Gun Control. [Archive]

passenger57

25th July 2012, 05:59

Hi, well according to the marxist writter Ted Grant the workers should be armed. However it was an article that he wrote which is published in his site tedgrant.org about the need of working class being armed in order to defeat fascism in the time of Adolf Hitler. But, however I don't know if that situation can be applied to the current US situation.

However hate, evil, immorality and physical abuses and crimes among americans might be lower in a society with limited access to weapons. However hate and evil is still hate and evil, even in a society without guns. There are people that can kill you with their unfriendly faces and lack of love. I think that the best way to lower crime rates in USA is not really by banning guns. Banning guns is like a bandaid on a real bad wound. What USA needs is the total destruction of the egocentrical ultra-individualist paradigm and philosophy of life, to be replaced by a cooperative, united, collective, mutualist, loving way of life, another totally different paradigm in which americans wouldn't only love their own families, but strangers as well. Just like the John Lennon song "Imagine"

Because without guns and with the current Ayn Rand ultra-individualist american way of life, there will still be verbal abuses, psychological abuses and even crimes. People will find knives, bats and other types of weapons to hurt each other. Because the current American way of living does indeed stimulate hate.

We would need a total different urban planning, a radical revolution in the transportation of USA from less egocentric narcissist types of transport like the SUVs and cars, and more buses, more trains and other radical changes as well

Thanks

.

Well as I'm sure most of us expected the recent tragedy in Colorado has rekindled the debate about gun laws in the U.S. It is very easy to get guns in the U.S. I was wondering where you all stand on the issue? I don't think we should ban all guns, but I really see no reason to own an assault rifle. I've heard some socialist argue that if a revolution were to happen, assault rifles could be useful, but honestly most other countries can't stand against the U.S. military. Any revolution would have to win them over anyway, making the point about individuals owning assault rifles moot. Anyway, what do you all think?

Brosa Luxemburg

25th July 2012, 06:03

passenger57

25th July 2012, 06:14

Brosa: wow indeed you are totally right. I think that what the whole USA needs is really none other than pure love. Even the Bible says that love can conquer evil. There is too much mechanical behaviour patterns in America. Americans have been trained and educated too rationally, too mechanical. Life for the majority of americans is too psychorigid, too lonely. The american way of life is totally devoid of hugs, pads in the back, hand-shakes. In fact many americans are so neurotic that they hate shaking hands with others because of the extreme fear of germs. Man people in this country need a lot more love, specially children

Take a look at these beautiful lyrics about the need of loving children and people a lot more.

THE CHILDREN OF SANCHEZ BY CHUCK MANGIONE

Without dreams of hope and pride a man will die, though his flesh still moves his heart sleeps in the grave. Without land man never dreams cause he's not free, all men need a place to live with dignity. Take the crumbs from starving soldiers, they won't die. Lord said not by bread alone does man survive. Take the food from hungry children, they won't cry, food alone won't ease the hunger in their eyes.

Every child belongs to mankind's family. Children are the fruit of all humanity. Let them feel the love of all the human race, touch them with the warmth, the strength of that embrace. Give me love and understanding, i will thrive. As my children grow my dreams come alive. Those who hear the cries of children. God will bless, I will always hear the children of sánchez.

.

Also something that I think was overlooked (and, as much as I despise Michael Moore's liberalism and fake anti-capitalism he was right on this) is the culture that we create for kids that helps foster the whole "school shooting" motives. I mean, there are tests now for kindergardeners for them to get "into the right school" and shit. The parents, teachers, etc. pound the idea in these kids, all the way to high school, that if they fuck up on any of these admission tests, etc. then their entire lives will be forever fucked up, etc. It instill's the ideas in these kids that if they are a fuck up now, they will be a fuck up forever. If instill's the idea that high school, middle school, etc. decides what type of person they are and will forever be. Then, these same parents, teachers, etc. just "can't understand" why these kids kill themselves, shoot up their schools, etc.

eric922

25th July 2012, 06:17

Also something that I think was overlooked (and, as much as I despise Michael Moore's liberalism and fake anti-capitalism he was right on this) is the culture that we create for kids that helps foster the whole "school shooting" motives. I mean, there are tests now for kindergardeners for them to get "into the right school" and shit. The parents, teachers, etc. pound the idea in these kids, all the way to high school, that if they fuck up on any of these admission tests, etc. then their entire lives will be forever fucked up, etc. It instill's the ideas in these kids that if they are a fuck up now, they will be a fuck up forever. If instill's the idea that high school, middle school, etc. decides what type of person they are and will forever be. Then, these same parents, teachers, etc. just "can't understand" why these kids kill themselves, shoot up their schools, etc.
Ugh our whole education system is a recipe for disaster. Aside from the problems you've mentioned, these tests are an awful way to teach. Every teacher I've talked to despises these standardized tests, but they have to teach for them. It's gotten to the point where students aren't taught to think, but simply memorize facts and figures. Perhaps that's what the capitalists want, a class of people educated just enough to run the machines, but one that isn't given the tools to ever question the system.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

25th July 2012, 06:20

Jimmie Higgins

25th July 2012, 08:30

Well as I'm sure most of us expected the recent tragedy in Colorado has rekindled the debate about gun laws in the U.S. It is very easy to get guns in the U.S. I was wondering where you all stand on the issue? I don't think we should ban all guns, but I really see no reason to own an assault rifle. I've heard some socialist argue that if a revolution were to happen, assault rifles could be useful, but honestly most other countries can't stand against the U.S. military. Any revolution would have to win them over anyway, making the point about individuals owning assault rifles moot. Anyway, what do you all think?

I don't necessarily disagree which your points here and while I do not support gun restrictions I also don't prioritize making a point to protest it in present conditions.

As to the point about guns and uprisings: working class power is in our connection to production and place within it - this will need to be the main way we achieve power. There will likely be violence from the ruling class, but I agree that it won't be like we can match them in a conventional war - we will have to use a combination of tactics as well as try and create dissent within the military. However, as we can see in past high-level class struggles or even mass popular struggles like in Egypt, there is an important, if auxiliary role, for revolutionary violence and self defense. Workers may not fight army to army, but they may have to fight against the police or right-wing paramilitaries or fascists and so on.

Jimmie Higgins

25th July 2012, 08:35

I do not support gun control.

God, you know I hate rightist rhetoric, but I gotta say the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is correct.Agreed. Of course when they mean it they imply "iduviduals" -- bad ones -- kill people. I think a revo twist would be "Guns don't kill people, capitalism (inequality, instability, competition, stress, alienation, poverty, imperialist war, racism) does"

Blake's Baby

25th July 2012, 14:37

So why are Americans 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than Brits, for example? Is that nothing to do with the availability of guns?

La GuaneÃ±a

25th July 2012, 15:03

Gun control means using both hands, right? http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/Smilies/emot-v.gif

Actually, it means good trigger discipline, breathing out slowly and squeezing the trigger. :cool:

Vanguard1917

25th July 2012, 15:14

So why are Americans 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than Brits, for example? Is that nothing to do with the availability of guns?

From an article today (http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12673/), on the issue of the correlation between gun availability and homicide rates:

crime rate and the availability of weapons are not correlated in any meaningful way. It is true that firearms-related homicides are much higher in the United States compared with Britain, the country with the most onerous gun controls in Europe. The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world – an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership. But Mexico has a much higher murder rate than the US, yet rates only twenty-eighth in the world for firearms deaths. Places like St Kitts in the Caribbean have a gun-homicide rate 10 times that of the US.

Moreover, Colorado has half the murder rate of Illinois, as adjusted for population. Idaho, Utah, Wyoming and New Hampshire, all full of guns, have far lower murder rates than gun-control states like New York, California and Illinois. The possession of guns simply does not correlate with the number of murders.

...

What almost nobody has mentioned – a particularly curious absence within those hectoring British commentaries so anxious to enlighten the colonies – was the deadly shootings at Whitehaven in the UK in 2010. Why have there been no comparisons between Derrick Bird’s atrocity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10259982) in 2010, which also killed 12 people, and the massacre in Aurora? Perhaps it is because the Whitehaven shootings show that Britain’s draconian laws were absolutely worthless in preventing massacres.

Regarding what the socialist position should be on gun control: it has always been to oppose it. An armed people has been a key demand of revolutionaries for centuries, for reasons that should be obvious to those here.

La GuaneÃ±a

25th July 2012, 15:15

So why are Americans 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than Brits, for example? Is that nothing to do with the availability of guns?

That may be due to social causes as well. Brasil has strict gun laws, but have a look at this:

http://revistaepoca.globo.com/Epoca/0,6993,EPT985915-1659,00.html

"Brazil registers more gun deaths than warzones

The number of deaths by firearms registeres in Brazil in the last 10 years beat the number of victims of 26 armed conflicts in the world, includiong the Golf War and the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine. In this period, 325,551 people died from firearms, with and average of 32,555 deaths a year."

Brazil has very strict laws, with the most of the urban and rural population abiding it. The problems are the following:

1-Control: Controlling acess in an islan like Britain is pretty easy. Not so easy when you have a border like Brasil or the USA. So guns will get in anyway, and mostly the drug cartels have acess to them;

2-Police "death squads": This is a HUGE problem where I live, because of the land owner and "Colonel" traditon. The members of these squads come from the military police, having acess to weapons, and make their own law in smaller cities while bringing terror in the bigger ones;

3-Here there is an expression that says "solve a problem by knife", or "resolver na faca". When people don't have guns, they will do that. The problem are the violent conditions in which people are raised, making this a common situation in many places around the country;

Here, only police and drug cartels have guns, and I feel weak not having one as well.

Martin Blank

25th July 2012, 15:49

I think that the current push for gun control following the Aurora shootings is foolish, at best. The ruling classes' mouthpieces tell us that if there was stricter gun control, then the 12 people who were killed would be alive today. Looking at the facts of the case, though, I think that's just plain wrong.

This guy, Holmes, had made upwards of 30 IEDs and a tripwire system for his apartment, as well as constructing two tear gas canisters for his assault. If Holmes had been barred from using guns, the odds are that he would have brought some of those IEDs with him or would have constructed hand grenades. Instead of 12 dead, it would more likely be about three or four times that amount (or more, if the grenades damaged the theater in any appreciable way).

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

25th July 2012, 16:22

Well, looks like americans are acting our of blind fear and paranoia, again

The number of people seeking to buy guns in Colorado has soared since last week's mass shooting in the US state's town of Aurora, say law officials.
In the three days after the shooting, applications for the background checks needed to buy a gun legally were up 43% on the previous week.
The shooting at a cinema showing the new Batman movie left 12 people dead and 58 injured - 20 remain in hospital.

(Full articel at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974)

Art Vandelay

25th July 2012, 16:38

"I wouldn't want to live in a country where only the government had guns." - William S. Burroughs.

Blake's Baby

25th July 2012, 20:28

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was 40 time more likely to get shot than I am here.

Vanguard1917

25th July 2012, 22:38

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was 40 time more likely to get shot than I am here.

The correlation between gun ownership and homocide rates is, at best, very weak. See my previous post.

Also, the bourgeois state having a monopoly on gun ownership is a far bigger danger than the existence of a few sociopathic weirdoes like James Holmes (which no society can do much to prevent).

The Intransigent Faction

25th July 2012, 23:34

The correlation between gun ownership and homocide rates is, at best, very weak. See my previous post.

Also, the bourgeois state having a monopoly on gun ownership is a far bigger danger than the existence of a few sociopathic weirdoes like James Holmes (which no society can do much to prevent).

I'll leave aside my misgivings about this logic of yours (probably an old liberal prejudice instilled in me thorugh growing up in a gun-free area with little crime just rearing its ugly head).

