Gun ownership and those who want it gone. [Archive]

Blake's Baby

17th April 2012, 00:42

Well, it would make sense that most gun crimes are done by people who have guns illegally in the first place. Restricting gun ownership isn't going to make it any harder to acquire a firearm illegally...

Not true of course. One source of illegal guns is the theft of legal guns. If there are no legal guns then there is less opportunity to turn those into illegal guns.

Some states with the most restrictive gun policies have some of the worst gun violence...

Co-incidently, also the states with the most deprived populations, the biggest urban areas etc.

Everywhere across the world, no matter what the gun laws, cities breed crime. So whether ot not guns are legal there will still be gun crime in those areas, along with other sorts of crimes.

...

Secondly, if you take guns out of the equation, you still don't address the conditions that breed violence: social stratification, economic desperation, existential crisis, etc etc...

That's certainly true. But the number (and more importantly, ratio) of gun-deaths in the USA is huge, comparable to war-zones like Sierra Leone and Somalia.

...But in the end if the bourgeoisie feel threatened then the hammer is gonna fall on gun ownership anyway so it doesn't matter

That's also true. My guess is they'll feel less threatened by a few Leftist gun-cranks than they'll feel reassured by the number decent patriotic Americans excercising their Constitutional Rights to have guns to shoot invading Redcoats and Runaway Slaves.

Oh, as well as shooting Leftists of course.

DinodudeEpic

17th April 2012, 03:00

Not true of course. One source of illegal guns is the theft of legal guns. If there are no legal guns then there is less opportunity to turn those into illegal guns.

Co-incidently, also the states with the most deprived populations, the biggest urban areas etc.

Everywhere across the world, no matter what the gun laws, cities breed crime. So whether ot not guns are legal there will still be gun crime in those areas, along with other sorts of crimes.

That's certainly true. But the number (and more importantly, ratio) of gun-deaths in the USA is huge, comparable to war-zones like Sierra Leone and Somalia.

That's also true. My guess is they'll feel less threatened by a few Leftist gun-cranks than they'll feel reassured by the number decent patriotic Americans excercising their Constitutional Rights to have guns to shoot invading Redcoats and Runaway Slaves.

Oh, as well as shooting Leftists of course.

One source....OK. Let's forget about the much larger causes of crime, like illegal drug trade, social inequality, poverty, a increasingly nihilistic culture that is highly pessimistic, financial troubles, and unemployment. And lets just ban the guns from legal citizens. Also, it takes extensive machining to turn semi-autos into full-autos. And even then, what is the problem with giving full-autos to the workers? That actually helps a revolution.

Yes! That means that gun ownership DOESN'T matter! Poverty does! :cursing:

OK....so that means that guns don't matter in crime. So, the law is not NECESSARY!

Once again....Capitalism...I mean, social democratic and gun-happy Switizerland has less crime then the USA. And, gun crime rates of the US are actually lower then that of South Africa, Estonia, Panama, and other countries that are NOT warzones.

Gun ownership had little to do with slavery, and thus you are actually fear-mongering. Plus, the slaveowners can just call the government to catch the slaves for them. (Which actually is the main method.) And, if the government is the only part of society that owns guns....And, gunning down British imperialist soldiers to protect your national self-determination and freedom is perfectly fine. Also, murder is illegal in the US, and leftists still citizens under that law. (So, private citizens can't shoot leftist private or government citizens. However, a government can give itself a right to shoot leftists via constitutional amendments.) So, worry more about government guns then the guns of American working-class citizens.

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 03:10

I'm glad guns are banned here because living in a country where every cop carries a gun would be fucking scary.

DinodudeEpic

17th April 2012, 03:17

I'm glad guns are banned here because living in a country where every cop carries a gun would be fucking scary.

That is every single country in the world.

Cops are issued pistols, as they are part of the state.

We're talking about private citizens here, not police officers.

In fact, we should thank god for not being in a country where the police have SMGs.

(A slight confusion! Crap! Forget to not equalize the 'nots' in a sentence. Please note that I don't want policemen to have SMGs!

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 03:34

DinodudeEpic

17th April 2012, 03:44

whut? no every cop in every country in the world doesn't carry a gun. If guns were legal for private citizens in my country then every cop would carry a gun like they do in the US and that would be fucking scary.

So, how in the world are you going to throw a violent communist revolution if you don't have any real effective weapons? Running around with clubs like mindless cavemen, or maybe medieval-style warfare. (Machine guns would massacre you faster then what they did in World War 1.)

And, all police do have guns, or at least batons/tasers. After all, the state does need a sort of force to enforce it's laws.

Also, illegal gun ownership already exists among criminals, who can skip all the legal processes that honest citizens have to go through.

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 03:58

Did you really think that every cop in the world carried a gun? hehe that's so American. Anyway yeah our cops have truncheons and pepper spray but they just hurt they don't tend to kill as often as being shot does. So yeah I'm quite happy not to have a gun as long as they don't.

As for violent revolution you've been hanging around with too many tankies. The view of Marx and Engles was peacefully if we can forcibly if we must. Where peaceful means to revolution are denied only violent options are left. But even the blood thirsty communists would rely on the army switching sides in the event of a violent revolution.

On guns I partly agree with Franz (first time for everything) guns are a tool which in the current system have a use value. I would disagree that post revolution they would still retain that use value.

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:11

On guns I partly agree with Franz (first time for everything) guns are a tool which in the current system have a use value. I would disagree that post revolution they would still retain that use value.

go fuck yourself ultraleft peehole

Guns will still have utility after the revolution as long as hunting/butchering is necessary

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 05:15

Go fuck yourself you psuedo-fascist religious fundementalist dipshit

guns will have 0 fucking use value unless you wanna go around shooting people

but oh wait in your socialism there is still states and capitalism so yeah guns will still have a use value

ah good back to normal

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 05:17

go fuck yourself ultraleft peehole

Guns will still have utility after the revolution as long as hunting/butchering is necessary This place always gives me mixed messages about what "ultraleft" means

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:23

This place always gives me mixed messages about what "ultraleft" means

all purpose slur like Stalinist with little actual meaning

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:25

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 05:26

all purpose slur like Stalinist with little actual meaning That's a shame. Ultra-left sounds pretty badass. Like an insurrectionist power ranger.

