Are people here anti-gun?

[Blanquist]

Just curious. I understand many people are not from the States but those who are, do you oppose the Sec. Ammen.? Others chime in as well please.

I was looking through some back articles in the WSWS and they had some really strong anti-gun stance, which I was really surprised by.

Personally, I don't own a gun, never even held one and don't plan on it.

But I'm not anti- sec. ammen.

[GPDP]

AFAIK most people here are not anti-gun, and many in fact own guns.

I myself also have absolutely no interest in guns, but I am not against gun ownership.

[Ostrinski]

There's a thread on the subject going on already

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-ownership-and-t170376/index.html?t=170376

[Blanquist]

AFAIK most people here are not anti-gun, and many in fact own guns.

I myself also have absolutely no interest in guns, but I am not against gun ownership.

I see. I was just surprised to see the WSWS attack guns from the liberal playbook.

[Zav]

I'm pro-gun as long as long as Capitalism and the State exist, and until such a time as they do not exist I shall own several.

[Blanquist]

There's a thread on the subject going on already

http://www.revleft.com/vb/gun-ownership-and-t170376/index.html?t=170376

Is that the place for right-wingers to post? I really don't care to hear their opinion on this.

[Blanquist]

I'm pro-gun as long as long as Capitalism and the State exist, and until such a time as they do not exist I shall own several.

When exactly would you stop being pro-gun? At what critical point?

[Nox]

I believe people who have proper education/training involving guns should be allowed to have them. It isn't a 'right' to have a gun, it's a privilege, and if you misuse that privilege you should have it revoked.

[Manic Impressive]

I believe people who have proper education/training involving guns should be allowed to have them. It isn't a 'right' to have a gun, it's a privilege, and if you misuse that privilege you should have it revoked.
You mean like Michael Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre) or perhaps Thomas Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre)?

@Blanquist I think I'm the only one who could be called anti gun on here. Or at least the only one who is vocal in my opposition. There used to be more but I think it's a minority of 1 now :D

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

When exactly would you stop being pro-gun? At what critical point?

At the point when the workers' state is threatend by reactionary gunmen.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I support gun ownership for those who want them.

[Prometeo liberado]

You cant have people's militia's without guns. You can't overthrow capitalism without guns. We need them before the revolution and we'll need them after the revolution. Hating the effects of gun violence and wanting it to go away are understandalbe but the genies out of the bottle and all we can do is use it for working class power.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, the "Revolutionary" left is against guns... :lol:

I don't own a gun, tho I might one day. And I can't stand gun worhsip. But I can't stand liberal anti-gun stances. They're entirely illogical and attack the symptom, not the illness.

[Manic Impressive]

Yep I guess guns in the hands of mentally unstable people who go on to massacre children is just one of those cost of doing business things. But hey as long as we can go on shooting paper targets that's a ok :thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

Yep I guess guns in the hands of mentally unstable people who go on to massacre children is just one of those cost of doing business things. But hey as long as we can go on shooting paper targets that's a ok :thumbup1:

As if putting a knife in the hand of the mentally unstable is any better. Going to ban knives too? You know homemade bombs are insanely cheap and easy to make, correct? Or he could just run around stomping on children's heads, no weapon necessary at all.

As I said, these anti gun arguments are illogical and attack the symptom, not the illness.

I hate to use this line; but people can kill people with or without guns.

[Manic Impressive]

but not as effectively as with a gun do you really think that any of the numerous massacres committed by people with licensed fire arms would not have been easily prevented if the assailant had had a knife instead? Would you want to keep predator drones and nuclear bombs around after the revolution as well?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I support those who own guns: after all, when the revolution comes the workers will need means of defending themselves from the bourgeois counter-assault.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A firearm can also be an effective means of self-defense. Ask women who have been able to prevent being raped because they were armed. Ask families whose homes were invaded by a criminal. Manic Impressive would rather workers rely on the hired guns of the bourgeoisie for protection. :rolleyes:

[Manic Impressive]

Nah I've never needed a gun or pigs to protect myself. But I have been stabbed twice once in the stomach and once in the arm. If they'd had a gun instead I wouldn't be posting this right now :)

[RedAtheist]

I'm not against gun ownership in theory, but sometimes the people who want guns seem to be last people who should have them. Do we really want overly-masculine, gay-bashing right wingers running around with guns? I would prefer to give guns to people who recognized that weapons are for protection, not for showing off how manly you are.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I believe people who have proper education/training involving guns should be allowed to have them. It isn't a 'right' to have a gun, it's a privilege, and if you misuse that privilege you should have it revoked.

My sentiments exactly. Owning and operating deadly man-made weapons which come in a variety of brilliant and devastating styles / calibres etc is not the same as a right to life, food, liberty or what have you.

Personally, I loathe the idea of guns and gun ownership, but like religion and football, it's not going anywhere so no point complaining.

[Nox]

You mean like Michael Ryan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerford_massacre) or perhaps Thomas Hamilton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre)?


I guess so. Anyone who commits a crime involving a gun really


Let me make it clear though, I am very pro gun ownership. I definitely agree with the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

[Manic Impressive]

no I was referring to this

"I believe people who have proper education/training involving guns should be allowed to have them."