I have a more pressing question, though: The revolution isn't gonna be started by a bunch of people storming a movie theatre with guns, so why not have stronger measures to keep guns out of them, for instance? It's also not gonna be started by allowing "a few sociopathic weirdos" to so easily arm themselves, and the trouble is that they don't usually go to great lengths to show how disturbed they are prior to these massacres, so seemingly decent, if a little bizarre, people can end up doing terrible things, but that's just an aside.

This obviously won't solve the root of the problems, but it makes sense that a movie theatre is no place for arming yourself to the teeth, revolutionary or not.

Vanguard1917

26th July 2012, 00:11

This obviously won't solve the root of the problems, but it makes sense that a movie theatre is no place for arming yourself to the teeth, revolutionary or not.

I have no principled opposition to cinemas banning guns on their premises; i oppose general controls by the state.

It's also not gonna be started by allowing "a few sociopathic weirdos" to so easily arm themselves, and the trouble is that they don't usually go to great lengths to show how disturbed they are prior to these massacres, so seemingly decent, if a little bizarre, people can end up doing terrible things, but that's just an aside.

It's not just an aside, since it implies that we would need to support general bans on guns in order to prevent the few nutcases from accessing them.

passenger57

26th July 2012, 00:20

I am not a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst and sociologist. However I've been in other countries, and compared with USA, the people of other countries are a lot friendlier and more full of hospitality, more humanist, more attached to humans than americans. Anericans have such a bad reputation in the whole world and even in Europe, that we have some families in Nantes, France and we've invited them to spend some weeks in USA. And they told us that they just hate USA and hate americans, because they don't have good experience in dealing with the barbaric behaviour of americans.

I really don't understand how can USA be called a first world nation, with so many irrational, barbaric people with very low levels of social skills, education, good manners and consideration for other human beings. You know I think that's why most americans can't live close to other people. You know that's why people in America do not like to live in apartments and condos because of the very low social skills, and barbarism of most US citizens.

Americans are just too hateful, and you don't have to wait for a mass murderer like James Holmes, Jared Loughner, or that boy Jeremy of the song and video "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam in order to see the extreme unfriendly attitudes of americans.

I don't know exactly the real cause of why americans are so social phobic and anti-people. But I think the hatred of americans might date back to the US founding fathers, US constitution, the US economic and social system and the way the social planners built the nation.

Other causes might be economically related, the majority of americans are getting poorer and poorer, and the rise in crimes and murders might also be related to a pre-revolutionary situation.

But like i said, most americans have always been very anti-social, very unfriendly and very unloving. Except of course cities like Miami and other cities where there are people from other countries that behave very different from the average american redneck anti-social right-wing philosophy of life

All i want to say is that if most US citizens do not experience a radical self-help change toward more loving, tolerant, democratic, humane, altruists people, we might not see the creation of a big socialist front backed by the majority of Americans. But instead a civil war and the division of USA into 4 different countries like the Russian scientist Igor Panarin claimed.
.

Well, looks like americans are acting our of blind fear and paranoia, again

The number of people seeking to buy guns in Colorado has soared since last week's mass shooting in the US state's town of Aurora, say law officials.
In the three days after the shooting, applications for the background checks needed to buy a gun legally were up 43% on the previous week.
The shooting at a cinema showing the new Batman movie left 12 people dead and 58 injured - 20 remain in hospital.

(Full articel at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18980974)

Vanguard1917

26th July 2012, 01:58

I am not a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst and sociologist. However I've been in other countries, and compared with USA, the people of other countries are a lot friendlier and more full of hospitality, more humanist, more attached to humans than americans. Anericans have such a bad reputation in the whole world and even in Europe, that we have some families in Nantes, France and we've invited them to spend some weeks in USA. And they told us that they just hate USA and hate americans, because they don't have good experience in dealing with the barbaric behaviour of americans.

I really don't understand how can USA be called a first world nation, with so many irrational, barbaric people with very low levels of social skills, education, good manners and consideration for other human beings. You know I think that's why most americans can't live close to other people. You know that's why people in America do not like to live in apartments and condos because of the very low social skills, and barbarism of most US citizens.

Americans are just too hateful, and you don't have to wait for a mass murderer like James Holmes, Jared Loughner, or that boy Jeremy of the song and video "Jeremy" by Pearl Jam in order to see the extreme unfriendly attitudes of americans.

I don't know exactly the real cause of why americans are so social phobic and anti-people. But I think the hatred of americans might date back to the US founding fathers, US constitution, the US economic and social system and the way the social planners built the nation.

Other causes might be economically related, the majority of americans are getting poorer and poorer, and the rise in crimes and murders might also be related to a pre-revolutionary situation.

But like i said, most americans have always been very anti-social, very unfriendly and very unloving. Except of course cities like Miami and other cities where there are people from other countries that behave very different from the average american redneck anti-social right-wing philosophy of life

All i want to say is that if most US citizens do not experience a radical self-help change toward more loving, tolerant, democratic, humane, altruists people, we might not see the creation of a big socialist front backed by the majority of Americans. But instead a civil war and the division of USA into 4 different countries like the Russian scientist Igor Panarin claimed.

Blimey.

The irony is that these are probably not very far from the kinds of misanthropic views held by the James Holmes of this world.

Regicollis

26th July 2012, 02:16

Psy

26th July 2012, 02:41

When addressing the reasons for violent crime (poverty, discrimination, poor prospects for the future etc. - i.e. capitalism) is not an option gun control can be a way of reducing violent crime.

A large supply of legal firearms automatically means a large supply of illegal firearms since burglars will also steal the guns and sell them on the black market.

Reducing the access to firearms might not reduce the desires some have to kill each other but it makes killing someone more difficult. Using a gun you can kill from a distance and you only have to fire one shot. Using a knife is more personal, you have to get close to your victim, will likely have to stab more than once etc. - i.e. not as easy as with a gun.

The problem is a lot of black market guns come from people stockpiles owned by a bourgeoisie state with countless cases of police and army bases leaking their stockpiles to organized criminals. Even recently a NYPD officer was exposed for selling pistols from his department to drug dealers in exchange for drugs to feed his drug addition.

Regicollis

26th July 2012, 02:46

The problem is a lot of black market guns come from people stockpiles owned by a bourgeoisie state with countless cases of police and army bases leaking their stockpiles to organized criminals. Even recently a NYPD officer was exposed for selling pistols from his department to drug dealers in exchange for drugs to feed his drug addition.

Again - the more legal guns you have around (whoever owns them) the more illegal ones you are going to have.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

26th July 2012, 02:52

I'm pretty sure that various governments have done and are doing more to put guns in the wrong hands than any number of private firearms owners.

In which case banning the private possession of firearms is little more than an authoritarian "band-aid" solution which does nothing to address the root causes of social violence, but which also reinforces the power of the ruling class in a very real fashion - not just through literal disarming, but also through the sociopolitical discourse that such moves would create, whereby legitimate violence becomes even more monopolised by bourgeois governments.

Again - the more legal guns you have around (whoever owns them) the more illegal ones you are going to have.

The problem isn't firearms possession (legal or otherwise), but violence against the person, surely?

Psy

26th July 2012, 03:24

Again - the more legal guns you have around (whoever owns them) the more illegal ones you are going to have.
The problem is in capitalism capital is king, which is why organized crime can never be snuffed out by bourgeoisie states as the capital of organized crime gives them full access to the means of production for example drug cartels own banks, casinos, real estate,ect in the USA because they have all this idle capital from their illegal business that being capitalists they must invest making the head of these criminal organizations part of the capitalist ruling class.

What this means is they can produce their own firearms if they wanted to and they already do as they invest in the arms industry.

The Intransigent Faction

26th July 2012, 08:08

It's not just an aside, since it implies that we would need to support general bans on guns in order to prevent the few nutcases from accessing them.

You said it, not me. It was just an aside---my main point was about the theatres, and we seem to agree on that. Don't be so nitpicky. I'm just pointing out that it's not so simple as consistently identifying these people as "crazy" beforehand. It's a legitimate issue, so make of it what you will.

MuscularTophFan

26th July 2012, 09:26

Martin Blank

26th July 2012, 11:31

Instead of gun control why don't we work on bullet control? I mean why are we making it easy to get bullets as it is getting tic tacs? Why not crank the prices/taxes up on bullets? A gun is pretty useless without bullets.

Bullets are not cheap. Leaving aside shotgun shells for the moment, bullets for any rifle or pistol are usually $1 a shell. And unlike shotgun shells, rifle and pistol shells cannot be reused. So every shot is like taking a $1 bill and lighting it on fire. A decent afternoon at a rifle range (an hour or two) can easily cost between $100 and $200. Last time I went to the range, it was $160 for about an hour's worth of shooting -- with most of that going to ammunition costs.

That said, I am personally not opposed to ballistic fingerprinting, as long as the database can only be accessed as part of a forensic investigation into a crime.

As for stricter gun control post-Aurora, that is simply not going to happen. And that's a good thing, IMO. As I pointed out above, this incident could very well have turned out worse if Holmes was forced to rely on his IEDs to commit the massacre. In a sense, the fact that he had access to the kinds of guns he had kept the death count lower than it could have been. The 5.56mm round that the AR-15 (aka M-16, M-4) takes is not necessarily a killer round. It's a small caliber, equivalent to a .22, which means that it can cause some internal damage, but it doesn't have the power to rip organs apart like a 7.62x39, the bullet for an AK or SKS. Moreover, he was using 12-gauge buckshot in his shotgun, which is not as effective at taking down a human as shotgun slugs. In fact, the only weapon he had on him that had any real power was the .40 Glock pistol. A .40 caliber round can cause severe trauma at close or medium range. Originally designed for the cops, this variety of Glock is meant to be able to kill someone (or, at least, put them down) with a single shot.

As for why the U.S. has such a pronounced rate of gun violence, it doesn't have anything to do with the amount of guns produced, sold or stolen. That's like saying that the solution to cyberbullying is to get rid of computers. The main reasons for why there is such a high rate of gun violence are societal; they are economic, political and cultural.

Understanding the economic and political reasons is fairly straightforward. The battle of survival often comes down to an armed act, and I think most of us can understand that this kind of gun violence based on economic conditions is not only understandable, but also garners a measure of sympathy. Politically, there is a direct link between the militarization of society and increases in gun violence. It is not surprising that the two most well-known acts of mass violence -- Columbine and Aurora -- happened in the same region. Not only are there active armaments and war materials production taking place in the area, but there is also the U.S. Air Force Academy. Like most areas of the country where large numbers of soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines are stationed, "situational awareness" on a mass level feeds into tensions and, ultimately, violence.

The cultural aspect of gun violence has nothing to do with violent movies, television, music or video games. It has everything to do with the culture of fear and death that is dominant in capitalism's decline and decay. From religious and political fanaticism to xenophobia and racism, there is a constant stream of ideology that feeds off of human beings' natural fears of displacement and death. In the U.S., this culture of fear and death is highly evolved, with every institution of and mouthpiece for the ruling classes repeating the same mantra about enemies, both external and internal, about the "others" who are coming for the crumbs and sops that make up your way of life, about how unknown dangers lurk around every corner and in every dark space of your life, and about how even fellow citizens are plotting to rob you of your very identity.

In short, gun violence is an expression of capitalism's decay, and it can only be ended by ending the system that uses it as a means of social control.

Blake's Baby

26th July 2012, 12:34

The correlation between gun ownership and homocide rates is, at best, very weak. See my previous post.

Also, the bourgeois state having a monopoly on gun ownership is a far bigger danger than the existence of a few sociopathic weirdoes like James Holmes (which no society can do much to prevent).

If you live in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. I didn't mention gun ownership at all, just that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. That isn't a problem for me, seems to me it's a problem for you.

If you don't care that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am, that's fine. It's not a problem for either of us.

But I fail to understand how anyone can think that living somewhere where they're 40 times more likely to be shot dead than I am can be good thing. I'm just weird like that I guess.