#FF0000

17th April 2012, 05:30

guns will have 0 fucking use value unless you wanna go around shooting people

what if i want to shoot paper.

or hunt.

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 05:34

what if i want to shoot paper.

or hunt.
take up a new hobby preferably with non lethal weapons? try knitting

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 05:34

try knitting zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:39

Lookit this fucking Brit making all kinds of assumptions about how other people live "oh I say species being luxemborg tribalism violence hunt is sport not providing"

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 05:45

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:47

Say it in Spanish to be accurate prick

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 05:53

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 05:53

greasy cock wart Well that wasn't funny at all

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 05:56

Yeah basically Brits aren't good at keepin it limber too much innate cracker rage

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 05:59

lol that ain't rage blood the only way to take you is as the joke that you are I stopped getting pissed at your racial jibes and fascistic politics a long ago.

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 06:01

Man say what you will about Fonzie Fannypants here, at least he's funny.

JustMovement

17th April 2012, 06:02

Yeah basically Brits aren't good at keepin it limber too much innate cracker rage

guarda te lo posso dire pure in un altra lingua fra sei propio na lota

God

17th April 2012, 06:03

This thread is a mess...

Orlov

17th April 2012, 06:14

Guns and revolutionaries are hand in hand, without the gun there can be no defense of the revolution. You're in no way or form taking my gun you counter-revolutionary pacifist. Not to mention, guns are an extremely useful tool that allow humanity to defend itself, hunt/butcher for sufficient food and provide various forms of protection.

JustMovement

17th April 2012, 06:17

u want to hunt, get a hunting licence and buck shot.

what the fuck do u need concealed weapons and assault rifles for

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 06:19

u want to hunt, get a hunting licence and buck shot.

what the fuck do u need concealed weapons and assault rifles for

100% in agreement

Just get a solid rifle and have at it

#FF0000

17th April 2012, 06:26

what the fuck do u need concealed weapons and assault rifles for

For extremely aggressive deer, dummy.

Franz Fanonipants

17th April 2012, 06:32

For extremely aggressive deer, dummy.

Ionly ever hunt mtn lions I am a god of tracking and have eternal patience

o well this is ok I guess

17th April 2012, 06:35

Ionly ever hunt mtn lions I am a god of tracking and have eternal patience lol you need a gun to hunt mountain lions
l2p, scrub.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th April 2012, 07:20

the reason americans are so liberal with civlian gun ownership is allegedly for safety and to defend themselves from state violence. obviously it's a completely failed policy. obviously.

whenever there is a mass socialist movement prepared to engaged in an armed conflict against the establishment then i will support civlians having guns

Os Cangaceiros

17th April 2012, 07:23

When the known number of guns in the USA is upwards of 200 million, then, well, it's kind of hard to make them all go away.

Not that there's even close to anything resembling a political will to even make an attempt.

I think the culture of violence and retributive justice that's deeply ingrained in American society is far more to blame for gun crime than the mere presence of guns themselves. That's also why nothing is ever going to change vis-a-vis not only guns and gun violence, but gun laws as well. Having a serious conversation about that topic is far more complicated than, I don't know, spouting crude stereotypes maybe?

Here, let me try from another direction: all gun control advocates are racists because one of the primary forms of gun control prior to the 1970's was trying to prevent black people in the South from owning weapons that they could defend themselves with against racist vigilantes.

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th April 2012, 07:30

i would venture to wager than reforming the racist judicial and penal systems would be a far more effective way of curbing racist violence than giving everybody more guns. just a thought tho.

Os Cangaceiros

17th April 2012, 07:44

I'm not sure that I'm aware of the Just Give Everybody More Guns Act. Did Congress really pass that?

Revolution starts with U

17th April 2012, 08:33

take up a new hobby preferably with non lethal weapons? try knitting

As long as the possiblity remains that someone will use violence against me, I definitely can see that guns will have a use value. I'm pretty sure that threat will continue to exist under even the highest stage of communism.
But that's just an aside. The point is that I might want to hunt (I don't but I might). Are you going to force me to use bow and arrow? Why can't I just use THAT to shoot people?

milkmiku

17th April 2012, 08:47

u want to hunt, get a hunting licence and buck shot.

what the fuck do u need concealed weapons and assault rifles for

What do you define as assault rifle? The well known us assault rifle ban applied to weapons that weren't even true assault weapons. So you'd have people armed with bolt actions?

Ccw is a simple self-defense issue. I carry concealed so I have a means to defend myself in a situation that would otherwise result in great harm to myself

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 08:51

As long as the possiblity remains that someone will use violence against me, I definitely can see that guns will have a use value. I'm pretty sure that threat will continue to exist under even the highest stage of communism.
But that's just an aside. The point is that I might want to hunt (I don't but I might). Are you going to force me to use bow and arrow? Why can't I just use THAT to shoot people?
yeah see that's the thing as the possiblity remains that someone will use violence against me. They might have a gun so that means you gotta have one too, but if neither of you have a gun then there's a considerably lower chance of one of you getting killed. Like I said I agree that under capitalism guns have a use value but post revolution the use value would not exceed the risk involved in keeping guns around. I've been looking for the last thread where I debated the issue before but I can't find it, it basically covered every position and ended up becoming very surreal but it was also very tiring and I've no intention of doing it again. If I find it I'll post it in the other thread.

Revolution starts with U

17th April 2012, 08:57

yeah see that's the thing as the possiblity remains that someone will use violence against me. They might have a gun so that means you gotta have one too, but if neither of you have a gun then there's a considerably lower chance of one of you getting killed. Like I said I agree that under capitalism guns have a use value but post revolution the use value would not exceed the risk involved in keeping guns around. I've been looking for the last thread where I debated the issue before but I can't find it, it basically covered every position and ended up becoming very surreal but it was also very tiring and I've no intention of doing it again. If I find it I'll post it in the other thread.

Likelihood lowered, unless one of has a knife, a pencil, or knows that choking someone will kill them...

(but agian, the self-defense use value isn't really important. It has a use value in that I may want to shoot it at things)

Look, I don't own a gun. I would prefer if nobody did. But I have yet to see an anti-gun argument that isn't illogical and misapplied.