They both had proper education and training involving guns. They were both legal and licensed gun owners who between them killed almost 30 people many of which were children. But as long as we're agreed that they shouldn't be allowed fire arms after they kill people, at least that's something :)

[RadicalSalad]

I, of course, support gun ownership and free and open training to anyone who wants it.

That being said, I think that the technological level of the military, especially in the first world, is starting to preclude the possibility of a people's militia overthrowing the state. I think the left needs to start focusing more on technological ways of battling.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just curious. I understand many people are not from the States but those who are, do you oppose the Sec. Ammen.? Others chime in as well please.

I was looking through some back articles in the WSWS and they had some really strong anti-gun stance, which I was really surprised by.

Personally, I don't own a gun, never even held one and don't plan on it.

But I'm not anti- sec. ammen.

I'm opposed to the 2nd amendment as well as "gun control" measures. I've never owned (legally or otherwise) any gun.

The 2nd amendment is part of a document based in the needs and interests of capitalism. The idea was part of English rights which came from the need of the protestants (representing the middle class) to protect themselves from counter-revolution by the Catholic monarchy representing the interests of counter-revolutionary feudalism in Europe (aided by Spain and other reactionary powers trying to halt the emergence of this new system). So really the "right to arms" is a class-based right intended for "citizen (land-owning) farmers" to protect the American revolution from usurpation - i.e. a well-regulated militia to be organized if needed.

It wasn't until 2009 or 10 that the Supreme Court finally ruled that the "right to have arms" is an "individual right" not the right to have armed militias to defend the state.

I'm indifferent to efforts to have gun-control because it would mostly result in more policing of urban youth by local police rather than actually cracking down on shady gun shows let alone actually preventing crime. The grain of truth to the "guns don't kill people" slogan is that the tools are secondary to crime, crime is the result of social conditions - but of course the NRA means "guns don't kill people, (bad - probably in their view, black) people do.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You cant have people's militia's without guns. You can't overthrow capitalism without guns. We need them before the revolution and we'll need them after the revolution. Hating the effects of gun violence and wanting it to go away are understandalbe but the genies out of the bottle and all we can do is use it for working class power.You also don't need "gun rights" to get guns during a revolution:D.

But I take your point and I think it's telling that the NRA patron saint, Ronald Regan, was pro-gun control when it meant limiting the ability of black people having access to guns during the time of the Black Panthers, black "ghetto" riots, and police crack-downs on urban black neighborhoods.

[Nox]

no I was referring to this

"I believe people who have proper education/training involving guns should be allowed to have them."

They both had proper education and training involving guns. They were both legal and licensed gun owners who between them killed almost 30 people many of which were children. But as long as we're agreed that they shouldn't be allowed fire arms after they kill people, at least that's something :)

Was it the guns that killed those 30 students? No, it was the people behind those guns. We don't have guns here in Britain, but our murder rate is roughly the same, people just use knives or they get guns illegally.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'm not against guns, but a problem with guns is that even when someone is perfectly educated on them, that doesn't mean they can't snap and go on a killing spree.
Is it a reason to ban guns? No
But I think we should question why a lot of people need/want them more.

[Manic Impressive]

Was it the guns that killed those 30 students? No, it was the people behind those guns. We don't have guns here in Britain, but our murder rate is roughly the same, people just use knives or they get guns illegally.
Well they wouldn't have been able to kill 30 people if they'd been using a knife. Iit was mental illness which led to those killings not capitalism. Dunblane was because the geezer got kicked out of the scouts ffs. This is not a problem that will be solved by ending capitalism. This is a problem with gun ownership and that nobody can predict when someone is going to go on a rampage just because they're pissed off. These guys were probably fine when they got their guns and their licences then suffered from mental illness and shot a load of people. So your point about gun ownership for responsible people is void. A responsible person can go off the rails and go on a killing spree. Like I said before you lot obviously see that as an acceptable side effect, that massacres like these will continue as long as people can still hunt or shoot their paper targets or whatever. It's just a cost of doing business.

Also "our murder rate is roughly the same" same as where I know you don't mean the states, do you?

[Bronco]

Was it the guns that killed those 30 students? No, it was the people behind those guns. We don't have guns here in Britain, but our murder rate is roughly the same, people just use knives or they get guns illegally.

Our murder rate is quite a bit lower than the US and our murder by firearm rate is far lower

I find this a difficult one because obviously in principle I'm against gun control and the State having a monopoly on firearms, but considering the consequences of lax ownership laws it's something I find quite hard to object to. And we've seen those consequences all too frequently as well, it was only a couple of weeks ago that 7 were killed at California University. Such things can and do happen in places that do have stricter regulations of course, as we saw in Toulouse recently, but they're a lot rarer.