The Jay

26th July 2012, 13:28

Bullets are not cheap. Leaving aside shotgun shells for the moment, bullets for any rifle or pistol are usually $1 a shell. And unlike shotgun shells, rifle and pistol shells cannot be reused. So every shot is like taking a $1 bill and lighting it on fire. A decent afternoon at a rifle range (an hour or two) can easily cost between $100 and $200. Last time I went to the range, it was $160 for about an hour's worth of shooting -- with most of that going to ammunition costs.

Shooting is expensive that's true, but you can reload rifle and pistol shells as long as they're copper and not steel. You do need a press with special dies and a method of consistent powder insertion. Youtube has a lot of quality videos on reloading. It does require significant initial investment but it will save you money in the long run.

Ocean Seal

26th July 2012, 14:26

We shouldn't get uppity about gun rights, we might start sounding like constitutionalists :cool:. I don't support gun rights, and I think that thinking that gun rights will help us come the revolution is idealistic. But I also don't support the moralistic liberal pledges to stop gun violence by merely getting rid of a means to kill people. Brosa hit the nail on the head when s/he said that we need better mental health clinics support groups and infrastructure in general, but the bourgeois mouthpieces will just spend their time talking about guns. Also I don't support banning guns either, I just have a very neutral take on this, I wouldn't mind it either way if we improved our cultural and economic attitudes towards mental health.

The Jay

26th July 2012, 15:33

We shouldn't get uppity about gun rights, we might start sounding like constitutionalists :cool:. I don't support gun rights, and I think that thinking that gun rights will help us come the revolution is idealistic.

Is that so? How is wanting access to weapons that may be necessary in line with the idealistic conception of history in which ideas mold material conditions? Or, did you mean that it's idealistic to think that when the time comes the government won't restrict guns anyway?

There is a huge difference so could you clarify please?

Vanguard1917

26th July 2012, 16:06

If you live in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. I didn't mention gun ownership at all, just that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. That isn't a problem for me, seems to me it's a problem for you.

If you don't care that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am, that's fine. It's not a problem for either of us.

But I fail to understand how anyone can think that living somewhere where they're 40 times more likely to be shot dead than I am can be good thing. I'm just weird like that I guess.

Yes, but your being 40 times more likely to get shot in the US is not caused by the level of gun control there - assuming you are implying that it is.

Blake's Baby

26th July 2012, 16:53

I'm asking if the 40 times greater number of people shot in the US than in England and Wales (actually, 240 times greater, but I adjusted for the USA's larger population) has anything to do with the availability of guns.

If there were, for example, no guns in the USA at all, would it still be 40 times more likely that someone would be shot there, than in England and Wales? No, obviously not. If there were no guns in the USA the gun death rate would be 0% of the population.

So what is the relationship between the availability of guns, and the masive numbers of people killed by them? Last time I checked (some years ago now) the USA had a similar ratio of gun-deaths to Somalia and Liberia, which both had civil wars at the time. Both countries where there were a lot of weapons kicking around, and where there were lots of people using them.

So, I contend, the fact that Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot than English or Welsh people must have something to do with the availability of guns.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

26th July 2012, 16:58

"As for why the U.S. has such a pronounced rate of gun violence, it doesn't have anything to do with the amount of guns produced, sold or stolen. That's like saying that the solution to cyberbullying is to get rid of computers. The main reasons for why there is such a high rate of gun violence are societal; they are economic, political and cultural."

...can't really kill people with computers..cyber bullying can lead to awful things but it's not quite up there with shooting people.

Being from the UK I'll ever fully understand the culture of gun ownership and the sense of entitlement to own a deadly weapon, t's completely alien to me.
I understand the idea of having guns in as many hands as possible so their isn;t an armed govment or some other minority imposing it's will on the masses...but there has to be a better way of acheiving this without just giving everyone a gun and seeing how it goes..
Like I say..I just don't get it, sorry

Vanguard1917

26th July 2012, 17:20

So, I contend, the fact that Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot than English or Welsh people must have something to do with the availability of guns.

But that does not reveal anything about underlying causes. It's like saying that there would be no credit-card fraud if there were no credit cards, or that there would be no black-on-black crime if there were no black people.

The greater likelihood of you being murdered in the US by a gun is, of course, related to there being more guns available in the US than in the UK. But the greater likelihood of you being murdered 'full stop' (i.e. by whatever means) is unrelated to that.

Art Vandelay

26th July 2012, 17:22

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was 40 time more likely to get shot than I am here.

Good for you; your assertion completely flies in the face of the facts (which, frankly, have been presented in this thread for your own convenience). Either read what others post, or refrain from posting yourself; the relation between guns in society and violent crime is tenuous at best and quite frankly blurs the real issue at hand.

Blake's Baby

26th July 2012, 20:47

Good for you; your assertion completely flies in the face of the facts (which, frankly, have been presented in this thread for your own convenience). Either read what others post, or refrain from posting yourself; the relation between guns in society and violent crime is tenuous at best and quite frankly blurs the real issue at hand.

The facts are that in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to be shot than in England and Wales. Are you seriously claiming that statistic is totally unrelated to availability of guns?

Do you believe, for example, that if there were no guns in America, one would still be 40 times more likely to be shot there?

Art Vandelay

26th July 2012, 21:04

The facts are that in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to be shot than in England and Wales. Are you seriously claiming that statistic is totally unrelated to availability of guns?

Do you believe, for example, that if there were no guns in America, one would still be 40 times more likely to be shot there?

Obviously not, because you would need a gun to shoot someone......

But if you think that murders are a result of guns and not people with mental issues, then you are delusional.

Philosopher Jay

27th July 2012, 01:02

Hi Blake's Baby,

The contrast is more stark with Japan where there is even stricter gun control. In 2009, there were 11 gun homicide deaths. In the United States there were about 12,000. Admittedly, the population of the United States (300 million) is larger than Japan (app. 125 million). So the difference isn't about 1,000 to 1, but only about 400 to 1.

Still with strict gun control laws, about 10,000 American lives would be saved each year, or about 100,000 over the decade. By way of comparison about 4,500 American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq over the last decade. It seems, in some sense, it was more dangerous to be an America in peaceful America than an American in wartime Iraq.

Only madmen are against stricter gun control in the United States. Whether these madmen justify their beliefs by reference to some alleged communist scripture against gun control or because they are psycho killers who enjoy the idea of masses of innocent people (mostly from the workingclass) dying suddenly and horribly in pools of blood, makes little difference. People against gun control are way out of touch with reality and are dangerous to themselves and others.

passenger57

27th July 2012, 01:03

Blakes: Have you heard of the "Ugly American Syndrome" well, I think that like another person said in this topic, that the solution for crimes is not really banning guns. What we have to is really to go the roots and the roots of so much violence in America is that in USA when you are young, you can have a high social life, lots of friends from kindergarden all the way to 12th grade and even in college. But then when people in America start to get older when they either finish high school or college. People in America experience a radical transformation from loving friendly teens who engage in lots of baseball, basketball and have a relatively high social life. But as soon as people turn 25 or older they seem to get too psychorigid, too anti-social, too boring, too unfriendly, avoidant and hateful.

In America if you are 12 year olds you can have lots of friends, but if you are 35 or 45 nobody will like you, unless you are a hot shot like Tom Cruise, Madonna or Jennifer Lopez.

This is a country of self-absorbed assholes, who only care about their own families, there is lots of family narcissism in the hell of America. Man living in this country is not a piece of cake. In America if you don't own a private jet or a Ferrari, people will hate you. This country is so weird that poor americans tend to praise and support movie celebrities a lot more than their own neighbors. They also tend to love their own dogs and cats, than their own street neighbors. That's one the main reasons for so many weird fashions in USA, like people filling their bodies with tattoos, because americans are so hungry for love, and attention that many americans will do any thing just to increase notoriety and to sort of say to others: "Look at me, I am full of tattoos, i am special and different"

This is a very lonely country, and that bandwagon loneliness effect I think came all the way back from the fascist libertarian oligarchic US founding fathers, who founded a narcissistic libertarian nation, with a ultra-libertarian fascist egocentric philosophy of life.

You know many poor americans are so egocentric, so self-absorbed, that they would rather get into garage sales, yard sales on weekends than to support a grass roots movement, an anti-war movement and the occupy wall street protests. That's the degree of egocentrism of this narcissist country. They prefer to die of hunger and misery, than to socialize, and make friends with other occupy protestors and grass roots activists of the nation.

What a sad suicidal nation

Only a radical socialist system can cure the cancer of the american way of life which is totally wrong

.

If you live in the USA, you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. I didn't mention gun ownership at all, just that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am. That isn't a problem for me, seems to me it's a problem for you.

If you don't care that you're 40 times more likely to get shot than I am, that's fine. It's not a problem for either of us.

But I fail to understand how anyone can think that living somewhere where they're 40 times more likely to be shot dead than I am can be good thing. I'm just weird like that I guess.

CryingWolf

27th July 2012, 01:34

Psy

27th July 2012, 11:51

Do people here actually believe that they stand some sort of chance in armed resistance against the American state? Are you fucking kidding me?

The bourgeoisie aren't stupid. They're never gonna allow the civilian population to control enough firepower to pose a serious threat to the military.

When civilians are allowed to own f-16 fighter jets and nukes, then we'll talk about violent insurrection, but until then any talk of such means you're living in la-la-land.

Yet in revolutions part of the military defects i.e the great railway strike of 1877 a large chunk of the National Guard of Maryland and Pennsylvania became a revolutionary army and took up arms against their former comrades in arms in the National Guard and later the US Army.

So as long as the US bourgeoisie state arms itself, a armed revolution is possible through bourgeoisie troops defecting to revolutionary armies taking their arms with them like they did in 1877

Blake's Baby

27th July 2012, 11:59

Has anybody seen me advocate stricter gun laws for the USA? If you have please quote the post where I advocated it, if you haven't, get your fucking heads out of the asses of your strawmen.

Apparently I am 'delusional' for believing that people are shot in the USA because there are guns in the USA. Which means, if there were no guns in the USA, people would still be shot? No; so it's not me who's delusional, chump. Guns are used to kill people. No guns = no people killed by guns. Lots of guns = lots of people killed by guns. Therefore, the number of people killed by guns is related to the availability of guns.

People are 40 times more likely to be 'mentally disturbed' in the USA, is that the claim? As 1-in-4 Brits is going to suffer from mental health issues, that means... what? 40 out of every 4 Americans are going to? America has 3 billion mentally ill people out of a population of 300 million? And yet, I'm the one that's delusional...

The figures I saw (I think for 2006) said that the USA had 9,500 gun murders (actually it was some figure like 9,434 but I don't remember exactly, but around 3,000 less than Philosopher Jay's 2009 figure of 12,000 quoted above); and England and Wales in the same year had 39.

Now, England and Wales have approximately 1/6 of the population of the USA but less than 1/40 of the area.

USA = 9.827 million km2
UK (total) = 0.244 million km2

Meaning the UK (about 1/5 of the population including Scotland and Northern Ireland, but about 1/40 of the area) is about 8 times more crowded than the USA. As overcrowding is believed to be a major cause of mental stress I don't buy the 'America is just more whack' argument.

Sources:
CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2147rank.html)

Vanguard1917

27th July 2012, 12:07

Has anybody seen me advocate stricter gun laws for the USA? If you have please quote the post where I advocated it, if you haven't, get your fucking heads out of the asses of your strawmen.

Then what's the point of repeating that same statistic over and over? It makes it only reasonable for those here to assume that you're trying to give backing to pro-control arguments.

Blake's Baby

27th July 2012, 12:12

Then what's the point of repeating that same statistic over and over? It makes it only reasonable for those here to assume that you're trying to give backing to pro-control arguments.

What's the point of criticising the idea that more guns equals more gun deaths? It makes it only reasonable for those here to assume that you're trying to give backing to the idea that Americans should die from guns 40 times more often than other people.

