakably plastic creatures.

...



So by that reasoning people in the US and other parts of the world "aren't ready" to have equal rights for homosexuals? What patronising rot!

Nonsense. Humans have been arguing back and forth about what is proper sexuality for millenia. The ancient Greeks were all for male homosexuality and had certain doubts about whether a really manly man ought to get involved with women.

And in fact whereas Americans were pretty down on homosexuality say 60 years ago, Gallup polls indicate Americans are a hell of a lot more tolerant about homosexuality than they used to be.

But it is a fact that morality evolves like everything else. 5,000 years ago most places on earth if you were against cannibalism you would be seen as a utopian unrealistic weirdo. Now attitudes have changed. Unfortunately most people are still OK with economic cannibalism, namely capitalism.

When we advance genetic engineering enough so that we can breed lions that lie down with the lamb, as they aren't carnivores anymore, then humans can afford the luxury of regarding hunting immoral. Until then, it would be kind of silly.

-M.H.-




My point was that society doesn't "move forward" in some kind of singular lockstep - rather society is a great shambling mass of individuals, with the moral and social trailblazers right out in front and the regressives and reactionaries being dragged along their heels at the back.



So does owning a car. But both cars and guns grant different kinds of freedoms - a car grants a much greater freedom of movement, while a gun grants one extra power against oppressors.



People are perfectly capable of ignoring the facts when it suits them. See: religion.



People constantly risk their lives doing things they don't have to (whether they feel they have to or not is another question), and they have been doing that for as long as they have been human, if not longer. Hell, even other animals risk their lives and fight each other. Conflict and risk-taking are behaviours that pre-date sapience, let alone civilisation or class society.

[Tablo]

There have been cases of people doing this- shooting assault rifles straight into the sky- and the bullets, after going up three miles, fall much faster than they went up and have killed people.

Even though that's incredibly unlikely, there's still a risk. Precautionary principle ftw.
Maybe you should take a physics class. If you shoot it straight up then it will be going much slower on its return to earth. The cases where people get killed is where you shoot it at an angle and it flys into someones house after traveling in a big arc.

[RedLeft]

IF it was completely possible to permanently get rid of each and every gun, and prevent more from being produced, I would support it. However, it would be ridiculously difficult and impractical to prevent people from owning or producing guns. Even if they can't be legally made any more, people will still continue to make them in their basements and whatnot.

While I think that guns are ultimately a negative thing (for the most part), it would be a very pointless prohibition.

[Victory Of The People!]

How do you think guns would be regulated in a Socialist/Communist society? Would you even want them to be regulated? I could see guns being used for hunting or maybe for military in extreme conditions like war and such but I think it would be a little dangerous to just hand out guns to anyone. I understand crime rates would go down significantly with Capitalism gone but there are always people who could be dangerous. What do you guys think?
If we have local, democratic-centralist decision-making bodies composed of the working class then each council's district could have an armory, where weapons could be distributed in times of emergency or war.

This way the people's organizations will have access to weapons to defend themselves and their social gains from destruction or counter-revolution, while preventing them from being used for crime.

A special day every other week could be a public day of training for participation in this peoples militia so that they will be proficient in their use.

Also, having such a vast reserve of we-ll trained militia (almost the entire population) would make a foreign invasion a very painful and fruitless endeavor for whoever was stupid enough to undertake it.

[∞]

Take away my fucking gun, see what happens, fascist.

[Manic Impressive]

Take away my fucking gun, see what happens, fascist.
which is exactly why you shouldn't have a gun, thanks for proving the point.

[∞]

which is exactly why you shouldn't have a gun, thanks for proving the point.

Which is exactly why you are a fascist. Thanks for proving my point.

[Manic Impressive]

Which is exactly why you are a fascist. Thanks for proving my point.
nice attempt at a flame dude, but I ain't rising to it.

In the context of this debate we were talking about a hypothetical democratic decision to ban all guns. If that was democratically decided who are you to decide to start threatening violence to overturn a democratic decision? If anything is fascist then that is.

[∞]

nice attempt at a flame dude, but I ain't rising to it.