Manic Impressive

17th April 2012, 09:01

stats speak for themselves mate

The United Kingdom has had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_crime#Homicide) in the world since before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher, and for Germany 0.2[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-0). With the exception of Northern Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland), police officers in the United Kingdom do not routinely carry firearms

And that's without counting all the legal homicides by police officers

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th April 2012, 09:02

i believe that the idea that having a gun makes you safe is false. do you people really honestly think that engaging armed criminals in gunfights is safe?
when an armed person confronts you, you comply with them. you dont try to shoot them. unless theyre trying to kill you, but in that case its probably too late. most likely theyre trying to steal your shit or rape you. if theyre trying to steal your shit, let them. your crap isnt worth more than their life and it certainly isnt worth more than risking your own life and those of others who may be present. if theyre trying to rape you, i suppose a weapon could come in handy, but there are plenty of alternatives to firearms.

furthermore, it's more than evident that widespread civilian gun ownership makes communities unsafe. the people who buy them legally are often crazy assholes like george zimmerman. and they often end up in the hands of straight up criminals.

Blake's Baby

17th April 2012, 11:44

One source....OK. Let's forget about the much larger causes of crime, like illegal drug trade, social inequality, poverty, a increasingly nihilistic culture that is highly pessimistic, financial troubles, and unemployment. And lets just ban the guns from legal citizens...

Oh yeah, because that's what I said, isn't it? If I pointed out that rain fails from the sky, would you insist that I'd called for the abolition of clouds? I was (at that point) merely arguing against the ridiculous idea that the availability of legal guns is unrelated to the availability of illegal guns.

... Also, it takes extensive machining to turn semi-autos into full-autos. And even then, what is the problem with giving full-autos to the workers? That actually helps a revolution...

The revolution will be brought about by the working class organising itself and excercising its economic power over production. You can't shoot someone into striking.

Yes! That means that gun ownership DOESN'T matter! Poverty does! :cursing:

OK....so that means that guns don't matter in crime. So, the law is not NECESSARY!...

No, it doesn't, because you have conflated different things... 'gun crime' is not the same as 'gun deaths' and neither it the same as 'all crime'. Nowhere have I said that guns, legal or illegal, cause crime. I was quite clear that crime levels in major cities tend to be much higher than in rural areas, worldwide, whatever the gun laws happen to be.

Therefore, contrary to what was argued by ... whoever it was, gun laws do not influence crime. Nothing about gun ownership. Gun ownership obviously influences crime (easier to shoot someone with a gun than with a stick, let's say), which is why the USA has a gun-death rate many times higher than comparable countries (eg the UK or Germany, which are both rich industrialised democracies with a large disparity of wealth).

Once again....Capitalism...I mean, social democratic and gun-happy Switizerland has less crime then the USA. And, gun crime rates of the US are actually lower then that of South Africa, Estonia, Panama, and other countries that are NOT warzones...

And again you refer to 'crime' and not what I was talking about which is gun deaths. Switzerland has a gun death rate similar to the US's, suggesting that the availability of guns is a direct factor in how many people are killed by guns. Who'd ha thunk, huh?

Gun ownership had little to do with slavery, and thus you are actually fear-mongering. Plus, the slaveowners can just call the government to catch the slaves for them. (Which actually is the main method.) And, if the government is the only part of society that owns guns....And, gunning down British imperialist soldiers to protect your national self-determination and freedom is perfectly fine. Also, murder is illegal in the US, and leftists still citizens under that law. (So, private citizens can't shoot leftist private or government citizens. However, a government can give itself a right to shoot leftists via constitutional amendments.) So, worry more about government guns then the guns of American working-class citizens.

I'm not in America, if you are, I think it's you that should be worried about being gunned down by right wing vigilantes 'defending the constitution' comrade, as you go about your business agitating among the working class for the historic interests of the proletariat, rather than doing your best to campaign around 'defence of the Constitution'. If we (we, the working class) go up militarily against the might of the capitalist state, pretty much anywhere, we will lose. The strength of the working class is in paralysing capitalism not taking pot-shots at it with handguns, legal or not. You can't blow up a social relationship, not can you pop a cap in its ass.

l'EnfermÃ©

17th April 2012, 15:19

all purpose slur like Stalinist with little actual meaning
Funnily enough Stalinists seem to be the only persons using the phrase not in a sarcastic way("Ultra-left" that is).

LuÃs Henrique

17th April 2012, 21:53

Guns will still have utility after the revolution as long as hunting/butchering is necessary

Is hunting necessary?
Pistols and revolvers aren't tools for hunting.
How do guns relate to butchering?

Luís Henrique

Dr. Rosenpenis

17th April 2012, 21:57

dont know about you guys but i always cut my steak with a bayonet

milkmiku

17th April 2012, 23:38

i believe that the idea that having a gun makes you safe is false. do you people really honestly think that engaging armed criminals in gunfights is safe?

No one thinks that. The idea is that a firearm allows even those weakest and frailest a measure of deterrence and power against someone who would seek to deprive them of their possessions or life.

when an armed person confronts you, you comply with them. you dont try to shoot them. unless theyre trying to kill you, but in that case its probably too late. most likely theyre trying to steal your shit or rape you. if theyre trying to steal your shit, let them. your crap isnt worth more than their life and it certainly isnt worth more than risking your own life and those of others who may be present. if they're trying to rape you, i suppose a weapon could come in handy, but there are plenty of alternatives to firearms.

People should not bow to the unjust aggressions of others, that attitude has led to our current problem in the world with capitalism. Your "shit" is irreplaceable because the time you put into obtaining or creating those things is irreplaceable. When someone seeks to deprive me of something I can never reacquire, the time and effort that went into creating "my crap", then I will retaliate with lethal means if necessary. When something is stolen, it is gone, you can only replace it.

A weapon would indeed come in handy for fending off a rape attempt. A firearm would be the most reliable. Tazers can fail, and since many people do not research their self-defense tools such as tazers and mace, they are likely to end up with an inferior or faulty weapon. A S&W .380 bodyguard or similar is small, reliable, easy to use, comes with a built in laser, and .380 will not over penetrate. There are many firearms like the S&W bodyguard and since aquring a weapon for concealed carry requires a CCW, where as that is not a requirement in all states for mace or tazers, you'll have a basic understanding of firearms safety.

furthermore, it's more than evident that widespread civilian gun ownership makes communities unsafe. the people who buy them legally are often crazy assholes like george zimmerman. and they often end up in the hands of straight up criminals.