Rottenfruit

27th July 2012, 12:55

Rottenfruit

27th July 2012, 13:04

What's the point of criticising the idea that more guns equals more gun deaths? It makes it only reasonable for those here to assume that you're trying to give backing to the idea that Americans should die from guns 40 times more often than other people.
Murder ratio per captia and crime in general is not linked to gun ownership,
Russia had a 3 times the murder ratio per captia then usa in 2011 and in 2010 and the nations with higher murder ration then Russia are nations that are more striken with poverty

Murder ratio and most types of crime(rape is not one of them) are because of poverty,class structure , institutional racism ,discrimination and governmental corruption,you ban guns yes you might get less gun murders like what happend in the uk . The murder rate did not change instead of getting killed by a gun know you get killed by knives what also happend was that muggings,burglerys increased because criminals have become brazant in there actions due to less fear of getting injured

Rottenfruit

27th July 2012, 13:06

I wouldn't want to live in a country where I was 40 time more likely to get shot than I am here.

You want to be stabbed or beaten to death instead? All gun control does is change the method of murders

Vanguard1917

27th July 2012, 13:10

What's the point of criticising the idea that more guns equals more gun deaths?

That's where you're completely wrong. 'More guns' does not necessarily cause more gun deaths. There are a number of countries with greater gun-related homocide rates than the US and where gun ownership rates are lower than they are in the US. There are also parts of the US where gun ownership is as close as you're going to get to universal and where homocide rates are very low.

In other words, to repeat, there is no good correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Surely a Marxist does not need reminding that crime and violence are a product of social conditions, not lifeless objects.

Will Scarlet

27th July 2012, 14:08

Obviously not, because you would need a gun to shoot someone......

But if you think that murders are a result of guns and not people with mental issues, then you are delusional.
If you think the ready availability of automatic weapons to people with mental issues doesn't result in murders, then you are delusional. It's not really an either or situation, trying to make it one is not productive. Guns don't kill, people do. With guns. Obviously people just don't get a gun and then think hey I'll go kill some people with my brand new gun, but guns are the only thing that allow such troubled people to go out and kill en masse.

Murder ratio per captia and crime in general is not linked to gun ownership,
Russia had a 3 times the murder ratio per captia then usa in 2011 and in 2010 and the nations with higher murder ration then Russia are nations that are more striken with poverty

Murder ratio and most types of crime(rape is not one of them) are because of poverty,class structure , institutional racism ,discrimination and governmental corruption,you ban guns yes you might get less gun murders like what happend in the uk . The murder rate did not change instead of getting killed by a gun know you get killed by knives what also happend was that muggings,burglerys increased because criminals have become brazant in there actions due to less fear of getting injured
This is just straight up conservative rhetoric. There is no such thing as a deterrent, that's not why crime happens. The simple facts would defeat your argument, America is top of the league of developed countries for pretty much every crime, despite having the most guns.

That's where you're completely wrong. 'More guns' does not necessarily cause more gun deaths. There are a number of countries with greater gun-related homocide rates than the US and where gun ownership rates are lower than they are in the US. There are also parts of the US where gun ownership is as close as you're going to get to universal and where homocide rates are very low.

In other words, to repeat, there is no good correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Surely a Marxist does not need reminding that crime and violence are a product of social conditions, not lifeless objects.
hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Do people here actually believe that they stand some sort of chance in armed resistance against the American state? Are you fucking kidding me?

The bourgeoisie aren't stupid. They're never gonna allow the civilian population to control enough firepower to pose a serious threat to the military.

When civilians are allowed to own f-16 fighter jets and nukes, then we'll talk about violent insurrection, but until then any talk of such means you're living in la-la-land.
I agree with this, someone said earlier in the thread that you can't persuade a drone with reason. But you'd have about as much chance of doing that as bringing down a drone with a machine gun.

Obviously I will be mostly using a bow and arrow.

Obs

27th July 2012, 16:22

Here's how this thread's gonna go on for 17 pages because people are new/dense:

Pro-control: PEOPLE DIED
Pro-gun: yeah but if you took a look at these statistics-
Pro-control: OH MY GOD IMAGINE IF PEOPLE DIED AGAIN, WE MUST STOP THIS SCOURGE

eric922

27th July 2012, 19:05

Because nobody would get killed by guns if they were banned, great logic!
And if the goverment has a right to own guns how does it make sense that you cannot own guns?
And no assult rifles would be a nessicity in a revulution, what you goona use pitchforks?

Did I ever say we should ban guns? No. Besides if you actually think any revolution stands a chance against the U.S. State you are insane. If you don't win over the majority of the military you won't stand a chance, even with assault rifles. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Art Vandelay

27th July 2012, 19:13

eric922

27th July 2012, 19:17

No one thinks otherwise, so quit fucking repeating this claim.
Repeat? I said it once in the OP and once in response to a post talking about the need for assault rifles for revolution.

Art Vandelay

27th July 2012, 20:02

Repeat? I said it once in the OP and once in response to a post talking about the need for assault rifles for revolution.

I was more talking in general, its been stated a few times in this thread.

CryingWolf

27th July 2012, 20:13

Yet in revolutions part of the military defects i.e the great railway strike of 1877 a large chunk of the National Guard of Maryland and Pennsylvania became a revolutionary army and took up arms against their former comrades in arms in the National Guard and later the US Army.

So as long as the US bourgeoisie state arms itself, a armed revolution is possible through bourgeoisie troops defecting to revolutionary armies taking their arms with them like they did in 1877

And how are gun control laws going to affect whether or not any potential revolutionary military defectors have access to weapons? Gun control laws only apply to civilians.

Psy

27th July 2012, 20:33

And how are gun control laws going to affect whether or not any potential revolutionary military defectors have access to weapons? Gun control laws only apply to civilians.

Did you miss my point that most weapons in the hands of organized crime were leaked from state owned stock piles, that most tanks owned by drug dealers in Mexico and Columbia are US Military surplus sold to them by the corrupt CIA agents. Do you honest think any US law is going to stop the CIA selling guns to the highest bidder, hell they sold chemical weapons to Saddam just because he had the cash.

Blake's Baby

27th July 2012, 20:53

That's where you're completely wrong. 'More guns' does not necessarily cause more gun deaths. There are a number of countries with greater gun-related homocide rates than the US and where gun ownership rates are lower than they are in the US. There are also parts of the US where gun ownership is as close as you're going to get to universal and where homocide rates are very low.

In other words, to repeat, there is no good correlation between gun ownership and gun crime. Surely a Marxist does not need reminding that crime and violence are a product of social conditions, not lifeless objects.

So Britain is 40 times richer than America, is that what you're saying?

And if there were no guns in America, 9-12,000 people a year would be still be shot, because America is a third world country, and it's not guns that kill people, is that what you're saying?

And all Americans, let's not forget, are completely insane and indeed ten times more insane than the people of any other country, is that what you're saying?

CryingWolf

27th July 2012, 22:48

Did you miss my point that most weapons in the hands of organized crime were leaked from state owned stock piles, that most tanks owned by drug dealers in Mexico and Columbia are US Military surplus sold to them by the corrupt CIA agents. Do you honest think any US law is going to stop the CIA selling guns to the highest bidder, hell they sold chemical weapons to Saddam just because he had the cash.

No, I don't believe that any US law will stop the US government from selling arms to whomever it wants. But that's not the point.

The point is that this justification for selling guns to civilians because workers need to arm themselves for the revolution is ridiculous.

Psy

27th July 2012, 23:21

No, I don't believe that any US law will stop the US government from selling arms to whomever it wants. But that's not the point.

The point is that this justification for selling guns to civilians because workers need to arm themselves for the revolution is ridiculous.

Well do you think police act different when surrounded by armed by standards? Think back to the Black Panthers where the panther were carrying WWII era M1 Carbines (legally bought) while police at the time just had dinky revolvers, don't you think that firepower gap put doubt in the minds of police officers? If every worker in the US openly carried a M1 Carbine don't you think US police brutality would drop as the working class becomes an armed body? Sure the US Army can still kick our ass but the US Army doesn't have the man power to police every city in the US.

CryingWolf

28th July 2012, 01:02

Well do you think police act different when surrounded by armed by standards? Think back to the Black Panthers where the panther were carrying WWII era M1 Carbines (legally bought) while police at the time just had dinky revolvers, don't you think that firepower gap put doubt in the minds of police officers? If every worker in the US openly carried a M1 Carbine don't you think US police brutality would drop as the working class becomes an armed body? Sure the US Army can still kick our ass but the US Army doesn't have the man power to police every city in the US.

Yes, it would. But that's exactly why that will never be allowed to happen.

Psy

28th July 2012, 01:23

Yes, it would. But that's exactly why that will never be allowed to happen.
The capitalists that profit of guns sales would never allow the US state prohibit small arms, because if workers started to in mass arm themselves it would throw massive amounts of surplus value towards the small arms manufactures that would then use some of the capital to buy influence in the US state so gun sales remain high.

The bourgeoisie state in the capitalist system has no real power, it is just a bunch of managers carrying out orders from the real ruling class (the capitalists).

Vanguard1917

28th July 2012, 01:37

So Britain is 40 times richer than America, is that what you're saying?

And if there were no guns in America, 9-12,000 people a year would be still be shot, because America is a third world country, and it's not guns that kill people, is that what you're saying?

And all Americans, let's not forget, are completely insane and indeed ten times more insane than the people of any other country, is that what you're saying?

No.

Philosopher Jay

28th July 2012, 03:36

Hi Blake's Baby,

The statistics from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) for 2009 are here (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm):

"Mortality

All homicides

Number of deaths: 16,799
Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5
Cause of death rank: 15

Firearm homicides

Number of deaths: 11,493
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2009, tables 9, 10, 11 http://www.cdc.gov/TemplatePackage/images/icon_pdf.gif [PDF - 1.4 MB] (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2009_release.pdf) http://www.cdc.gov/TemplatePackage/images/icon_pdf.gif (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdf)"

The 11,493 does not include people shot whose body is then hidden and not found, nor people who are shot, but die of other diseases or causes related to the gunshots. Adding these, I would guess would bring the number at least to 12,000 people killed with guns in 2009 in the United States.

Besides these 12,000 deaths, one also has to consider suicides. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda), there were 36,909 suicides. Half were by firearms. That would be some 18,000 more gun deaths in 2012 in the U.S. for a total of 30,000. They note that death by firearms is the fastest growing method of suicide.

I have read that the suicide rate is 10 times higher for people who have guns in their homes than for people who do not have guns in their home. It appears that the possession of guns itself, providing a quick and easily available method of committing suicide adds substantially to the number of people committing suicide each year. Strict gun control laws would almost certainly save 10,000 homicide victims per year and would possibly cut the number of suicides down by 10,000 or more as well.

Capitalism produces the climate of fear and terror that produces so many gun deaths per year. The fact that some capitalist countries are unwilling to take the most simple and basic steps of protecting workers from gun terror is another reason why capitalism should be done away with.

Has anybody seen me advocate stricter gun laws for the USA? If you have please quote the post where I advocated it, if you haven't, get your fucking heads out of the asses of your strawmen.

Apparently I am 'delusional' for believing that people are shot in the USA because there are guns in the USA. Which means, if there were no guns in the USA, people would still be shot? No; so it's not me who's delusional, chump. Guns are used to kill people. No guns = no people killed by guns. Lots of guns = lots of people killed by guns. Therefore, the number of people killed by guns is related to the availability of guns.

People are 40 times more likely to be 'mentally disturbed' in the USA, is that the claim? As 1-in-4 Brits is going to suffer from mental health issues, that means... what? 40 out of every 4 Americans are going to? America has 3 billion mentally ill people out of a population of 300 million? And yet, I'm the one that's delusional...