In the context of this debate we were talking about a hypothetical democratic decision to ban all guns. If that was democratically decided who are you to decide to start threatening violence to overturn a democratic decision? If anything is fascist then that is.

I don't believe in power to the people. I believe in no power at all. There should be no medium where the public opinion of guns should hinder my rights as an individual.

[Manic Impressive]

your rights as an individual should never overrule the rights of EVERYONE ELSE IN SOCIETY
Stick your Stirner/Rand philosophy up you're urethra side ways

[∞]

your rights as an individual should never overrule the rights of EVERYONE ELSE IN SOCIETY
Stick your Stirner/Rand philosophy up you're urethra side ways

Don't derp me like that. If I own a gun and I don't use it to harm society, than society has no right to tell me whether or not I am allowed to have it. If my rights become privilege and enslave others, that is crossing the line. Communism focuses on the democratic control of industry not the tyranny of the majority.

Both the tyranny of the majority and privilege are forms of slavery. We need a democratic society that doesn't impose itself on individuals in moral issues. This doesn't have exclude justice and law however. Quiet simply, my rights to own a gun do not overrule the rights of everyone else, it expresses it.

[Manic Impressive]

Don't derp me like that. If I own a gun and I don't use it to harm society, than society has no right to tell me whether or not I am allowed to have it. If my rights become privilege and enslave others, that is crossing the line. Communism focuses on the democratic control of industry not the tyranny of the majority.
Or until you use it to hurt someone. You've already threatened violence if people did something you don't like. Then you've got accidents, theft of the gun by someone irresponsible etc etc


Both the tyranny of the majority and privilege are forms of slavery.
WTF are you seriously comparing slavery to abiding by democratic decisions?


We need a democratic society that doesn't impose itself on individuals in moral issues.
It's not a moral issue it's a health and safety issue. If anything you are arguing from a moral position as if not owning a gun would be a life altering tragedy which you would kill to prevent.


This doesn't have exclude justice and law however. Quiet simply, my rights to own a gun do not overrule the rights of everyone else, it expresses it.
madness, you think that going against the wishes of everyone in society is expressing the rights of society?

[∞]

Or until you use it to hurt someone. You've already threatened violence if people did something you don't like. Then you've got accidents, theft of the gun by someone irresponsible etc etc]

I wasn't serious. Someone who possess a gun for the mere purpose of self-defense and enjoys to shoot empty beer cans shouldn't be compared to a criminal.


WTF are you seriously comparing slavery to abiding by democratic decisions?

Abiding is abiding. At this point it doesn't matter whos telling me what to do. All I see is people trying to control something that has no affect to them. You can say prop 8 is also an example of this right? Homosexuals, according to you are only abiding to "democratic" decisions.



It's not a moral issue it's a health and safety issue. If anything you are arguing from a moral position as if not owning a gun would be a life altering tragedy which you would kill to prevent.

The severity of owning a gun was never a question. When I have no real motive or incentive to shoot someone in a communist society (poverty, for example), people shouldn't be too concerned. And since we are talking about such a transparent society, it shouldn't be too hard for getting caught with murder. Considering all people have equal status in a proletarian court.


madness, you think that going against the wishes of everyone in society is expressing the rights of society?

Going against the wishes of a governing body on what I should and should not own, which in itself is not directly responsible for harming anyone is. A truly democratic society is a collective expression of individual rights. Democracy can only be used when the decision affects everybody. Me owning a gun does not cross that line and quiet frankly is nobody's business.

[Psy]

nice attempt at a flame dude, but I ain't rising to it.

In the context of this debate we were talking about a hypothetical democratic decision to ban all guns. If that was democratically decided who are you to decide to start threatening violence to overturn a democratic decision? If anything is fascist then that is.
Yet how do you enact it as a democracy? You need a powerful state to ban guns, you basically going to have a "war on guns" with as much military spending as the capitalists "war on drugs" and you'd have the same futility. Thus instead of the workers state withering away into mature communism the workers state becomes entrenched, you'd have a never ending conscription to man the armies needed to use armed force to police the black markets that would rise up like weeds to meet the demands for firearms that communist production refuses to satisfy.