Zimmerman was not crazy by any stretch, he fucked up and did everything wrong. Many of those communities are unsafe to begin with because of wide spread under education and poverty, not because of LEGAL guns.

Outlawing guns for everyone will result in a black market the likes of which would rivle the drug market, there are too many guns in America for that to have an effect on anyone but law abiding dipshits.

MotherCossack

18th April 2012, 00:24

look i hope i'm not repeating any one's post.... it's just that i got too depressed to read any more......
listen you can argue all you want about the 2nd amendment and justify the free ownership of firearms.....
but the bottom line is that if you aint got a gun you cant flipping shoot anyone with it... can you??? eh?? no!!! of course you cant!!!
and dont bother with all that but cities are always gonna attract crime... so we all need a big fuck off SHOOTER just in case....
it is like a million little arms races all bouncing off each other and climbing higher and higher into the clouds of ludicrous nonsensical escalation... where anything becomes excusable and the indefensible approaches with stealth and becomes suddenly necessary .
i can almost 100% guarantee that.... if you guys had a sudden epiphany or some such major headfuck that caused you all to throw your guns in the bin or burn 'em or feed 'em to the metal monster in the sky ..... guess what.. a hellish descent into depraved mass slaughter by nasty scrap yard gun salvagers would not ensue.... in fact...... i bet you 30quid suddenly less folk will get shot.......
and that must be good....right?

Ostrinski

18th April 2012, 00:26

Well it's not as if one needs guns to rob or kill someone.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th April 2012, 00:29

MotherCossack

18th April 2012, 00:44

well dag nabbit franz you dun gone got me thar Gad spokes ta me in ma dreamz last night and he done did gone told me that gunz er great so I best go get me an assault rifle n kill me some heathens yeee haw

national stereotypes how very drole

yo... this is well sick innit... bruv... know what ah mean like. in my ****ry , like, wew like in lundun gunz 'n shit ... wew... wen some por gewl or sumefing ,like gets shot, wew its in awl the news innit ,fam ... it appens mor 'an it did ....knowwadimean? i fink gunz r wew bad ... aint nuffink but trubbwe.

sorry... couldn't resist it ... being a londoner....who needs queen's english... cockney and proud of it fam
anyway seems like we're on the same side anyway!

Manic Impressive

18th April 2012, 01:10

I found the old thread on gun control. It was fun at the time http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-control-socialist-t162267/index.html

milkmiku

18th April 2012, 01:21

milkmiku --

ok then when you erradicate poverty and undereducation you can have guns is that a fair compromise?

the fact is that guns are a scourge in working class communities and ghettoes all over the world. poc, the impoverished, women and children are the most vulnerable and they are the people who suffer the most at the expense of your precious fucking right to self defense. gun control is known to help reduce violence.

and the idea that your possessions are worth more than anybody's life is fucking appaling you are literally a sociopath please seek help

So you wish to deprive women and others of an effective means of defending themselves, firearms. You are a idelistic fool to afarid of what others may do. Once crime is eleminated, then we can talk about removing firearms from the equation. Gun ownership dose not correlate with crime. Poverty is the primary reason. Thus states like Vermont, with the loosest gun laws in the US, have very little crime. While places Like Detroit have very high crime.

Removing guns will of course reduce gun crime, but not all crime. You failed to read my post and jumped to the emotional. Guns are friends of the working class. Like it or not, there are to many guns in America for anysort of gun contorl to be effective, as I stated, restrection will just creat a very profitable black market, which will lead to more crime and further destruction of the working class.

I cannot believe you'd disarm the people for your own peace of mind. Truly you are a coward. I did not say that my possessions are worth more than someones life but the effort and time, which is irreplaceable, is.

Some useful reading that can be touted pro gun or anti gun.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Revolutionary_Marxist

18th April 2012, 01:25

As an MLM I support gun ownership for the proletariat.

MotherCossack

18th April 2012, 01:35

the little girl wanted to be a dancer
he was nothing but a low life chancer,

of course he didn't care
that she was right there.

he had no right
to shoot anyone that night

she fell to the floor
danced no more

now she only sits
her life ... it's in bits

we wonder why
perhaps utter a sigh

soon it will be forgot
that a little girl got shot.

another sad story
will steal all the glory

old news
like old shoes

thrown away
cos hey... its a new day.

Franz Fanonipants

18th April 2012, 01:38

Is hunting necessary?
Pistols and revolvers aren't tools for hunting.
How do guns relate to butchering?

Luís Henrique

1. It can be a managed resource that allows rural people access to food that would help augment community or family nutrition
2. I agree 100%
3. Sometimes guns are used at the onset of butchering. Sometimes a sledgehammer and a knife are used.

i honestly don't get why you guys are so freaked out by guns
there's a lot of dumbfucks who do bad shit with guns, but with proper education and respect a gun really is just a tool

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th April 2012, 02:38

So you wish to deprive women and others of an effective means of defending themselves, firearms. You are a idelistic fool to afarid of what others may do.

what?
women are by and large victims of gun violence. guns are not a means of protection for women theyre generally an instrument of domestic violence in fact. women, particular low income and woc are far more likely to be victims of gun homicide at the hands of their spouses. guns are not some sort of great equalizer. maybe not in your white middle class suburban community, but in working class neighborhoods guns are tools of oppression and violence targeting the most disadvantaged members of society.
fuck you and your bourgie cracker-ass phallocratic cave man vigilante fetish

I cannot believe you'd disarm the people for your own peace of mind. Truly you are a coward.

yeah, peace of mind. what rubbish. real revolutionary proletarians dont care about that. ugh

I did not say that my possessions are worth more than someones life but the effort and time, which is irreplaceable, is.

you are a monster

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th April 2012, 02:43

and lol @ "disarm the people"
"the people"

the united states is proof that an armed populace does absolutely nothing for justice or equality or liberty

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th April 2012, 02:55

i believe that the idea that having a gun makes you safe is false. do you people really honestly think that engaging armed criminals in gunfights is safe?