The figures I saw (I think for 2006) said that the USA had 9,500 gun murders (actually it was some figure like 9,434 but I don't remember exactly, but around 3,000 less than Philosopher Jay's 2009 figure of 12,000 quoted above); and England and Wales in the same year had 39.

Now, England and Wales have approximately 1/6 of the population of the USA but less than 1/40 of the area.

USA = 9.827 million km2
UK (total) = 0.244 million km2

Meaning the UK (about 1/5 of the population including Scotland and Northern Ireland, but about 1/40 of the area) is about 8 times more crowded than the USA. As overcrowding is believed to be a major cause of mental stress I don't buy the 'America is just more whack' argument.

Sources:
CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2147rank.html)

Sea

28th July 2012, 03:43

And how are gun control laws going to affect whether or not any potential revolutionary military defectors have access to weapons? Gun control laws only apply to civilians.It gets better; gun laws only apply to civilians who chose to abide by bourgeois law.

So Britain is 40 times richer than America, is that what you're saying?

And if there were no guns in America, 9-12,000 people a year would be still be shot, because America is a third world country, and it's not guns that kill people, is that what you're saying?

And all Americans, let's not forget, are completely insane and indeed ten times more insane than the people of any other country, is that what you're saying?Hell's bell, blake's baby! That's a very unique interpretation you have there.

DasFapital

28th July 2012, 07:51

In this society firearms are a means of some people obtaining security and equality. To quote, of all people, Ted Nugent, "If a rapist attacks a woman I would rather the rapist be dead than the woman. I guess I'm just weird that way."

Prinskaj

28th July 2012, 08:50

My opinion on the matter is fairly simple: If the armed thugs of the bourgeoisie is allowed to equip themselves with weapons, ammunition and other weapons with lethal capabilities. Then so should the proletariat be allowed to arm itself in defense against the interests of capital.

Blake's Baby

28th July 2012, 11:04

...

Hell's bell, blake's baby! That's a very unique interpretation you have there.

Just trying to follow the logic of the people who think that the availability access to guns in a country is unrelated to the number of people killed by guns in that country.

I use the term 'logic', when what I mean is 'idiocy', of course.

My opinion on the matter is fairly simple: If the armed thugs of the bourgeoisie is allowed to equip themselves with weapons, ammunition and other weapons with lethal capabilities. Then so should the proletariat be allowed to arm itself in defense against the interests of capital.

Oh, right, that must be why the American proletartiat has overthrown its government and abolished capitalism, is it?

No, instead, religious nuts and right wing fuckwits and gangsters kill thousands of working people every year and capitalism tightens its grip. Your strategy is really working very well. /sarcasm

It's simple; if you think the ready availability of guns in the US is a good thing, you think that the murders of thousands of American every year is a good thing. The two things are inseperable.

So, 'commies', why do you suppoort the murder of thousands of Americans every year?

Prinskaj

28th July 2012, 12:18

So, 'commies', why do you suppoort the murder of thousands of Americans every year?
So, Blake, why do you want the bourgeoisie state to decide who can obtain a gun? Especially one as anti-communist as the United States government?

Psy

28th July 2012, 13:39

Oh, right, that must be why the American proletartiat has overthrown its government and abolished capitalism, is it?

Armed veterans of US war of Independence tried during Shays' Rebellion and came within one final battle away from snuffing out the Massachusetts state that they only lost due to a SNAFU encircling the Springfield Armoury that meant they failed to attack the armoury from all side as they planned.

In short Shay's Rebellion only failed in execution as they had everything in place to snuff out the Massachusetts bourgeoisie army.

It's simple; if you think the ready availability of guns in the US is a good thing, you think that the murders of thousands of American every year is a good thing. The two things are inseperable.

Logical fallacy, any correlation between guns and violence does not imply a causation without evidence to that fact. And evidence shows otherwise as humanity had has violence long before the invention of guns.

Spirit

28th July 2012, 15:30

Do people here actually believe that they stand some sort of chance in armed resistance against the American state? Are you fucking kidding me?

These were my exact thoughts.

Also, I agree with the whole "it's not only the number of guns but the whole culture" thesis.

In a radical capitalist society like the USA people are not only allowed, but encouraged to defend it's private property by shooting someone up. Shoot first, and ask questions after. That stance perpetuates the concept of private property (and I'm not talking about someone breaking into your living room) as a sacred thing in a capitalist system. And that is why the state continues to encourage gun ownership, to maintain the status quo of private property as a godly, untouchable sanctity.

Psy

28th July 2012, 18:06

These were my exact thoughts.

Also, I agree with the whole "it's not only the number of guns but the whole culture" thesis.

In a radical capitalist society like the USA people are not only allowed, but encouraged to defend it's private property by shooting someone up. Shoot first, and ask questions after. That stance perpetuates the concept of private property (and I'm not talking about someone breaking into your living room) as a sacred thing in a capitalist system. And that is why the state continues to encourage gun ownership, to maintain the status quo of private property as a godly, untouchable sanctity.

Gun regulation in the US only as a response to American workers becoming more militant, for example the Battle for Blair Mountain in West Virginia where police massacred the women and children of striking coal miners resulted in the coal miners forming a revolutionary army of 10,000. Gun laws are only aimed at the proletariat.

Vanguard1917

28th July 2012, 19:28

Gun regulation in the US only as a response to American workers becoming more militant.

Yep. Not to mention the Mulford Act, which prohibited gun carrying in California, and was introduced by that great lover of workers' causes, Ronald Reagan. Radicals, meanwhile, like those in the Black Panther Party, recognised the dangers of such laws and marched to protest against them.

Psy

28th July 2012, 20:20

Yep. Not to mention the Mulford Act, which prohibited gun carrying in California, and was introduced by that great lover of workers' causes, Ronald Reagan. Radicals, meanwhile, like those in the Black Panther Party, recognised the dangers of such laws and marched to protest against them.

Also mercenaries are totally unaffected by gun regulations which is why Blackwater is allowed to have recoilless rifles, anti-material rifles and heavy machine guns as US gun regulations don't apply to capitalists.

Ruinous

29th July 2012, 07:55

I've read the thread and agree that it's the social conditions that instigate such murders. Gun control just changes the methods of murder. Restriction of guns still allows the state/criminals the ability to own guns - do you think criminals will follow the laws? Passenger57 hit the nail on the head concerning Americans and American culture. To those saying "do you plan on shooting drones down with a rifle?" - what do you plan on revolting with, an axe? I thought this board was for revolutionaries.

Without guns, it is more difficult to 'rob' the capitalists and their banks.

Blake's Baby

29th July 2012, 11:33

So, Blake, why do you want the bourgeoisie state to decide who can obtain a gun? Especially one as anti-communist as the United States government?

You support the status quo. The status quo is between 9,000 and 18,000 US workers being killed by guns every year. Why do you want c. 13,500 US workers being killed with guns every year?

Find me a post in this thread where I say I 'support the bourgeoise state (doing anything)' or stop talking out of your ass. You're full of shit and your position is untenable, you cheerleader for the murder of workers.

...

Logical fallacy, any correlation between guns and violence does not imply a causation without evidence to that fact. And evidence shows otherwise as humanity had has violence long before the invention of guns.

Logiocal fallacy, any argument that people could still be killed by guns if there were no guns is stupid and wrong, and anyone making it is a liar or a fool, or possibly both. People cannot be killed by guns if there are no guns. No-one mentioned 'violence', there are a bazillion ways of committing 'violence'. I didn't say that people in the US were 40 times more likely to suffer 'violence' than people in the England and Wales, I said that they were 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in England and Wales.

So get your argument straight, then explain why a 40-times higher death rate from guns among American workers than among English and Welsh workers is a good thing, how it helps the revolution or whatever, instead of talking shit about 'violence' and how you can kill people with guns even if there are no guns.

Gun regulation in the US only as a response to American workers becoming more militant, for example the Battle for Blair Mountain in West Virginia where police massacred the women and children of striking coal miners resulted in the coal miners forming a revolutionary army of 10,000. Gun laws are only aimed at the proletariat.

Well, this is a good point, but it's not the only route the bourgeoisie can take. In the UK, for instance, the government's response to a heightened militancy after WWI was to disarm the police - to prevent police weapons being handed over to potential revolutionary workres. Even now, the police aren't generally armed. Even when they were (for example in the years before WWI when Eastern European Anarchists were causing trouble in London) the police sometimes had to borrow guns from passers-by when in pursuit of armed men.

...To those saying "do you plan on shooting drones down with a rifle?" - what do you plan on revolting with, an axe? I thought this board was for revolutionaries...

If you think 'revolution' means playing 'Red Dawn' while wanking over pictures of Che, then, no it isn't.

Jan Appel (AKA Max Hempel) who was an organiser with KPD and KAPD, took part in the Sparticist rising in Germany, was a delegate to the Communist International, arrested for revolutionary activity, fled Germany for his own saftey and went to work in Holland where he continued his revolutionary activity, and wrote 'Principles of Communist Production and Distribution' - who could hardly be accused of 'not being a revolutionary' - was asked in later life about how the proletariat is going to be able to militarily take on the state. His answer was the working class can't, militarily, defeat the state.

The working class is strong because it controls production. Revolution isn't about armed gangs, that's a coup. Revolution is about the working class organising itself to take over society. If we're lured into set-piece confrontations with the military, without paralysing the state's ability to wage war, then we're going to die in numbers that make the massacres of the 20th century look like a picnic.

...Without guns, it is more difficult to 'rob' the capitalists and their banks.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a board for revolutionaries. If you think any amount of 'expropriation' is going to overthrow capitalism and the state, I suggest you get back in your time machine and return to the late 19th century, as your tactics have been somewhat discredited in the last 120 years.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th July 2012, 11:52

Spirit

29th July 2012, 12:06

Gun regulation in the US only as a response to American workers becoming more militant, for example the Battle for Blair Mountain in West Virginia where police massacred the women and children of striking coal miners resulted in the coal miners forming a revolutionary army of 10,000. Gun laws are only aimed at the proletariat.

Hey, if you think that owning a handgun or a rifle is securing your feeling of safety from the bourgeoise state, that's fine :lol:

also, if you're planning to organize a guerilla warfare in the states with all your firearms you legally possess, good luck! I hope you kick the crap out of the police, SWAT teams, the army, marines, seals, FBI, CIA and anti-terrorist units...giv'em hell!!! :cool:

apart from that, I can't really see the point of not being required to register firearms or being required to have a permit for openly carrying guns and rifles (like in colorado)...

Blake's Baby

29th July 2012, 12:17

Blake's Baby, are you suggesting that overall homicide rates would go down in the event of stricter firearms laws in the US?

If not, then why does the fact that murder is being carried out with guns bother you, rather than the murders themselves?

I'm asking why people think there is a situation where American workers are 40 times more likely to be killed with guns than English and Welsh workers; and I'm asking why some people believe this is a good thing; and I'm asking why people believe that gun deaths would still be high in the USA if there were no guns, which is what the 'it's not guns it's because America is... (insert pointless cultural point here)' boils down to.

Do you have evidence for comaprative murder rates between the US and other developed countries Noxion? Happy to comment on difference between them if you wish.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

29th July 2012, 12:26

I'm asking why people think there is a situation where American workers are 40 times more likely to be killed with guns than English and Welsh workers; and I'm asking why some people believe this is a good thing; and I'm asking why people believe that gun deaths would still be high in the USA if there were no guns, which is what the 'it's not guns it's because America is... (insert pointless cultural point here)' boils down to.

Do you have evidence for comaprative murder rates between the US and other developed countries Noxion? Happy to comment on difference between them if you wish.

So you don't think that stuff like economic and social inequality contributes more to the likelyhood of being murdered than the availability of firearms? Wiki's list of countries by homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) would seem to suggest otherwise.

That's what people have been trying to tell you for the past few pages now; the question of whether private individuals should be allowed to possess firearms has little bearing on how "safe" a society is.