[MotherCossack]

at the risk of making a ton of enemies... i am, going to be very frank!.....
guns will be necessary, probably, in a military sense, come this bloody, yeah, bloody political overhaul that we all allude to... yet never seem to approach....
i get that 100%
but beyond that........
i dont get it.....
why are you guys hell bent on possessing these highly dangerous, unecessary add-ons ?
are they like fashion accessories?...... or sex-aids...?
does it produce an addictive high... having one.... ?
is it the equivalent of a big car.... with added spice... cos you know you can blow a guy's brains off.
are you defending your castle????
well ..... i do not get it?.....and to be honest.... it does not impress me.....
in fact.... i tend to associate the whole gun ownership thing with.....
how big a prick do you wanna be..... if that is offensive i apologise.......
i just think that people generally are not mature enough for such power....
and anyway.... why do you need it....
none of you seem to want to answer that!!!
catagorically you would all be better off if there were more controls..... it is not good for your minds to reach for such easy methods of self-determination... i assure you.... and you would feel a lot stronger without them. of that i am equally sure.
hark at me.... silly mother cossack .... taking on the gun lobby singlehanded...
you should all take up dancing in groups....
i know a good one.... it involves dropping onto your ankles in a crouching position.... then straightenimng one leg at a time and hopping from one leg to another. takes a hell of a lot of thigh strength... but worth it....
and another thing.... i am not claiming to be any better than you lot.... i know that if i lived over there.... well i'd be the first to surrender to the intoxicating 'draw'
[ha ha ha] of the sniff of gunpowder.

[bricolage]

I hate to reference michael moore but wasn't a big bit of bowling for columbine him going to canada and looking at how they are pretty similar gun laws to the US but far lower murder rates? in that respect lax laws didn't lead to increased crime. can't remember it too well though.

the UK and US is an interesting one, in terms of burglary, robbery and rape the rates per capita are higher here than america, in terms of murder much lower. in most ways london is more dangerous the new york, certainly in terms of being a victim of a crime from someone you don't already know. but likewise (I think) you are less likely to be killed.

the argument that we should all fight for gun ownership to prevent the state having a monopoly on firearms in correct in itself however I think it leads to the wrong conclusions. whilst its theoretically true I'm sorry but however many guns you get aren't gonna be any use against the firepower of the state. the only way to combat that is mutinies amongst soldiers and other military personnel (to a lesser extent you could argue cops: I don't). people can reference say the vietcong but that was on territory specifically suited to themselves and an army out of its depth, I'm pretty sure the US could pacify the US in a way it couldn't vietnam. likewise iraq, afghanistan and so forth. for sure you could have temporary revolts and probably even take control of cities but once the tanks start rolling in I don't think its sustainable.

jimmie higgins made some good points about what the NRA means by 'guns don't kill people' and also about what gun control means (policing of urban youth). I'd agree with him in being indifferent to gun control but I'd add I'm also indifferent to gun ownership. politically I think the whole thing is a distraction from the simple fact that, primarily, revolution (if it is to be anything approaching what we mean by revolution) is not a military affair.

but hey if you wanna shoot rifles in the mountains that sounds pretty fun!

[RadicalSalad]

I am, of course, in support of people having guns and free and open training for all.

That being said, I think that the technological advancement of the military, especially in the first world, has been so great that people's militias stand very little chance of overthrowing the state. I think the only hope would be military defectors or using technology as the primary weapon.

[kashkin]

Re getting guns for the revolution, I thought the revolution was to be more than just a civil war or violent conflict. Obviously it is quite likely that such a struggle will be necessary, but isn't the main weapon of the working class was their ability to stop production and profits.

That said, I am ambivalent to gun ownership.

[Manic Impressive]

A firearm can also be an effective means of self-defense. Ask women who have been able to prevent being raped because they were armed.
Is it not actually escalating the situation if someone is attacking you and you pull a weapon and they overpower you and use the weapon against you. That could potentially lead from a violent assault turning into a murder. The other question is do rapists deserve the death penalty? I assume you're talking about pulling a gun and shooting the attacker dead. I'm personally against the death penalty in any form.


Ask families whose homes were invaded by a criminal.
Death penalty for burglars too? And are you advocating using lethal force to protect private property. Personally nothing I own is worth taking someone's life over. As I understand that they are probably forced into that action by the capitalist system.


Manic Impressive would rather workers rely on the hired guns of the bourgeoisie for protection. :rolleyes:
That's a very silly strawman. Honestly Danielle I expect better from you.:(

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Is it not actually escalating the situation if someone is attacking you and you pull a weapon and they overpower you and use the weapon against you.
That's why you don't pull a firearm unless it's absolutely necessary, and if you do, you have to aim for center mass and pull the trigger. But you have to be sure that you're in imminent danger and who you're shooting at.


The other question is do rapists deserve the death penalty? I assume you're talking about pulling a gun and shooting the attacker dead. I'm personally against the death penalty in any form.
Is self-defense the same thing as a death penalty via the state? I don't think it is.


Death penalty for burglars too? And are you advocating using lethal force to protect private property.
I'm advocating lethal force only if necessary to protect yourself or someone else from physical harm.


That's a very silly strawman. Honestly Danielle I expect better from you.
It was less a strawman and more pure snark, but it was uncalled for and I'm sorry for it.

[Offbeat]

We don't have guns here in Britain, but our murder rate is roughly the same, people just use knives or they get guns illegally.
Both those incidents Manic was referring to happened in Britain. Also I'm sure you remember quite recently Derrick Bird shot a load of people in Cumbria, he was licensed too.