Considering the situation (which isn't very safe all around) I rather be armed then not armed.

when an armed person confronts you, you comply with them.

This doesn't always or necessarily work in terms of not getting yourself injured. I was mugged, quickly gave up my shit and still got stabbed anyway.

you dont try to shoot them. unless theyre trying to kill you, but in that case its probably too late. most likely theyre trying to steal your shit or rape you. if theyre trying to steal your shit, let them. your crap isnt worth more than their life and it certainly isnt worth more than risking your own life and those of others who may be present. if theyre trying to rape you, i suppose a weapon could come in handy, but there are plenty of alternatives to firearms.

What's so wrong with firearms? Why is carrying a firearm such a bad thing? Who says after taking your goods they won't just shoot or stab you anyway?

furthermore, it's more than evident that widespread civilian gun ownership makes communities unsafe.

I would beg to differ, Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.

Dr. Rosenpenis

18th April 2012, 04:48

some of you kids might appreciate this...

06XVt6zEr9E

Ostrinski

18th April 2012, 05:02

laffo^

milkmiku

18th April 2012, 11:00

women are by and large victims of gun violence. guns are not a means of protection for women theyre generally an instrument of domestic violence in fact. women, particular low income and woc are far more likely to be victims of gun homicide at the hands of their spouses.

I'd like a source for that, coward. It is likely the same as that FBI stat that shows "gun owners are 70% more likely to suffer from an injury from a gun"
So you deprive that woman's spouse of his or her firearm, what then? Now he or she simply beats or stabs her to death as opposed to shooting her. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a weapon, not a device that turns people into bloodthirsty monsters. If someone is likely to commit battry against their spouse, then taking away his gun will not change their attitude.

You assume I'm a "cracker" who lives in the burbs. Idots such as youself always resort to that typecast when confronted with someone they disagree with. I'm a Korean and I live on the "Korean" side of town, which is not the suburbia privileged neighborhood you think it is.

You're to emotionally invested in this to think straight.

Only source I could find was http://www.opcc.net/tabid/273/Default.aspx
and this
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/gun_violence_statistics.asp you should bookmark this one, so you have something to back up your argument other than emotions.
Note that suicide by gun is included in the gun death total, inflating the number of deaths by gun.

LuÃs Henrique

18th April 2012, 15:36

Considering the situation (which isn't very safe all around) I rather be armed then not armed.

I was once victim of a robbery. At that time, I actually owned a pistol, a Beretta .22.

I was with a girlfriend at a motel. We ordered some stuff to eat, and when it was excessively delayed, I left the room to look for the administration and ask what was going on.

It turned out that what was going on was that the motel was being robbed. The thieves made me lie down to the floor, together with the motel's staff, and picked my 30 reais or something like that. The guy who took the money from my wallet made a body search for a gun. When he finished, he said something about me being a "civilian"; the tone of that comment made clear to me that if I hadn't let the Beretta in the car, I would have been shot in the head that exact moment, thus depriving you all from this most thrilling story.

So it was because I was unarmed at that time that I am still alive, and that the robbers didn't get a gun more to their arsenal (not that they would need it too much; they had .38s, which are much more compelling in demanding someone else's possessions).

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

18th April 2012, 15:40

I would beg to differ, Switzerland seems to be doing just fine.

However, the ownership of guns by the general population in Switzerland is military, not civilian.

Luís Henrique

Trap Queen Voxxy

18th April 2012, 19:35

However, the ownership of guns by the general population in Switzerland is military, not civilian.

Switzerland doesn't really have a military to speak of, they operate on a civilian militia system, in which every man has served so many years in the incredibly small standing Army. After that, they enter the civilian world and are issued an automatic or semi-automatic weapon and ammunition. Virtually all of the Swiss are armed and guns, gun safety, shooting, etc. play an important part in the culture. They also happen to have an incredibly low homicide and crime rate respectively if not the lowest in the world.

I was once victim of a robbery. At that time, I actually owned a pistol, a Beretta .22.

I was with a girlfriend at a motel. We ordered some stuff to eat, and when it was excessively delayed, I left the room to look for the administration and ask what was going on.

It turned out that what was going on was that the motel was being robbed. The thieves made me lie down to the floor, together with the motel's staff, and picked my 30 reais or something like that. The guy who took the money from my wallet made a body search for a gun. When he finished, he said something about me being a "civilian"; the tone of that comment made clear to me that if I hadn't let the Beretta in the car, I would have been shot in the head that exact moment, thus depriving you all from this most thrilling story.

So it was because I was unarmed at that time that I am still alive, and that the robbers didn't get a gun more to their arsenal (not that they would need it too much; they had .38s, which are much more compelling in demanding someone else's possessions).

I could offer my own opinions and so on about your story but it's just that, you're own personal story. What I mean by this is, cases were guns can be helpful or where they are not needed are case dependent. In your case perhaps it was better that you not had it, considering you were out numbered, out gunned, etc. In my case, I have always felt the opposite, had I at least had a knife, small 22, something, I could have probably prevented it which is why I always carry a knife every time I go out. Guns are tools, they are machines just like any other so of course you couldn't use them for every little thing and in every instance but they're still useful, in general.

What happened to me was, I was walking home from work, just got off a night shift, walked past this alley way that I always walked by and had to, to get home. I was then confronted by some punk, was instructed to hand over my wallet and everything else (even though, that's all I had), all I said was "woah wtf," but still quickly handed it over and then bam bam, got stabbed in the abdomen and chest. Following what you and others have said and implied, I should have been fine. I was unarmed, I had no cell phone on me at the time, I complied as quickly as I possibly could and so on. I thought I was being the perfect 'victim' and was doing what I was supposed to in that situation so as not to get harmed.

All for a grand total of like 5 to a maximum of 8 bucks and a shitty novelty wallet.

DinodudeEpic

18th April 2012, 23:58

milkmiku

19th April 2012, 01:09

I was once victim of a robbery. At that time, I actually owned a pistol, a Beretta .22.

I was with a girlfriend at a motel. We ordered some stuff to eat, and when it was excessively delayed, I left the room to look for the administration and ask what was going on.