Psy

29th July 2012, 16:01

Logiocal fallacy, any argument that people could still be killed by guns if there were no guns is stupid and wrong, and anyone making it is a liar or a fool, or possibly both. People cannot be killed by guns if there are no guns. No-one mentioned 'violence', there are a bazillion ways of committing 'violence'. I didn't say that people in the US were 40 times more likely to suffer 'violence' than people in the England and Wales, I said that they were 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in England and Wales.

That is not my point, my point is your reasoning is like saying "red cars are the most likely to speed, therefore banning red cars would reduce speeding" this assumes a causality between cars being red and cars tending to speed ignoring the possibility of coincidence.

Same here, there is a assumption that the number of guns in society causes violence thus removing guns would lower violence.

As for just looking at gun violence this is pointless, a person killed by a gun is just as dead by a person killed by a petroleum bomb. Are you going to ban flammable liquids because they are used to make weapons? Also the machines needed to manufacture WWII era firearms now are found in your common High School machine shop (you just need the skill to make them).

So how are you going to stop a highly skilled machinist from building guns with cheap second hand machinery once it becomes profitable to manufacture them by hand due to a firearm ban? It would be the just like the prohibition of alcohol with organized crime making a killing from manufacturing their own firearms and selling them on the black market that is if they can't find cheaper sources through smuggling in arms.

Blake's Baby

30th July 2012, 00:57

So you don't think that stuff like economic and social inequality contributes more to the likelyhood of being murdered than the availability of firearms? Wiki's list of countries by homicide rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) would seem to suggest otherwise...

Why?

Countries with the greatest wealth disparities figure all over the place on that list. I specifically asked earlier if it was the contention of the 'lots of guns is great' lobby whether they thought America was a third world country. Do you?

The countries that feature highest seem to me to be places where it's easy to get weapons.

That's what people have been trying to tell you for the past few pages now; the question of whether private individuals should be allowed to possess firearms has little bearing on how "safe" a society is.

I disagree, and call to your attention the statistic that Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot than people in England and Wales. The two countries are comparable in terms of wealth, disparity between 'tops' and 'bottoms', property laws, religion, and many other aspects of culture. The major difference between them, which may have a bearing on this, is that in the US guns are very easy to get hold of.

Other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Netherlands - and countries outside of Europe - Japan, China - as well, that also have great disparities of wealth, also score lower than the US. I think it's ridiculous to claim that the US is more like Grenada and the Philipines (of course, the US did invade both these in the last 120 years), Thailand and Peru, rather than Germany, Japan, Britain, Italy and France.

Even taking into account the non-gun homicides (about 5,000 in the USA, about 600 in the UK), you're still 4 times more likely to by murdered in the USA. 2/3 of American murders happen with guns. About 9% of British murders.

That 'might' suggest that around 9,500 of the 15,000 people murdered in the US might be alive today with different access to guns. Who knows, if you didn't have easy access to guns, maybe you could have the murder rate of first-world country?

Rottenfruit

30th July 2012, 03:58

Did I ever say we should ban guns? No. Besides if you actually think any revolution stands a chance against the U.S. State you are insane. If you don't win over the majority of the military you won't stand a chance, even with assault rifles. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

Gurilla warfare insidie Usa done by it's own citizien is alot harder to fight then anything Usa would have ever faced, its very hard for soldiers to fight in there own nation, alot of soldiers would join the people against in government in such a revulution, would it be bloody? Oh yes, but remember the Russian revolution it was not done by holding signs, it was done by violence.

Rottenfruit

30th July 2012, 04:05

Why?

Countries with the greatest wealth disparities figure all over the place on that list. I specifically asked earlier if it was the contention of the 'lots of guns is great' lobby whether they thought America was a third world country. Do you?

The countries that feature highest seem to me to be places where it's easy to get weapons.

I disagree, and call to your attention the statistic that Americans are 40 times more likely to be shot than people in England and Wales. The two countries are comparable in terms of wealth, disparity between 'tops' and 'bottoms', property laws, religion, and many other aspects of culture. The major difference between them, which may have a bearing on this, is that in the US guns are very easy to get hold of.

Other European countries - Germany, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Netherlands - and countries outside of Europe - Japan, China - as well, that also have great disparities of wealth, also score lower than the US. I think it's ridiculous to claim that the US is more like Grenada and the Philipines (of course, the US did invade both these in the last 120 years), Thailand and Peru, rather than Germany, Japan, Britain, Italy and France.

Even taking into account the non-gun homicides (about 5,000 in the USA, about 600 in the UK), you're still 4 times more likely to by murdered in the USA. 2/3 of American murders happen with guns. About 9% of British murders.

That 'might' suggest that around 9,500 of the 15,000 people murdered in the US might be alive today with different access to guns. Who knows, if you didn't have easy access to guns, maybe you could have the murder rate of first-world country?

And you are 3 times more likely to be killed in Russia then Usa and almost 20 times more likly to be killed in Honduars then Usa, It's social inequality,poverty, governmental corruption,classism and institutional racism that is cause and oh yeah CAPITALISM
your "quastions" has been answerd over and over. End of story and this topic is getting out of hand going in circles

bcbm

30th July 2012, 04:53

The countries that feature highest seem to me to be places where it's easy to get weapons.

switzerland?

Even taking into account the non-gun homicides (about 5,000 in the USA, about 600 in the UK), you're still 4 times more likely to by murdered in the USA.

so even without guns americans kill each other more, kind of makes your 'its the guns' stuff seem less accurate

Welshy

30th July 2012, 05:30

You support the status quo. The status quo is between 9,000 and 18,000 US workers being killed by guns every year. Why do you want c. 13,500 US workers being killed with guns every year?

You are only attacking the tool that is being used, not the source of the issue which is the environment capitalism produces.

Find me a post in this thread where I say I 'support the bourgeoise state (doing anything)' or stop talking out of your ass. You're full of shit and your position is untenable, you cheerleader for the murder of workers.

By advocating banning guns, which whether you think you are or not, you are supporting an action by the bourgeois state which has historically in US been a reaction to militancy with in the working class.

Logiocal fallacy, any argument that people could still be killed by guns if there were no guns is stupid and wrong, and anyone making it is a liar or a fool, or possibly both. People cannot be killed by guns if there are no guns. No-one mentioned 'violence', there are a bazillion ways of committing 'violence'. I didn't say that people in the US were 40 times more likely to suffer 'violence' than people in the England and Wales, I said that they were 40 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in England and Wales.

It has already been shown in this thread where the Police and the CIA have actively sold weapons to gangs, so there would still be guns out there even if they are completely banned for civilian ownership and use. People will still die, the only difference is that the only guns out there will be owned by the bourgeois state and by gangs for the sole purpose of killing people, instead of things like competitive target shooting or hunting. Also it has been shown that there are countries with more restrictive gun control than the US that have higher gun related deaths. It has also been shown that even with in areas of the US where gun ownership is/was illegal, like D.C., you had higher murders with guns than in areas with loser gun control.

So get your argument straight, then explain why a 40-times higher death rate from guns among American workers than among English and Welsh workers is a good thing, how it helps the revolution or whatever, instead of talking shit about 'violence' and how you can kill people with guns even if there are no guns.

They are trying to point out that you shouldn't be so hung up on the fact that guns are being used to kill people and should be more concerned as why the murdering is happening in the first place. Also when it comes time for the revolution the workers are going to need to have a way to defend themselves and until a large split in the military happens that we will be able to organize a better trained self defense force for the working class and the revolution, civilian owned guns will be the initial source of this protection. To think that the workers will be safe because of their roll in production is just naive non-sense that flies in the face of the experiences of the working class, especially the american working class. It is not a good thing that this comes at the cost of possibly a higher rate of murder (no causation has been proven between the higher murder rates in the US and gun ownership, in this thread at least), but the world isn't pretty under capitalism and a lot of places in the US are violent because of it.

Spirit

30th July 2012, 06:14

Hey, here's a crazy idea: it's the guns AND the social inequality. But you can't ignore one part of that combination if you mean to make your point.

Blake's Baby

30th July 2012, 11:50

switzerland?

Switzerland isn't a question.

What are you asking?

so even without guns americans kill each other more, kind of makes your 'its the guns' stuff seem less accurate

What exactly are you arguing here? Non-gun homicides in the USA are 5,000 in 300 million, or 5 in 300,000, or 1.7 in 100,00. Non-gun homicides in the UK are 600 in 60 million, or 6 in 600,000 or 1 in 100,000.

In other words, the non-gun homicide rate in the US is less than twice the rate in the UK. I think that's pretty comparable.

The gun-homocide rate in the USA is around 10,000 in 300 million, or 3,300 in 100 million, or 33 in a million.

The gun homicide rate in the UK is about 50 in 60 million, or less than one in a million. That means the US figure is around 40 times higher than the UK figure, which really isn't comparable.

It think one figure being 40 times higher than the other requires more explanation than one figure being 0.7 times higher, don't you? Makes your 'it's not the guns' stuff seem less accurate.

...
By advocating banning guns, which whether you think you are or not, you are supporting an action by the bourgeois state which has historically in US been a reaction to militancy with in the working class...

By advocating that Americans should defend their constitutional rights, which [you are] whether you think you are or not, you are supporting both American national exceptionalism and the murder of around 10,000 American workers every year.

Your move.

...

They are trying to point out that you shouldn't be so hung up on the fact that guns are being used to kill people and should be more concerned as why the murdering is happening in the first place...

No they're trying to claim that guns are irrelevant to the fact that America has a higher murder rate than the UK, and are instead claiming America is a third world country, is more mentally disturbed, and has a totally different to culture to the UK in order to explain what is actually pretty obvious.

Non-gun homicides are broadly comparable in the US and UK, where access to crossbows, hammers, kitchen knives and various kinds of sporting bats are broadly comparable; gun homicides are not broadly comparable. But that, apparently, has nothing to do with different levels of access to guns.

Prinskaj

30th July 2012, 12:22

You support the status quo. The status quo is between 9,000 and 18,000 US workers being killed by guns every year. Why do you want c. 13,500 US workers being killed with guns every year?
I do not support the status quo, I support the arming of the working class, not the demising of their ability to self-defense.
Secondly, you seem to have some kind of emotional attachedment to the issue, given your lack of critical analyze. Ask why are there more gun related murders in the United States? Is it the amount of guns? I propose that it is rather a cultural phenomenon. The gun culture in US is very different than in the UK, so that fits with the correlation, that you so firmly put fourth. But let's try to dig even deeper. Let's take two countries which are very similar and compare them, Denmark and Sweden.
Sweden has about three times more guns per capita than Denmark has, but does it have more gun related crime? No, the numbers are pretty close. (With Sweden usually having a slightly lower homicide rate)

But now, let's try doing this the hardcore way! WITH MATH!!!
In the United States there are 88.8 guns per 100 residents.
In England and Wales there are 6.2 guns per 100 residents.
Which allows us to determine the relationship between gun ownership in the US and UK: 88.8 / 6.2 = 14.32
Now, as you pointed out, there are about 40 times more gun-related deaths in the United States, then there are in the United Kingdom.
So each doubling in gun ownership will, if you are correct, result in about a (40 / 14.32) * 100 = 279% increase, give or take, in gun related deaths.
Least apply this number to two similar countries. The Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Slovakia has 8.3 guns per 100 residents, and the the Czech Republic has 16.3 per 100 residents. So the relationship between gun ownership in the two countries are 16.3 / 8.3 = 1.96 times more guns per 100 residents in the Czech Republic.
So by our previous estimations, the gun related deaths in the Czech Republic must be about 279% * 0.96 = 268% higher.
In 2002 the Czech Republic had 1.77 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population. So if the the availability of guns is the cause of gun-related homicides, then Slovakia must have somewhere around 1.77 / 268% = 0.66 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population. So let's check if they do.
In 2000 it was estimated that the gun related homicides in Slovakia per 100,000 population was.. *Drum roll* 2.17!
So not really much of a correlation there..
*Please note that this was not an attempt at a scientific estimation, only a really, really, REALLY rough estimation.*

Blake's Baby

30th July 2012, 12:37

... some stuff...