Having said that, I'm not against gun ownership, because as you say, people will always find a way to get hold of them or else use a different method to kill people, whether its knives, bombs or something else.

[The Douche]

Manic, do you really think that making guns illegal will end violent crime? Do you think it will end the existence of firearms?

What you're suggesting is that you know how to keep people safe, and they should surrender some element of their autonomy to you, because you know better than them.

People use guns to kill people, thats true, and guns are probably the most efficient way for any regular person to kill people. And sometimes (not to often, but sometimes) people who got their guns legally, and who have no prior history of violence, use their guns to kill innocent people. And that is a tragedy, but how does the banning of guns prevent tragedies? It only reduces them, and it won't even prevent gun violence, as I could make a gun with the items sitting in the backroom of my workplace right now.

There are social issues that relate to violence (be it the poverty that creates violence like gang crimes, or the alienation that creates mental instability leading to gunman events).

[piet11111]

at the risk of making a ton of enemies... i am, going to be very frank!.....
guns will be necessary, probably, in a military sense, come this bloody, yeah, bloody political overhaul that we all allude to... yet never seem to approach....
i get that 100%
but beyond that........
i dont get it.....
why are you guys hell bent on possessing these highly dangerous, unecessary add-ons ?
are they like fashion accessories?...... or sex-aids...?
does it produce an addictive high... having one.... ?
is it the equivalent of a big car.... with added spice... cos you know you can blow a guy's brains off.
are you defending your castle????
well ..... i do not get it?.....and to be honest.... it does not impress me.....
in fact.... i tend to associate the whole gun ownership thing with.....
how big a prick do you wanna be..... if that is offensive i apologise.......
i just think that people generally are not mature enough for such power....
and anyway.... why do you need it....
none of you seem to want to answer that!!!
catagorically you would all be better off if there were more controls..... it is not good for your minds to reach for such easy methods of self-determination... i assure you.... and you would feel a lot stronger without them. of that i am equally sure.
hark at me.... silly mother cossack .... taking on the gun lobby singlehanded...
you should all take up dancing in groups....
i know a good one.... it involves dropping onto your ankles in a crouching position.... then straightenimng one leg at a time and hopping from one leg to another. takes a hell of a lot of thigh strength... but worth it....
and another thing.... i am not claiming to be any better than you lot.... i know that if i lived over there.... well i'd be the first to surrender to the intoxicating 'draw'
[ha ha ha] of the sniff of gunpowder.

For me i just like to shoot paper targets from as large a distance as i can manage and try to improve my score using one of these.

http://airgun-academy.pyramydair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/03-01-11-10-hw50s-air-rifle.jpg

Now i don't know about you but an air rifle like that really doesn't make me feel macho.

Though i would like to be able to use an antique bolt action rifle on a gunrange for some really long distance shooting of bottles.

[Manic Impressive]

Manic, do you really think that making guns illegal will end violent crime?
Never said that, in fact quite the opposite. I'm saying that one of the the most effective ways of killing people will become redundant just like nukes and predator drones. The only reason to keep them around is for fun, but the cost of that fun in human lives is not worth paying.


Do you think it will end the existence of firearms?I think ending capitalism will dramatically reduce the need for guns, the need to protect yourself from robbery or violent crime. The only reason to keep guns around will be for leisure activities or unless you intended on killing someone.


What you're suggesting is that you know how to keep people safe, and they should surrender some element of their autonomy to you, because you know better than them. Just like any tool which ceases to have a use they will eventually fall into disrepair and cease to be made. I mean people are already talking about a day when printed books will become obsolete and everything will become digital. Now some people find that really sad while others see it as progress. But it's just a form of one tool which may be becoming obsolete. What I find most disturbing and bizarre is peoples fetishism or obsession with guns or to put it another way how much they care and how emotional they get when someone disagrees. Like it's me personally who is going to come round their house and cut off one of their arms. It's just a tool, which nobody has an inaliable right to keep. I think this is largely a cultural question and the difference in cultures plays a huge role in this. For instance hunting in the UK was mainly the domain of the very wealthy. So it was great for most people when they banned it. Whereas the US due to it's size has always been a much more agrarian country where hunting is the pursuit of much of the working class. But still that need will dissipate when the use value is removed. I think the need and love of guns is a cultural one and as we know cultures can change when faced with different material conditions sometimes quickly as we've seen in the last 60 years. It's quite incredible that people don't think that gun culture can change as well in a society which has lost all need for it. I think that speaks to how deeply ingrained it is in American society.

I think I've said all I need to say on this. I personally don't care that much it's just an interesting debate and it's kinda fun arguing a minority position . But last time it went to over 500 posts with only me defending that position and I'm not willing to put the time and effort into doing that again. :)

[Os Cangaceiros]

Just like any tool which ceases to have a use they will eventually fall into disrepair and cease to be made. I mean people are already talking about a day when printed books will become obsolete and everything will become digital. Now some people find that really sad while others see it as progress. But it's just a form of one tool which may be becoming obsolete. What I find most disturbing and bizarre is peoples fetishism or obsession with guns or to put it another way how much they care and how emotional they get when someone disagrees. Like it's me personally who is going to come round their house and cut off one of their arms. It's just a tool, which nobody has an inaliable right to keep. I think this is largely a cultural question and the difference in cultures plays a huge role in this. For instance hunting in the UK was mainly the domain of the very wealthy. So it was great for most people when they banned it. Whereas the US due to it's size has always been a much more agrarian country where hunting is the pursuit of much of the working class. But still that need will dissipate when the use value is removed. I think the need and love of guns is a cultural one and as we know cultures can change when faced with different material conditions sometimes quickly as we've seen in the last 60 years. It's quite incredible that people don't think that gun culture can change as well in a society which has lost all need for it. I think that speaks to how deeply ingrained it is in American society.