[Manic Impressive]

I wasn't serious. Someone who possess a gun for the mere purpose of self-defense and enjoys to shoot empty beer cans shouldn't be compared to a criminal.
It's been a recurring theme in this thread, the old "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric keeps popping up.


Abiding is abiding. At this point it doesn't matter whos telling me what to do. All I see is people trying to control something that has no affect to them. I suggest prop 8 is also an example of this right? Homosexuals, according to you are only abiding to "democratic" decisions.
I don't know what prop 8 is. Examples of legislation passed through the current democratic system are not good examples as the democracy is representative not participatory.


The severity of owning a gun was never a question. When I have no real motive or incentive to shoot someone in a communist society (poverty, for example), people shouldn't be too concerned. And since we are talking about such a transparent society, it shouldn't be too hard for getting caught with murder. Considering all people have equal status in a proletarian court.
Shouldn't we be trying to prevent murder both for the victim and the perpetrator? Anyone can get angry and squeeze a trigger even if they are a completely normal well adjusted member of society.


Go against the wishes of a governing body on what I should and should not own, which in itself is not directly responsible for harming anyone is. A truly democratic society is a collective expression of individual rights. Democracy can only be used when the decision affects everybody. Me owning a gun does not cross that line and quiet frankly is nobody's business.
By that logic watching kiddie porn would be ok by you as well? because you know they want to do it so that equates to a right and they're not hurting anyone so yeah whatever society has no right to tell them what they can and can't whack off to. Quite frankly it's nobody else's business.

Except that most paedophiles start off watching kiddie porn before moving on to actual victims. In the same respect most people who shoot people start out shooting cans in their backyard.

[∞]

It's been a recurring theme in this thread, the old "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric keeps popping up.

If you can't refute it don't attempt to make fun of it.


I don't know what prop 8 is. Examples of legislation passed through the current democratic system are not good examples as the democracy is representative not participatory.

It was a proposition passed by the public. It was voted solely by the american people in their gleaming brilliance. Look it up, you are on the internet, are you not?



Shouldn't we be trying to prevent murder both for the victim and the perpetrator? Anyone can get angry and squeeze a trigger even if they are a completely normal well adjusted member of society.

Either they have a reason to kill or they are not a well-adjusted member of society. You can't have it both ways.


By that logic watching kiddie porn would be ok by you as well? because you know they want to do it so that equates to a right and they're not hurting anyone so yeah whatever society has no right to tell them what they can and can't whack off to. Quite frankly it's nobody else's business.

Well it would make more sense (if the community knew this) and would be warned of this person. People would keep away from him if people somehow knew he did it. Of course cp in itself cannot be allowed to be filmed in a communist society for the porn is not consensual and is a crime.



Except that most paedophiles start off watching kiddie porn before moving on to actual victims. In the same respect most people who shoot people start out shooting cans in their backyard.

Not the slippery-slope, anything but the slippery-slope. 25% of Americans own firearms. Gun-violence is higher in California although it has harsher gun control policy. So it isn't a direct correlation between the two, the elasticity is way too wide for it to make any sense. I suspect you also think that watching adult porn leads to rape, that playing Grand Theft Auto leads to school-shootings, that Marijuana leads to crack, that listening to Judas Priest leads to suicide, I can go on and and on about the politically-correct slopes you, concerned soccer-moms and your liberal brethren would share if you believe in such stupid shit. For shit's sake almost everyone I know has some kind of gun, and they would never even consider harming anyone. But according to you the only reason they own these things is some insane fetishism for violence. This is akin to saying that whacking off to porn is a decadence to objectify women.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

nice attempt at a flame dude, but I ain't rising to it.

In the context of this debate we were talking about a hypothetical democratic decision to ban all guns. If that was democratically decided who are you to decide to start threatening violence to overturn a democratic decision? If anything is fascist then that is.

Just because a decision is made democratically doesn't mean it can't be authoritarian bullshit. Ever heard of a tyranny by majority? Any democratic system must include checks and balances to prevent a majority voting itself more privileges at the expense of a minority.

Banning firearms would be a fucking stupid move because not only does it implicitly (if not explicitly) treats anyone possessing firearms as a potential criminal, but it also pushes it "underground".