Wow, all that and you a) totally missed the point and b) failed to say anything.

I have never claimed that everyone with a gun is a murderer, merely that to kill people with guns, you need guns. Why do you find that so difficult to accept? Talk about emotional attachment... don't cry, I'm not going to come and take your penis away. Did I say penis? Sorry, I meant penis substitute. Comparing Slovakia and the Czech Republic is not anything like comparing 'like for like'. Slovakia is much less urbanised for a start. So I reject the comparison.

My point is that access to guns is a necesary precondition of a high gun-murder rate. Not that it's an automatic guarantee, but a necessary precondition. Prove me wrong - with 'math' if you like - by showing me one country with a high gun-murder rate, that has a low access to guns. That's all you have to do.

What, if not 'access to guns', accounts for the difference of around 40 times, in the gun murder rates between the US and the UK, when, as has been shown, other murder rates between the two countries are similar? I'm betting it's just as easy to get a kitchen knife in America as in the UK, it's just as easy to get a cricket bat in the UK as a baseball bat in the US... and these and other weapons that are equally accessable produce similar (not identical, but similar) murder rates. Guns however have very different access in the two countries and there are 40 times more gun murders in the US than in the UK (actually, 240 times as many, but adjusted for population, that's 40 times as meany per head). So, how is it possible to explain that, without reference to the availability of guns?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th July 2012, 12:49

Talk about emotional attachment... don't cry, I'm not going to come and take your penis away. Did I say penis? Sorry, I meant penis substitute.

:rolleyes:

Dildos are penis substitutes. Try using a gun in that manner and you'll hurt yourself.

I don't own any firearms, but that is due to a combination of my own economic situation and the stupid laws in this country.

If more people actually got the chance to handle a firearm, under trained supervision, then maybe we wouldn't have so many fucking ignorant hoplophobes who like to cast heterosexist aspersions on firearms enthusiasts.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

30th July 2012, 13:56

..it's a lot easier to kill multiple people with guns than with knives or other weapons, which is why I see gun registering and restirctions as very necessary.

Number people killed since 2000 in 'sprees' or 'massacres' using guns (includes school shootings, workplaces shootings and familicide)

USA - 89 (6 seperate instances)

UK - 12 (1 instance)

(Source: wiki)

I know that poverty and mental health issues and all kinds of other factors lead to the actual violence that people perpetrate but I think that with firearms, there is a special case to be made for imposing some restrictions purely because they can kill the most people with relative ease if compared to someone weilding a knife or some other non-projectile weapon.

Welshy

30th July 2012, 17:08

Switzerland isn't a question.

What are you asking?

Switzerland has a larger amount of gun ownership.

By advocating that Americans should defend their constitutional rights, which [you are] whether you think you are or not, you are supporting both American national exceptionalism and the murder of around 10,000 American workers every year.

Your move.

It's not american exceptionalism because I think the british working class should have guns too. Also just there is no documentation as to the class make up of those 10,000 americans or as to who the murders were. If a large amount of those murders were connected to gangs then banning guns will do nothing as the gangs are sold guns by the police and CIA.

EDIT: I should also note this is a bad copy change because I'm not and many people here are not citing the 2nd amendment for this. So we are not calling for americans to defend their constitutional rights (I personally would love to ban guns from the hands of the bourgeoisie and their state, so fuck the second amendment), where as you position requires the action of the bourgeois state against the armed members of the working class, which is a much more serious problem than a confused leftist talking about constitutional rights.

No they're trying to claim that guns are irrelevant to the fact that America has a higher murder rate than the UK, and are instead claiming America is a third world country, is more mentally disturbed, and has a totally different to culture to the UK in order to explain what is actually pretty obvious.

No that's what you think they are claiming. They admit that if there were no guns there would be no gun related murder, but given americans situation with our gangs and corruption in the police force and the actions of the CIA there will never be no guns in the US that aren't exclusively owned by the state. So there will always be gun murders in the US. So by banning guns you are only disarming the working class and punishing those who use them in ways that aren't armful to people.

Non-gun homicides are broadly comparable in the US and UK, where access to crossbows, hammers, kitchen knives and various kinds of sporting bats are broadly comparable; gun homicides are not broadly comparable. But that, apparently, has nothing to do with different levels of access to guns.

You are assuming that if we ban guns that it will completely get rid of those murders. Sure we probably have an overall drop, but some of those murders will probably be made up for in an increase in non-gun related murders. There is no reason to think the american murder rate will drop to the same as the UK.

Lucretia

30th July 2012, 17:59

Nobody here is arguing that access to guns causes people to act like madmen, which is why you can cite the example of Switzerland of a society where there is access to many guns but not a lot of gun violence.

The question is, in a society that has proven as rampantly violent as the US, is it a good idea to have unrestricted access to guns? Is more restriction needed?

These are not unreasonable questions, and it's silly legalism for a revolutionary to cite "the Constitution" as support for their answer to these questions. The question begins with "Should" not "Is it legally permitted under a Constitution that protects private property..."

Prinskaj

30th July 2012, 19:42

I have never claimed that everyone with a gun is a murderer, merely that to kill people with guns, you need guns. Why do you find that so difficult to accept? Wow.. You just blew my mind.. So if psychopaths and people with other mental disorders cannot find any guns, they are not going to, say, find another weapon to commit the murder with? Cool story bro..

Talk about emotional attachment... don't cry, I'm not going to come and take your penis away. Did I say penis? Sorry, I meant penis substitute. 1) Please hold of the personal attacks, it makes you seem very simple minded.
2) I do not own a gun, nor do I have any intention of aquiring a firearm. To be quite frank, I absolutly dispeise guns in general, but I do not see how giving control of them to the bourgeoisie is a positive thing.

Comparing Slovakia and the Czech Republic is not anything like comparing 'like for like'. Slovakia is much less urbanised for a start. So I reject the comparison. Woah, hold up! So there are other factors involved? Jesus H. Christ, you might just be starting to see my point!
The comparison was merely to show that your view that accessibility to guns should be the cause of firearm-related deaths, I merely proposed that other factors are just as, if not more crucial.

My point is that access to guns is a necesary precondition of a high gun-murder rate. Not that it's an automatic guarantee, but a necessary precondition. Prove me wrong - with 'math' if you like - by showing me one country with a high gun-murder rate, that has a low access to guns. That's all you have to do.Switzerland, has already been mentioned.. At 45.7 guns per 100 residents (Not as high as the US, but a large portion of the weapons in Switzerland is assault weapons), and a very low firearm-related homicide rate. (But, oh how I wish, that I could use some good ol' math again)

What, if not 'access to guns', accounts for the difference of around 40 times, in the gun murder rates between the US and the UK, when, as has been shown, other murder rates between the two countries are similar?I'm betting it's just as easy to get a kitchen knife in America as in the UK, it's just as easy to get a cricket bat in the UK as a baseball bat in the US... and these and other weapons that are equally accessable produce similar (not identical, but similar) murder rates. Guns however have very different access in the two countries and there are 40 times more gun murders in the US than in the UK (actually, 240 times as many, but adjusted for population, that's 40 times as meany per head). So, how is it possible to explain that, without reference to the availability of guns? There are two main factors, at least as I see it.
Firstly, the cultural aspect. The attitude of people towards guns are a very important factor in how people act with them. The media and culture in the United States has done everything in it's might to deify guns.
Secondly, the welfare state is also a very important factor. The rates of murder drops significantly in countries that provide some basic services for the masses, such as healthcare, education and so on.

PS: Sorry, if I am slightly hard understand, I am currently kinda ill.

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 01:59

Wow.. You just blew my mind.. So if psychopaths and people with other mental disorders cannot find any guns, they are not going to, say, find another weapon to commit the murder with? Cool story bro..

Wow, you blew my mind, so if you haven't got an argument, you just go, well wow...?

Can people kill other people with guns, if there are no guns?

1 - No; in which case thank you, that's what I'm saying.
2 - Yes; in which case, please explain how.

1) Please hold of the personal attacks, it makes you seem very simple minded...

Fuck you. You're the chump who claimed that I had an 'emotional attachment' to the argument. Don't piss people off if you can't take people getting peeved at your personal attacks.

2) I do not own a gun, nor do I have any intention of aquiring a firearm. To be quite frank, I absolutly dispeise guns in general, but I do not see how giving control of them to the bourgeoisie is a positive thing...

yet again, quote me where I say 'the bourgeois state should...' or any other form of words that implies that this is my position; if you don't, you're tilting at yet another strawman. Engage with the arguments instead of making shit up and pretending it's either relevant or interesting.

...Woah, hold up! So there are other factors involved? Jesus H. Christ, you might just be starting to see my point!
The comparison was merely to show that your view that accessibility to guns should be the cause of firearm-related deaths, I merely proposed that other factors are just as, if not more crucial...

Show me where I have said that other factors cannot be involved.

Or admit you're a lying piece of shit.

Of course access to firearms 'causes' firearm deaths. If you can show me a single case where someone was shot with a gun, without a gun, I'll admit I'm wrong.

As I said earlier, that you ignored:

...
My point is that access to guns is a necesary precondition of a high gun-murder rate. Not that it's an automatic guarantee, but a necessary precondition. Prove me wrong - with 'math' if you like - by showing me one country with a high gun-murder rate, that has a low access to guns. That's all you have to do.
...

Switzerland, has already been mentioned.. At 45.7 guns per 100 residents (Not as high as the US, but a large portion of the weapons in Switzerland is assault weapons), and a very low firearm-related homicide rate. (But, oh how I wish, that I could use some good ol' math again)...

You really have no idea do you?

I'll go through this again and see if you get it this time:

...
My point is that access to guns is a necesary precondition of a high gun-murder rate. Not that it's an automatic guarantee, but a necessary precondition. Prove me wrong - with 'math' if you like - by showing me one country with a high gun-murder rate, that has a low access to guns. That's all you have to do.
...

Switzerland, has already been mentioned.. At 45.7 guns per 100 residents (Not as high as the US, but a large portion of the weapons in Switzerland is assault weapons), and a very low firearm-related homicide rate. (But, oh how I wish, that I could use some good ol' math again)...

So I ask for a - wait for it - high gun-murder, low gun-access country, which would invalidate my point and back up yours; and you give me... a low gun-murder, high gun-access country, that doesn't invalidate anything! Priceless!

There are two main factors, at least as I see it.
Firstly, the cultural aspect. The attitude of people towards guns are a very important factor in how people act with them. The media and culture in the United States has done everything in it's might to deify guns.
Secondly, the welfare state is also a very important factor. The rates of murder drops significantly in countries that provide some basic services for the masses, such as healthcare, education and so on...

Wow, and yet, you don't think, 'people having guns', is a contributory factor in people getting killed with guns?

PS: Sorry, if I am slightly hard understand, I am currently kinda ill.

No, you're not hard to understand, the problem is that you have trouble understanding.

Really I hope your illness isn't serious because though I find you annoying and in fact question your honesty in making several of the points you have made - seriously, I think you're either a liar and a charlatan, or increadibly stupid - I still don't have enough bile in me to wish that harm befalls you.

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 02:37

Blake, chill out.. This is what I meant when I said "emotionally attached to the subjects", since you seem to be having at least a bit of trouble keeping this discussion civil (I did not mean it to be insulting in any way, many people have one or more special issue(s) that touch them at a personal level). So I repeat, calm down, take a deep breath and relax. It's only a debate on the internet, my brother.