I pretty much disagree with what you've said, but I think this part is mostly true.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I do not oppose the second amendment though I think in terms of class struggle and so on it's ultimately irrelevant. I own several firearms (Mosin-Nagant rifle, several revolvers [fuck jamming clips] and so on) and believe it's a right just as food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, etc. are rights which should be shared and enjoyed by everyone.

I don't see how you can support worker unity and the class struggle and be anti-gun.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Manic Impressive, I'm with you on this one...I think. I've grown up in a liberal Canadian home and the only time I've ever seen guns is cops with them in their holsters. I've never needed a gun before and can't imagine why, after the revolution, anyone would need them.

That and it just seems very simple, straightforward logic that fewer guns around = fewer gun deaths (whether by accidents or murders)! Where there are guns, if a seemingly "normal" person snaps and attacks innocent people at a school, for instance, that person can do a lot more damage.

On the flip side, though, the idea that only the army and police are "responsible" enough to use guns is, well, elitist liberal crap. If the weapons of the masses are pointed in the wrong direction (i.e. at each other!), the solution would not be, I think, to disarm the masses.

Then there's the issue of people being shot or otherwise attacked by cops...

Of course if the manufacturing of guns, at least as weaponry, were to stop, that would only be after capitalism has long been overthrown and production directed more rationally.

Maybe this thread will show me which was is up, but I'm all over the place on this issue. :P

EDIT: This is mostly out of curiosity, but I thought of it while reading an article earlier about the Breivik trial. Does anyone know what Norwegian gun laws are like?

[Azraella]

Some thoughts...

I am also "anti-gun", however I also realize that it is impossible and unfeasible to expect everyone to give up guns. I'd rather work to create a society where guns and violence aren't needed or desirable and both are seen as immoral and wrong. We are NOT at that point at all. Perhaps at some point in the future we can live without guns and violence but we simply can't at this point. Another point: I also doubt the revolution will be kumbiyah either, so there's that.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

No way broski, I own several and am totally pro gun

[Manic Impressive]

On the flip side, though, the idea that only the army and police are "responsible" enough to use guns is, well, elitist liberal crap. If the weapons of the masses are pointed in the wrong direction (i.e. at each other!), the solution would not be, I think, to disarm the masses.

Then there's the issue of people being shot or otherwise attacked by cops...

Just to clarify this is the point I was trying to make about the police. The police carrying guns is justified in societies which have liberal gun law by the fact that so many people own guns. In their eyes the police need the guns because everyone else has them. In the UK only specialised units have guns, if all the pigs had guns then I would think that the working class would then be justified in taking up arms. The two opposing forces justify the carrying of guns to each other by the fact that the other side is armed.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say about the cops

[The Intransigent Faction]

Just to clarify this is the point I was trying to make about the police. The police carrying guns is justified in societies which have liberal gun law by the fact that so many people own guns. In their eyes the police need the guns because everyone else has them. In the UK only specialised units have guns, if all the pigs had guns then I would think that the working class would then be justified in taking up arms. The two opposing forces justify the carrying of guns to each other by the fact that the other side is armed.

I hope that clarifies what I was trying to say about the cops

Sort of...They do have guns in Canada, and whatever the original justification, they wouldn't give them up now even if the entire North American population disarmed in front of their eyes.

[Manic Impressive]

Sort of...They do have guns in Canada, and whatever the original justification, they wouldn't give them up now even if the entire North American population disarmed in front of their eyes.
It happened in the UK cops used to carry guns, guns got banned, cops were for the most part disarmed.

[Avocado]

Guns help cause massive problems in society. I am against gun ownership (and the death penalty)

[The Intransigent Faction]

It happened in the UK cops used to carry guns, guns got banned, cops were for the most part disarmed.

OK, but again, doesn't mean it would go that way in Canada or the U.S.

[piet11111]

Guns help cause massive problems in society.

So do knives and cars hell the nanny state is trying to ban glass in bars lest someone get stabbed in the face with a broken glass.

[Manic Impressive]

being stabbed in the face =/= being shot in the face

[piet11111]

being stabbed in the face =/= being shot in the face

Its similar in the level of violence used against another person and the gun/broken glass is just the tool used to make it happen.

Its a slippery slope if you ban the most dangerous weapon as after guns you will have to ban knives then tools like screwdrivers and you can go on and on.