It turned out that what was going on was that the motel was being robbed. The thieves made me lie down to the floor, together with the motel's staff, and picked my 30 reais or something like that. The guy who took the money from my wallet made a body search for a gun. When he finished, he said something about me being a "civilian"; the tone of that comment made clear to me that if I hadn't let the Beretta in the car, I would have been shot in the head that exact moment, thus depriving you all from this most thrilling story.

So it was because I was unarmed at that time that I am still alive, and that the robbers didn't get a gun more to their arsenal (not that they would need it too much; they had .38s, which are much more compelling in demanding someone else's possessions).

Luís Henrique

I feel for you, I really do, on the opposite end of the spectrum, My Mother and younger brother worked at a Taiwanese owned dry cleaners located on our cities east side. Right between the poor and the "middle" class hood. Twice in 8 years has someone tried to rob that place and both times it ended with the owner of the place, an old taiwanese guy around the age of 50, coming out the side door with an old mossburg and showed them away.

hatzel

19th April 2012, 01:32

Twice in 8 years has someone tried to rob that place and both times it ended with the owner of the place, an old taiwanese guy around the age of 50, coming out the side door with an old mossburg and showed them away.

I don't really have a desire to get involved in this discussion at all but I just thought I'd let you all know that for some reason the idea of an Asian shopkeeper packing heat just makes me think of race riots, so I don't think we should engage with such a scenario as indisputable proof of the glory of the gun, overlooking its potentially problematic implications...

Os Cangaceiros

19th April 2012, 01:39

I was once victim of a robbery. At that time, I actually owned a pistol, a Beretta .22.

I was with a girlfriend at a motel. We ordered some stuff to eat, and when it was excessively delayed, I left the room to look for the administration and ask what was going on.

It turned out that what was going on was that the motel was being robbed. The thieves made me lie down to the floor, together with the motel's staff, and picked my 30 reais or something like that. The guy who took the money from my wallet made a body search for a gun. When he finished, he said something about me being a "civilian"; the tone of that comment made clear to me that if I hadn't let the Beretta in the car, I would have been shot in the head that exact moment, thus depriving you all from this most thrilling story.

So it was because I was unarmed at that time that I am still alive, and that the robbers didn't get a gun more to their arsenal (not that they would need it too much; they had .38s, which are much more compelling in demanding someone else's possessions).

Luís Henrique

But I'm sure you realize that there are plenty of people who would happily put a bullet in your head while you were lying on the floor, right?

milkmiku

19th April 2012, 01:54

I don't really have a desire to get involved in this discussion at all but I just thought I'd let you all know that for some reason the idea of an Asian shopkeeper packing heat just makes me think of race riots, so I don't think we should engage with such a scenario as indisputable proof of the glory of the gun, overlooking its potentially problematic implications...

Just offering another stand point, Race riots is what you think of when you hear of an Asian shopkeep with a gun? You'd be surprised at the number of migrate shop keepers in general who have firearms in their shops. The Jordanian Guy at cozy corner in my city keeps a WASR under the counter and he is behind bullet resitent glass. Dose that remind you of race riots? Sounds like you're stereotyping in a round about way if the first thing you thin of is race riots when you hear of an asain shop keep with a gun.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th April 2012, 03:13

I'd like a source for that, coward. It is likely the same as that FBI stat that shows "gun owners are 70% more likely to suffer from an injury from a gun"

sounds like a legit statistic. why would the fbi lie about this?
anyway...
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/20316.php

So you deprive that woman's spouse of his or her firearm, what then? Now he or she simply beats or stabs her to death as opposed to shooting her. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. A gun is just a weapon, not a device that turns people into bloodthirsty monsters. If someone is likely to commit battry against their spouse, then taking away his gun will not change their attitude.

i imagined that even defenders of the second amendment would agree that wife beaters shouldnt have guns. thanks for taking the crazy to a whole new level there.

I'm a Korean and I live on the "Korean" side of town, which is not the suburbia privileged neighborhood you think it is.

my apologies

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th April 2012, 03:21

But I'm sure you realize that there are plenty of people who would happily put a bullet in your head while you were lying on the floor, right?

some people would have you believe that carrying a gun at all times is the safest thing someone can do. what world are you people living in? this shit could not be further from the truth.

let's be honest, we are very unlikely to encounter murderers. people who wanna kill us. we're quite likely on the other hand to have the misfortune of running into someone who would threaten to kill us for something else that they want. when confronted by an armed person demanding something from you, reacting by threatening them is literally the stupidest and most dangerous thing you can do.

virtually everyone that i know has been the victim of a burglary or mugging. i live in a pretty crime ridden city. none of them have ever been killed or injured by their assailants.

MagÃ³n

19th April 2012, 03:32

Is hunting necessary?
Pistols and revolvers aren't tools for hunting.
How do guns relate to butchering?

Luís Henrique

1. For some people, yeah, some of them just like hunting birds and other animals they'd eat themselves, rather than buy it at the store.

2. Actually, you're wrong. There are pistols and revolvers that are used for hunting things from small game to big game.

MarxSchmarx

19th April 2012, 03:59

In this spamming of responses, I had not seen even a single compelling argument for having Gun control.

Instead, I see fear-mongering through the use of badly written poems that don't accurately account domestic violence, poorly typed rants on guns somehow being associated with hatred for women, strawman arguments on how we somehow view gun rights as more important then human-life(As if knives and cars are any less deadly.), and guilt-by-association posts about the NRA. (Even though almost NONE of the socialists around here support the NRA.)

The best argument is the spread of gun-based crime. However, our country has the most crime IN GENERAL of the entire developed world. And, Europe is also undergoing a rise in crime. (At the same time as when neo-liberalism became popular amongst the politicians.)

One factor that you tellingly leave out is suicide.

Gun ownership, and the widespread availability of guns in the United States, Canada, and arguably Scandinavia, leads quite strongly to a high risk of suicide, e.g.,:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

Yes, there are clearly examples of societies with high suicide rates where gun ownership is pretty limited - Japan and South Korea, for example. But when one looks within societies, the evidence that the ownership of guns per se is associated with higher suicides is very robust.