So there's a possibility of fatal conflict right there - authoritarian dipwads (who think a decision made democratically is automatically right) and their enforcers versus everyone else.

[Kamos]

Yes, legalise all guns! While we're at it, legalise wage slavery too!

Some things just aren't made to be legalised. Maintain the gun regulations. All you really need is a psychology test and proof that you can use the firearm.

[WorkingClassGirl]

Ok, there are several purposes I can use a gun for in capitalism....

..BUT what for shall I use a gun in communism?! Shooting cans? ok. I say everyone should get a gun in communism, because every dangerous purpose of using guns isn't anymore. Robbery? What for?, there is no private property.
Furthermore subjects won't be as they are today, because they are communists and not capitalist competition subjects.

Everyone can get a gun, who knows how dangerous a gun is.

[DarkPast]

Just because a decision is made democratically doesn't mean it can't be authoritarian bullshit. Ever heard of a tyranny by majority? Any democratic system must include checks and balances to prevent a majority voting itself more privileges at the expense of a minority.

This is an interesting point you raise. May I ask what exactly would these checks and balances be? And then there's the obvious question: who will determine and implement them?

[EvilRedGuy]

Give a man bullet's, and he'd want a gun.
Give a man a gun, and he'd be given away the bullets.

Just a joke. Believe me i'm kinda undecided on this matter, but i think giving everyone weapons for self-defense purpose would help against violent criminals (like serial killers, uncontrollable psycho/sociopaths, rapists), remember everything can be used to kill (though some stuff is easier to kill with and inflict more damage than others.)

[A Marxist Historian]

It's been a recurring theme in this thread, the old "from my cold dead hands" rhetoric keeps popping up.

Yes, that is the sound and healthy rhetoric of the American Revolution. If we want to have a revolution in this country, we have to keep and revive the good part of our revolutionary heritage.


I don't know what prop 8 is. Examples of legislation passed through the current democratic system are not good examples as the democracy is representative not participatory.


Shouldn't we be trying to prevent murder both for the victim and the perpetrator? Anyone can get angry and squeeze a trigger even if they are a completely normal well adjusted member of society.

How about cars? They cause vastly more loss of human life than guns. You wanna ban them too?

We need to do what they do in Switzerland, have gun education in the public schools from the age of twelve, and that way we'd have much less loss of life from accidental or deliberate gun discharges.

Basically, people kill each other with guns because America is a murderous society, and has been since the getgo, what with Indian massacres, slavery etc. Banning guns would be like putting a bandaid on a broken arm.



By that logic watching kiddie porn would be ok by you as well? because you know they want to do it so that equates to a right and they're not hurting anyone so yeah whatever society has no right to tell them what they can and can't whack off to. Quite frankly it's nobody else's business.

Except that most paedophiles start off watching kiddie porn before moving on to actual victims. In the same respect most people who shoot people start out shooting cans in their backyard.

And most drug addicts start out with marijuana, there's a great movie called "Reefer Madness" you should watch that explains it all.

Yes, if people want to watch kiddie porn in their own homes, that's nobody's business but their own. In fact, many argue that that provides pedophiles with a release, so they don't have to go after schoolkids.

Most people who kill each other were abused as children, any criminologist will tell you that.

-M.H.-

[Psy]

By that logic watching kiddie porn would be ok by you as well? because you know they want to do it so that equates to a right and they're not hurting anyone so yeah whatever society has no right to tell them what they can and can't whack off to. Quite frankly it's nobody else's business.

Except that most paedophiles start off watching kiddie porn before moving on to actual victims. In the same respect most people who shoot people start out shooting cans in their backyard.
There is no empirical evidence that links such porn fetish with sexual deviancy, you can make the connection that such fetishes are sexist but you can't link the act of watching such porn causing people to act out these fetishes.

Also the issue of the regulation of is a totally different matter, that goes with getting rid of the muck of ages (sexism) which firearms are not part of (they are just tools).

[Sam Varriano]

Well I'm not a vegitarian so uh yes we probably would need some guns. Seriously how the fuck are we supposed to feed people without them?

To those of you that are vegans/vegitarians, congrats but it just isn't for me, tbh.