[Princess Luna]

It happened in the UK cops used to carry guns, guns got banned, cops were for the most part disarmed.
There is no way in hell this will ever happen in the US, police unions and politicians would flip a shit at even the suggestion on dis-arming cops, also the media would no doubt start spewing hyperbolic stories about how drug cartels are "going to take over America" if cops are dis-armed. Also the current trend in America is the exact opposite of England, with police becoming more and more militarized. Right now I am less worried about an average police officer carrying a handgun, and more concerned with police officers carrying assault rifles and riding around in $300,000 armed cars.

[danyboy27]

Even in the best cases there will still be reactionary and crazy peoples willing to kill us. if they cant get their hand on rifle, they will make it themselves anyway.


and what about hunting? and what about all those folks living in Rural and isolated area trying to protect themselves against polar bear or wolves?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A firearm can also be an effective means of self-defense. Ask women who have been able to prevent being raped because they were armed. Ask families whose homes were invaded by a criminal. Manic Impressive would rather workers rely on the hired guns of the bourgeoisie for protection. :rolleyes:

already got three threads going about the same thing!

my home has been invaded by burglars two times. once by armed burglars. nobody resisted, they didnt even take anything, nobody got hurt.

to be honest i trust the bourgeois state with guns more than i trust bourgeois individuals with guns, who are very often less scrupulous, less trained, more arbitrary and more crazy. in the united states, more workers are killed by other civilians than by the state in firearm related deaths fyi.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

the nanny state

o dear

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

to be honest i trust the bourgeois state with guns more than i trust bourgeois individuals with guns, who are very often less scrupulous, less trained, more arbitrary and more crazy. in the united states, more workers are killed by other civilians than by the state in firearm related deaths fyi.

I don't like the idea of my own personal safety being in the hands of state dogs whom, are in large part, ineffective. Not to mention, law enforcement under capitalism is basically a funny way of saying "clean up crew." I'm not going to trust the bourgeoisie, at all, especially in regards to guns and my own safety.

[Philosopher Jay]

The murder rate in the United States is 4.8 per 100,000 people. In the United Kingdom it is 1.23. See intentional homicide rates
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) If the United States adopted the gun control restrictions in the United Kingdom, over 10,000 lives would be saved per year.
Most of those 10,000 dead people are from the working class. The demand for strict gun control laws should be a demand of any rational communist party.

[X5N]

The whole "ban all guns (except for the police and military)" thing seems like a silly liberal thing to me, and it would be naive for a radical leftist to support that sort of thing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The murder rate in the United States is 4.8 per 100,000 people. In the United Kingdom it is 1.23. See intentional homicide rates
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) If the United States adopted the gun control restrictions in the United Kingdom, over 10,000 lives would be saved per year.
Most of those 10,000 dead people are from the working class. The demand for strict gun control laws should be a demand of any rational communist party.

Why is Switzerland never mentioned in your post or any of the anti-gun studies?

[The Intransigent Faction]

Even in the best cases there will still be reactionary and crazy peoples willing to kill us.

That's "probably" true, though they will be few relative to the mass of people in any revolution with potential.


if they cant get their hand on rifle, they will make it themselves anyway.

Making a rifle from scratch seems to me like it would be a hell of a lot harder and set of some alarm bells in the neighbourhood, but hey, what do I know?


and what about hunting? and what about all those folks living in Rural and isolated area trying to protect themselves against polar bear or wolves?

The revolution will be led by the urban proletariat in cities anyway. :p
But seriously, what about hunting? For one thing, you don't need semi-automatic weapons for that.
As for the rest I'll leave that for someone who's had to protect themselves from wolves/polar bears to answer, but I'm not educated enough on this issue to know for sure if guns are the only/best/most humane way of handling those situations.

[Sasha]

I'm pro responsible weapon possession, if you live in a urban environment guns should be licensed like cars and other "dangerous to others" tools are...

[Lanky Wanker]

I'm 50/50 on this. Sure, they're great for revolution and whatnot, but we're hardly in a position to start a revolution right now, and in the meantime they're being used mostly to kill people for no justified reason. That said, you could use anything to kill someone, but we do have to draw the line somewhere, as we can't start selling people explosives just because they can make homemade ones anyway. Would a revolution not have military support anyway to supply people with guns?

[Raúl Duke]

Just curious. I understand many people are not from the States but those who are, do you oppose the Sec. Ammen.? Others chime in as well please.

I was looking through some back articles in the WSWS and they had some really strong anti-gun stance, which I was really surprised by.

Personally, I don't own a gun, never even held one and don't plan on it.

But I'm not anti- sec. ammen.

I don't own any guns, wouldn't mind owning one if I had a reason to (such as for hunting/recreation).

I don't care much about "gun laws," whether they're lax or harsh, although in general I prefer if they were not strict (and in general I would prefer if people had the right to own them).

In other words, I'm far from "anti-gun" but I'm not the kind of person who would belong to the NRA and be foaming at the mouth over new gun laws.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Just curious. I understand many people are not from the States but those who are, do you oppose the Sec. Ammen.? Others chime in as well please.

i am indeed not from the united states but i do think that your entire constitution is shite. including but not limited to the second amendment.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The whole "ban all guns (except for the police and military)" thing seems like a silly liberal thing to me, and it would be naive for a radical leftist to support that sort of thing.

wanton violence -- how radical

[Manic Impressive]

I'm pro responsible weapon possession, if you live in a urban environment guns should be licensed like cars and other "dangerous to others" tools are...
what's the logic behind that? Is there any proof that licensed gun owners cause less deaths than non licensed gun owners. Because I see plenty of examples where licensed gun owners have gone on rampages killing as many people as they can. I don't see how having a license drastically improves the situation.