One can quibble with whether suicides are as problematic socially as murders; after all, the extent to which we should intervene in "protecting people from themselves" is a real question. Yet the odds of surviving a gun based suicide attempt are much lower than the odds of surviving a suicide attempt with knives or poision.

You can't escape the facts that upwards of half of gun deaths at least in North America are suicides. There is something about gun overship that facilitates people to take a drastic step they wouldn't have otherwise taken.

This is not fear-mongering. This is epidemiology.

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th April 2012, 04:09

You can't escape the facts that upwards of half of gun deaths at least in North America are suicides.

wow
source?

milkmiku

19th April 2012, 11:43

sounds like a legit statistic. why would the fbi lie about this?
anyway...
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/20316.php

i imagined that even defenders of the second amendment would agree that wife beaters shouldnt have guns. thanks for taking the crazy to a whole new level there.

sounds like a legit statistic. why would the fbi lie about this?
anyway...
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/20316.php

i imagined that even defenders of the second amendment would agree that wife beaters shouldnt have guns. thanks for taking the crazy to a whole new level there.

Firs link mentions not guns, of course gun owners are more likel;y to commit a crime on be injured with a fire arm, because they own a gun, just like owning a knife makes it more likely you'd use a knife for that.

Are you implying that I suggested wife beaters be armed? What a nerd.

One factor that you tellingly leave out is suicide.

Gun ownership, and the widespread availability of guns in the United States, Canada, and arguably Scandinavia, leads quite strongly to a high risk of suicide, e.g.,:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

Yes, there are clearly examples of societies with high suicide rates where gun ownership is pretty limited - Japan and South Korea, for example. But when one looks within societies, the evidence that the ownership of guns per se is associated with higher suicides is very robust.

One can quibble with whether suicides are as problematic socially as murders; after all, the extent to which we should intervene in "protecting people from themselves" is a real question. Yet the odds of surviving a gun based suicide attempt are much lower than the odds of surviving a suicide attempt with knives or poision.

You can't escape the facts that upwards of half of gun deaths at least in North America are suicides. There is something about gun overship that facilitates people to take a drastic step they wouldn't have otherwise taken.

This is not fear-mongering. This is epidemiology.

Again, Firearms are just tools, the primary cause for suicide is socitial, thus the Japanese have such a high rate, despite the lack of legal firearms. Correlation is not causation. Deprice them of firme arms, and then people in those areas will start killing themselves in the next "easy" way. Guns owners are more likely to kill themselves with a gun because they own a gun, but not because of the gun.

Just as owning a sword would make it more likely for you to kill yourself or someone with a sword.

l'EnfermÃ©

19th April 2012, 17:29

Come on, we're gonna sink to blaming suicide on gun ownership?

Dr. Rosenpenis

19th April 2012, 20:51

Os Cangaceiros

19th April 2012, 20:59

some people would have you believe that carrying a gun at all times is the safest thing someone can do. what world are you people living in? this shit could not be further from the truth.

let's be honest, we are very unlikely to encounter murderers. people who wanna kill us. we're quite likely on the other hand to have the misfortune of running into someone who would threaten to kill us for something else that they want. when confronted by an armed person demanding something from you, reacting by threatening them is literally the stupidest and most dangerous thing you can do.

virtually everyone that i know has been the victim of a burglary or mugging. i live in a pretty crime ridden city. none of them have ever been killed or injured by their assailants.

*shrug* there are plenty of stories of people who successfully defended themselves with a firearm. That's not even my point, though.

My point is that there's no criminal "code" about letting unarmed people live. It's not that some people really have a burning desire to kill you, it's just that some people don't really have that much of a problem with killing you, here's a good example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy's_massacre

milkmiku

19th April 2012, 23:30

i am yet to see any evidence of how civilian gun ownership is revolutionary or liberating in any way. so in the united states the people are armed. so they have self defense. so they can resist tyranny. really?
americans are the most fucking accommodated people in the world. i am reminded of that episode in 2007 when the pigs tased a student in UF like five times because he was heckling john kerry or something. and everyone just stood idly by and watched. we see police committing unspeakable acts of abuse of power and brutality and all any of you motherfuckers can do is film it on your cellphones. what did the students do in the aftermath against violent police control of academic and student spaces? fuck all.

How can a revolution come about with an unarmed populace? What point is class awareness if the Proletarian is unarmed and incapable of fighting?

As for why we Americans don't do shit when injustice abounds, because of the society we live in has reduced most of the world population into docile sheep. To afraid of the powers that be to do anything other than ***** on the internet. I ask you, what would you have done? Would you have bellowed in potent anger and assaulted the armed officiers with your bare hands?

The phenomenon of sitting idly by while horrible things happen is not an American thing, your dislike of America shows.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DUqVYUzHc5L8

Nations have nothing to do with this disregard towards fellows, it is the Society, the capitalist society that controls this world that is responsible for this.

The firearm liberates the weak from the need of a protector. I've said before, the gun is an equalizer, it allows a 140 pound woman to effectively and quickly put down an attacker twice her size. Mace can fail, Tazers can be to weak. A firearm pointed at your face will make you reconsider what ever choice you made to place yourself in that situation.

The problem is education. The course to acquire a CCW is admittedly short and simple. Threat levels, when to shoot, how to store the firearm and how to insure its safe operation.

MarxSchmarx

20th April 2012, 00:36

Again, Firearms are just tools, the primary cause for suicide is socitial, thus the Japanese have such a high rate, despite the lack of legal firearms. Correlation is not causation. Deprice them of firme arms, and then people in those areas will start killing themselves in the next "easy" way. Guns owners are more likely to kill themselves with a gun because they own a gun, but not because of the gun.

I'm not sure you understand how this works. What this research shows is that if there are two suicidal people, say, Jay and Bob, who live in the same community, hell let's say of the same age and work at the same job, and whatever, and Jay has a gun and Bob does not, then Jay is considerably more likely to kill himself than Bob. Does this mean Jay will always kill himself and Bob will always not kill himself? No. Does it mean there absolutely can't be factors other than guns that drove Jay over the edge but not Bob? Again, no. All of these are possible; but we are dealing in a world of probabilities, not certainties, and a world of likelihood, not mere possibilities.