[RedZezz]

Just curious. I understand many people are not from the States but those who are, do you oppose the Sec. Ammen.? Others chime in as well please.

I was looking through some back articles in the WSWS and they had some really strong anti-gun stance, which I was really surprised by.

Personally, I don't own a gun, never even held one and don't plan on it.

But I'm not anti- sec. ammen.

Yes, I am also a bit suprised on their "anti-gun" stance, which is an issue I disagree with them on. I do not really consider myself "pro-second amendment", but I am in favor of the armed working class.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Making a rifle from scratch seems to me like it would be a hell of a lot harder and set of some alarm bells in the neighbourhood, but hey, what do I know?

True but making explosives is a peace of cake and drastically less harmful.


what's the logic behind that? Is there any proof that licensed gun owners cause less deaths than non licensed gun owners. Because I see plenty of examples where licensed gun owners have gone on rampages killing as many people as they can. I don't see how having a license drastically improves the situation.

Licensing would entail something like the Brady Handgun Act which screens potential firearm customers for criminal history, psychological history, etc. and has lead to a decrease in firearm related fatalities, so, yeah, it works.

Edit: guns don't kill people, cops kill people.

[Sasha]

what's the logic behind that? Is there any proof that licensed gun owners cause less deaths than non licensed gun owners. Because I see plenty of examples where licensed gun owners have gone on rampages killing as many people as they can. I don't see how having a license drastically improves the situation.

Medical and psychiatric check, a test to proof your capabable of handling a gun safely, regular checks you lock your guns up in a suitable vault, over here if you dont train often enough on the range you are not allowed to keep your weapon anymore at home, I would not oppose that if in a post revolutionary society that is retained, if owners are in psychiatric need or irresponsible their license should be able to be suspended or even ultimately revoked. And I could imagine society deciding that if you have underage kids in your house you need to keep your weapon on the club. Oh, and compulsory primary, secondary and high school lessons in gun safety just like they get traffic safety lessons now.

Note, I think the default should be yes,any one of age can own guns. It's just that with great power comes great responsibility.

And no, your right, you can never completely prevent someone from snapping and going on a rampage, but you can minimise the times it happens and you can definitely make dramatic situations where 8 year old kids shoot their playmates or bring their parents guns to school like regularly happen in the US a almost impossibility.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Well they wouldn't have been able to kill 30 people if they'd been using a knife. Iit was mental illness which led to those killings not capitalism. Dunblane was because the geezer got kicked out of the scouts ffs. This is not a problem that will be solved by ending capitalism. This is a problem with gun ownership and that nobody can predict when someone is going to go on a rampage just because they're pissed off. These guys were probably fine when they got their guns and their licences then suffered from mental illness and shot a load of people. So your point about gun ownership for responsible people is void. A responsible person can go off the rails and go on a killing spree. Like I said before you lot obviously see that as an acceptable side effect, that massacres like these will continue as long as people can still hunt or shoot their paper targets or whatever. It's just a cost of doing business.

Also "our murder rate is roughly the same" same as where I know you don't mean the states, do you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

UK has 4 times the amount of violent crime. As for murder rates I don't know exactly. Remember that a lot of the time anti-gun articles will try to use homicides but a homicide can be just.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Is it not actually escalating the situation if someone is attacking you and you pull a weapon and they overpower you and use the weapon against you. That could potentially lead from a violent assault turning into a murder. The other question is do rapists deserve the death penalty? I assume you're talking about pulling a gun and shooting the attacker dead. I'm personally against the death penalty in any form.


Death penalty for burglars too? And are you advocating using lethal force to protect private property. Personally nothing I own is worth taking someone's life over. As I understand that they are probably forced into that action by the capitalist system.


That's a very silly strawman. Honestly Danielle I expect better from you.:(
Oh my, those are some high and mighty theoretical situations. It's fine and dandy to think you have pure ethics and you wouldn't take a life because that is the most precious thing in the world but it is not a realistic world view.

Should rapists get the death penalty on the spot? Yes
Should violent home invaders get a death penalty on the spot? Yes

These people intend to do you harm. You don't know if it will just end at rape or beating you up and taking your stuff. I live in the real world and I am glad that I have the ability to be ready for someone coming to do me harm.

[Devrim]

We don't have guns here in Britain, but our murder rate is roughly the same, people just use knives or they get guns illegally.

Are you saying the UK murder rate is roughly the same as the US one? It is not. It is about four times lower.

Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

The murder rate in the United States is 4.8 per 100,000 people. In the United Kingdom it is 1.23. See intentional homicide rates
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) If the United States adopted the gun control restrictions in the United Kingdom, over 10,000 lives would be saved per year.
Most of those 10,000 dead people are from the working class. The demand for strict gun control laws should be a demand of any rational communist party.

Homicide is not murder. Try to find a better study. We want murder rates and assault with a deadly weapon.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Are you saying the UK murder rate is roughly the same as the US one? It is not. It is about four times lower.

Devrim

Let's see some numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was higher but it would be nice to see murder rate not homicide rate.

[Chicano Shamrock]

what's the logic behind that? Is there any proof that licensed gun owners cause less deaths than non licensed gun owners. Because I see plenty of examples where licensed gun owners have gone on rampages killing as many people as they can. I don't see how having a license drastically improves the situation.

That's completely made up in your head. You have no numbers to back that up. I would say gang violence is likely to account for a good portion of murders. I grew up in LA and have been around a lot of gang members with guns. I have never met one gang member with a registered gun.

[Devrim]

Let's see some numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if the US was higher but it would be nice to see murder rate not homicide rate.

Murder and intentional homicide are the same thing, as far as I know. What do you think the difference is?

Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

Murder and intentional homicide are the same thing, as far as I know. What do you think the difference is?

Devrim

If someone is strangling my mother to death and I kill them to stop their action I have just committed a homicide. It is a legal homicide but it will still show up in statistics.

Also here in the states involuntary manslaughter, like accidentally killing someone while drunk driving, would show up in those statistics. A lot of homicides really have nothing to do with what we are talking about which is why murder rates are actually what we need to have a discussion about international violent crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

[Devrim]

If someone is strangling my mother to death and I kill them to stop their action I have just committed a homicide. It is a legal homicide but it will still show up in statistics.

Also here in the states involuntary manslaughter, like accidentally killing someone while drunk driving, would show up in those statistics. A lot of homicides really have nothing to do with what we are talking about which is why murder rates are actually what we need to have a discussion about international violent crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

And the difference between intentional homicide and murder is? Involuntary manslaughter would surely not be included in intentional homicide.

Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

And the difference between intentional homicide and murder is? Involuntary manslaughter would surely not be included in intentional homicide.

Devrim
A murder is killing an innocent person. A voluntary homicide could be someone defending their or someone else's life or defending against a rape.

[Devrim]

A murder is killing an innocent person. A voluntary homicide could be someone defending their or someone else's life or defending against a rape.

Er...no it isn't.

Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

Er...no it isn't.

Devrim

Ok I don't know what to tell you if you don't want to agree with the true definition of things. I tried to tell you the difference between stats and how one doesn't necessarily associate with violent crime but I don't need to talk with you if you don't want to accept the english language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Oh, and compulsory primary, secondary and high school lessons in gun safety just like they get traffic safety lessons now.

lol what?



Should rapists get the death penalty on the spot? Yes
Should violent home invaders get a death penalty on the spot? Yes

These people intend to do you harm. You don't know if it will just end at rape or beating you up and taking your stuff. I live in the real world and I am glad that I have the ability to be ready for someone coming to do me harm.

i dont even know what to say to you people.
self defense with deadly force is still self defense. and not "death penalty". and obviously it shouldnt be used against all criminals that's absolutely fucking absurd you people are off your hinges. if everyone killed everyone who they witnessed committing a crime we would all be mass murderers. i also live in the real world were crime is routine and constantly present. the other day i gave a beggar some change, he saw that i had more money and threatened to stab me if i didnt give it to him. he didnt actually have a weapon. should i have killed the guy if i had a gun? if he did have a weapon should i have killed him rather than handing him some money? some fucking money?

do you support the actual judicial capital punishment in the united states? murder at the hands of the notoriously racist borderline genocidal american judicial system? is this what youre defending?

[Franz Fanonipants]

itt anarchist addiction to reactionary violence revealed

[Art Vandelay]

There have been a few gun threads lately and I am pretty sure they have been some of the worst threads that we have. No consensus will be reached, just drop it. On top of that, it is not our job to figure out how communist communities will organize themselves; there will most likely be pro and anti gun communities.

[Martin Blank]

I've been a gun owner for a long time; I have an AK, an SKS, a Sig and a M1911, and I have taken gun safety classes (though mainly for the formal acknowledgement; I already knew how to handle firearms safely). I am both pro-Second Amendment and pro-individual gun ownership.

I am pro-Second Amendment because I am of the firm opinion that, in a period preceding a revolution, the working class will need its own "well-regulated militia" to act as a self-defense force. There will be a need to repel attacks by the capitalist state, private security and mercenaries (e.g., Xe), armed fascist gangs, and reactionaries in general. There will also be a need to defend a revolution from Day One, so having trained, drilled and organized workers' militia will be a necessity ... no matter how peaceful the actual revolution may be.

I am pro-individual gun ownership because, in the event of a rapidly-developing revolutionary situation, or even just a social upheaval (e.g., Detroit 1967, Los Angeles 1992), individual gun ownership can become a "force multiplier", since workers will be able to provide their own weapons in the event of armed class struggle.

I am also a firm believer that gun owners should be properly trained in both use and safety, with past military experience being the only exception allowed.

To those who favor any kind of strict "gun control", I hope you realize that this would only really affect the working class, since the state will still be armed to the teeth, criminals will still get them just as they do now, and fascists and other reactionary elements will continue to receive them from sympathetic members of the state.

If I'm going to be a target of the ruling classes and their armed agents, both public and private, I want the ability to shoot back in self-defense.