Let me cast the logic you are using in a different context: "You have no causal pathway to demonstrate how the molecules in cigarrette excite the mutation rate of normal cells that cause cancer. Therefore, any association between smoking and lung cancer is mere correlation, not causation. Therefore, all the studies showing a relationship in fact say nothing about the health effects of smoking."

The research that shows the link between gun ownership and suicied has been done with methods that allow us to get as close as one gets to "ceterus parabus" in studying humans outside of performing a laboratory experiments. Only an ideologue (such as, apparently, yourself) will insist otherwise.

Suicidal people don't just find the "next 'easy' way". When they try to, they often fail at killing themselves and thus don't get counted. You site Japan as an example where people kill themselves anyway. What you don't know is what the suicide rate will be like in contemporary Japan if firearm ownership were much more widespread and guns were easily obtainable by private citizens. If anything, this lack of comparison makes Japan an utterly worthless case study for your argument.

Anyway, you have no serious evidence that people that kill themselves with firearms will do the same without firearms. Piles of careful research studies that have looked at all the usual suspects (income, race, family history, region, etc...) show exactly the opposite. Yet you chose to embrace an explanation that lacks useful evidence over an explanation that has evidence supporting it. Well, to each their own, I suppose.

You can't escape the facts that upwards of half of gun deaths at least in North America are suicides. wow
source?

55% in the US: http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=71736

The statistics are somewhat dated but they were upwards of 80% in Canada:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/res-rec/suicide-eng.htm

milkmiku

20th April 2012, 02:00

The research that shows the link between gun ownership and suicied has been done with methods that allow us to get as close as one gets to "ceterus parabus" in studying humans outside of performing a laboratory experiments. Only an ideologue (such as, apparently, yourself) will insist otherwise.

Suicidal people don't just find the "next 'easy' way". When they try to, they often fail at killing themselves and thus don't get counted. You site Japan as an example where people kill themselves anyway. What you don't know is what the suicide rate will be like in contemporary Japan if firearm ownership were much more widespread and guns were easily obtainable by private citizens. If anything, this lack of comparison makes Japan an utterly worthless case study for your argument.

Anyway, you have no serious evidence that people that kill themselves with firearms will do the same without firearms. Piles of careful research studies that have looked at all the usual suspects (income, race, family history, region, etc...) show exactly the opposite. Yet you chose to embrace an explanation that lacks useful evidence over an explanation that has evidence supporting it. Well, to each their own, I suppose.

I'm sorry, I guess I am an ideologue, I just cannot grasp the idea that by just having a gun, you become more suicidal.

Here is some evidence that people with out access to firearms will still kill themselves at the same rate.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=124796

http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind.exe/iah/online/?IsisScript=iah/iah.xis&src=google&base=ADOLEC&lang=p&nextAction=lnk&exprSearch=12882416&indexSearch=ID

Guns are tools, not a cause for suicide. They just happen to be the most effective tools for such a task so one wanting a quick "painless" death is more liekly to do the deed than slitting a wrist or popping pills.

I'm also interested if they did a study about other methods of suicide, seeing as guns only account for 5% of total attempts. It would be important to see if there was a supposed correlation between the other 95%.

Will owning a knife make me more likely to commit suicide? Guns are only a factor in the method of suicide, not a factor in the cause.

That Haverd study is correct in one thing, Using a gun is more likely to make you successful at suicide.

Dr. Rosenpenis

20th April 2012, 04:12

How can a revolution come about with an unarmed populace? What point is class awareness if the Proletarian is unarmed and incapable of fighting?

As for why we Americans don't do shit when injustice abounds, because of the society we live in has reduced most of the world population into docile sheep. To afraid of the powers that be to do anything other than ***** on the internet. I ask you, what would you have done? Would you have bellowed in potent anger and assaulted the armed officiers with your bare hands?

The phenomenon of sitting idly by while horrible things happen is not an American thing, your dislike of America shows.

http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DUqVYUzHc5L8

Nations have nothing to do with this disregard towards fellows, it is the Society, the capitalist society that controls this world that is responsible for this.

the point i was trying to make is that despite american citizens being armed to the teeth, the state is massively oppressive, violent and the armed populace cower in fear of it. even more so than in other places where state institutions arent as stable and powerful. it has nothing to do with guns. while in fla students get tasered in their own colleges during speaking events, a couple of months ago students at my university gathered in the hundreds to defend two of our classmates who were being arrested for posession of weed. i know it's a shitty "cause", but it was the principle of the thing. after a clash with the pigs, the two students got off with a slap on the wrist and the cops left the campus under a hail of rocks and bricks. subsequently students organized assemblies with literally thousands present to demand the end of police patrol in the campus thru actions like occupations of administrative buildings and strikes.

The firearm liberates the weak from the need of a protector. I've said before, the gun is an equalizer, it allows a 140 pound woman to effectively and quickly put down an attacker twice her size. Mace can fail, Tazers can be to weak. A firearm pointed at your face will make you reconsider what ever choice you made to place yourself in that situation.this all seems nice. but the reality is that guns are generally used as an instrument of the already strong. also, death threats are just not a good way of establishing equal relations of power in civil society.

Franz Fanonipants

20th April 2012, 18:56

why the fuck is self defense an issue?

look, you guys are fucking up if you make this an issue of a woman being assaulted and "IF SHE HAD GUN THIS NOT HAPPEN"

that shit is ridiculous, paternalistic, and kind of crazy

a gun is a tool. it should not be anything other than a tool.

no one advocates for hammers or nails being legal because they can be used to kill people

switch your arguments dummies

Rusty Shackleford

21st April 2012, 10:01

i enjoy target shooting.

i also keep my rifle (useless for anything but target practice and hunting by today's standards) diassembled and locked up. if someone wants to steal it, fucking let them, the bolt and magazine follower/plate/mechanical components are in a different spot and the bolt is fucking dumb. plus its got a cable lock on it.

i imagined whether someone was breaking into my house, and some how i managed to reassemble and load my rifle in time, how would i confront the person?

i couldnt imagine or at least gut the idea of shooting first and asking later(or even shooting at all, unless i was in obvious danger), and the most comfortable position i thought of was just talking the person down.

as for the whole argument.

i dont fucking care really. their role in society has been that of a tool. sure, the primary focus of this tool is death, but what about the knife?