It seems as if we are talking past each other, so I will just try to resolve that issue. Firstly your argumentation seems to be, that guns are required for gun-related homicides, this is of course completely correct, and I have never said otherwise. But my point being that the mindset of the person committing the murder is the determining factor in whether a murder will occur, not the accessibility of weapons, since tools capable of murder are, as we have previously determined, plentiful in the common household.
Therefore I suggest that this discussion must be turned more towards the aspect of murder in general than merely a particular kind.

About the regulation of guns, I would like to seriously, and sincerely, ask you: Who should regulate the amount of guns in circulation and who should acquire them, if not the state?

And about the example, I am sorry that I misunderstood you (As I said, still slightly sick, and not entirely clear headed).

I am also terribly sorry, if I have come across as "a liar or a charlatan".

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 03:00

Welshy

31st July 2012, 03:17

Right then; let's see if we can get a little further with our new-found agreement and civility.

Good, recognition from someone that high levels of murders with guns, require (but are not necessarily caused by, just in case anyone fancies jumping on that straw horse again) high levels of access to guns, is a start.

People have recognize this fact over and over again, but you have ignored that.

On other murders, despite the non-gun homicide rates in UK and US being similar (10 per million for the UK to 17 per million for the US, I think the earlier figures were coming out as) the gun-related homicides are very different (less than one per million for the UK, to 33 per million for the US).

Once again I don't think it is fair to say that american murder rate would be the same in both countries if you banned guns in the US, because 1. gangs would still have guns as they don't care about legality, 2. you haven't accounted for a possible uptake in murders with other weapons that people would turn to since they can't use guns anymore.

Now, if you're talking about 'mindsets' here, I want to know why the 'mindset' of Americans is closer to the 'mindset' of people in Thailand, the Philipines, Grenada and Peru, rather than the 'mindset' of Germany, Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy or Japan - developed capitalist countries in other words. Why do the 'pro-gun lobby' (that I can only just refrain from calling the 'pro-murder lobby') want to insist that it's 'social factors' at work? If it is, surely the richest country in the world is to be compared to the next five or ten rich countries - the majority of which have much lower gun-death rates than the US - rather than some random 3rd-world countries? I've been asking for pages now if the pro-gun people really believe that America is more like a third-world country than a first world country, or if they reallybelieve that Americans are significantly more psychologically damaged than the inhabitants of other first-world countries.

So what is so different about America?

Just because the US has the strongest economy in the world doesn't say anything about standard of living. The US has a lower standard of living than that of Germany, Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy or Japan in a lot of the areas that have large amount of gun violence. To say that just because we have more guns than those countries as the reason why we kill each other more isn't looking at the big picture. Also it seems like you have a very idealized vision of the US. Can I ask have you actually been to the US, especially where there is poverty?

Well, there is the widespread availibility of guns. That might be a factor in the massive number of gun-deaths...

Why are you so opposed to the fact that social factors play a heavy role in the number of gun related death? Are we suppose to ignore the effect that stuff like poverty has on murder rates? Also this isn't an issue of mindset like you seem to like to think. To boil it down to stuff like that stinks of a colonialist world view in which africa and asia and latin america are full of a bunch of savages, so why is the US, a developed country, behaving like those barbarians?

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 03:49

People have recognize this fact over and over again, but you have ignored that...

Yeah, in six pages three people have mentioned it once each. In passing. And then gone on to list loads of other things they thinl are more important, like that I'm a government loving liberal who hates the revolution, for example.

...

Once again I don't think it is fair to say that american murder rate would be the same in both countries...

Oh, and have I said that they would?

If I have, please show me where I did.

If I haven't, then that comment is certainly irrelevant, and potentially deliberately misleading.

... if you banned guns in the US, because 1. gangs would still have guns as they don't care about legality, 2. you haven't accounted for a possible uptake in murders with other weapons that people would turn to since they can't use guns anymore...

That last point is what I've been trying to get at in asking whether people really consider that the USA's extremely high murder rate (for a first world country) is a result of - a) the mental health deficiencies of the American citizens or b) levels of poverty similar to third-world countries.

Why is the murder rate in the US similar to places like Thailand and Peru (places that in most other respects, eg economic performance, levels of urbanism etc, are not similar to the US) rather than places like Germany, Japan and Britain, that in many ways (eg economy, urbanism) are similar to the US?

...
Just because the US has the strongest economy in the world doesn't say anything about standard of living. The US has a lower standard of living than that of Germany, Britain, Netherlands, France, Italy or Japan in a lot of the areas that have large amount of gun violence. To say that just because we have more guns than those countries as the reason why we kill each other more isn't looking at the big picture. Also it seems like you have a very idealized vision of the US. Can I ask have you actually been to the US, especially where there is poverty?...

An idealised view of the US? Hardly. 10,000 people get murdered with guns there every year, sounds pretty fucking horrible to me. 'Areas' that have lower standards of living than the the UK, Netherlands etc? So what? So do 'areas' of the UK, Netherlands etc. If you're goin to pick and chose 'areas' of the US then I'm going to pick and chose 'areas' of the UK, Netherlands, Germany...

...
Why are you so opposed to the fact that social factors play a heavy role in the number of gun related death? Are we suppose to ignore the effect that stuff like poverty has on murder rates? Also this isn't an issue of mindset like you seem to like to think...

Why are you so opposed to the notion that large numbers of people are killed by guns in the US because there is a large number of guns?

The whole discussion of 'mindsets' is Prinskaj's not mine. I think it's rubbish, myself. That's why I kept putting it in inverted commas.

...To boil it down to stuff like that stinks of a colonialist world view in which africa and asia and latin america are full of a bunch of savages, so why is the US, a developed country, behaving like those barbarians?

I'm going to defend Prinskaj here and say I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

You, and some of your co-thinkers, see the huge number of gun-deaths in the US as being the result of 'social' by which you seem to mean economic factors, when you don't mean mental health.

So I say again, why do you think that it's more relevant to compare the US to Thailand and Peru, rather than Germany and Japan and the UK, or even China? None of those countries, though in many respects they have many of the same problems the US does, have anything like the same murder rate or particualrly gun-murder rates.

Welshy

31st July 2012, 04:21

Oh, and have I said that they would?

If I have, please show me where I did.

If I haven't, then that comment is certainly irrelevant, and potentially deliberately misleading.

If that is not your point then I think you have been misleading with your posting because by showing that the non-gun murder rate of both countries are the same you are implying that by getting rid of the guns in the US then we should see a drop to similar levels. Maybe I was reading to deep into this, but you never clarified as to this point.

That last point is what I've been trying to get at in asking whether people really consider that the USA's extremely high murder rate (for a first world country) is a result of - a) the mental health deficiencies of the American citizens or b) levels of poverty similar to third-world countries.

Why is the murder rate in the US similar to places like Thailand and Peru (places that in most other respects, eg economic performance, levels of urbanism etc, are not similar to the US) rather than places like Germany, Japan and Britain, that in many ways (eg economy, urbanism) are similar to the US?

An idealised view of the US? Hardly. 10,000 people get murdered with guns there every year, sounds pretty fucking horrible to me. 'Areas' that have lower standards of living than the the UK, Netherlands etc? So what? So do 'areas' of the UK, Netherlands etc. If you're goin to pick and chose 'areas' of the US then I'm going to pick and chose 'areas' of the UK, Netherlands, Germany...

Well the issue is that one doesn't have the same likelihood to get killed with a gun in every part of the US. So to ignore where the murders happen and the conditions will lead to a loss of very important information that can help us get to the root of the reason why the US has such a high gun murder rate.

Why are you so opposed to the notion that large numbers of people are killed by guns in the US because there is a large number of guns?

I'm not. I already acknowledged the fact that if there weren't any guns present in the US, then there would be no gun related murder and that the high number of guns owned in the US legally or illegally means that when people want to go kill someone they have access to something that is quite effective at killing people (This last part I didn't mention earlier but the sentence flows better this way). However we shouldn't get caught up in looking at the large ownership of guns, which is an issue because of who usually owns them (I say this as someone who wants own a gun or two in the near future for hunting and target shooting), but instead we should be investigating why people commit these acts of murder (the reason isn't because they own guns) and why people own so many guns. Those are the real issues and banning guns will not solve these problems.

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 09:53

On other murders, despite the non-gun homicide rates in UK and US being similar (10 per million for the UK to 17 per million for the US, I think the earlier figures were coming out as) the gun-related homicides are very different (less than one per million for the UK, to 33 per million for the US). Guns, knifes and other objects with lethal capacity are merely means to an end. If a person is mentally capable of murdering his/her fellow man, then this person will find other way, if said firearms are not available. So if you remove firearms from the United States, then I would suspect that the figures for other types of homicides would rise in proportion to the drop in firearm-related homicides. Would you recognize this a being a potential scenario?

Also, you did not respond to my question, so I will ask you again: Who should regulate the amount of guns in circulation and who should acquire them, if not the state?

Also this isn't an issue of mindset like you seem to like to think. To boil it down to stuff like that stinks of a colonialist world view in which africa and asia and latin america are full of a bunch of savages, so why is the US, a developed country, behaving like those barbarians? Sorry, If I didn't make my use of the word "mindset" clear, it was not meant to refer to a culture or a society as such. But the individual person, who would commit acts such as homicide.

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 10:27

If that is not your point then I think you have been misleading with your posting because by showing that the non-gun murder rate of both countries are the same you are implying that by getting rid of the guns in the US then we should see a drop to similar levels. Maybe I was reading to deep into this, but you never clarified as to this point...

You say that I 'cannot claim' that gun-murder rates would drop while non-gun-murder rates would remain the same, were it not for easy access to firearms, which would indicate that the majority of murders in the US are directly a consequence of the number of guns - which is a claim I have not made.

I do, however, claim that such a drop is possible. It may be that the high levels of gun-murder in the US would not be so high if not for easy access to guns.

You seem to think that such a drop is impossible. If that is your case, please explain why you think, uniquely in the developed world it seems, Americans are particularly murderous; rather than, as seems fairly obvious to an unbiased outsider, that the high gun-murder rate (which contributes to a high murder rate in general) is not in part a consequence of the proliferation of weaponry in the US.

...

Well the issue is that one doesn't have the same likelihood to get killed with a gun in every part of the US...

... nor in the UK nor in Germany nor in any other country in the world...

... So to ignore where the murders happen and the conditions will lead to a loss of very important information that can help us get to the root of the reason why the US has such a high gun murder rate....

Yeah, because no-one can travel anywhere and guns aren't portable.

There are poor parts of the UK where there are no gun murders, year on year. There are poor parts of the US where there are gun murders every day. Is poverty a factor? If it were, would there not be more gun murders in the poor areas of the UK?

I see no reason not to address this on a country by country basis.

...
I'm not. I already acknowledged the fact that if there weren't any guns present in the US, then there would be no gun related murder and that the high number of guns owned in the US legally or illegally means that when people want to go kill someone they have access to something that is quite effective at killing people (This last part I didn't mention earlier but the sentence flows better this way)...

Right; so unlike hammers and baseball bats and kitchen knives, or even hunting rifles, you admit that there are some murders that are carried out using easily-available weapons that are specifically designed to kill people.

And yet the availability of these doesn't factor into your thinking about why there are so many murders in the US?

Here's a little thought experiment for you:

Two people, in similar situations (add in all the 'social factors' you like to explain why they are contemplating murder) are both contemplating murder. One has to hand a handgun, the other has the choice of a kitchen knife, a big bit of wood and a hammer. Which of these situations is more likely to result in a dead body?

...
However we shouldn't get caught up in looking at the large ownership of guns, which is an issue because of who usually owns them (I say this as someone who wants own a gun or two in the near future for hunting and target shooting), but instead we should be investigating why people commit these acts of murder (the reason isn't because they own guns) and why people own so many guns. Those are the real issues and banning guns will not solve these problems.

Oh, strawman strawman strawman.

Why are Americans, uniquely among developed countries, so murderous then? Please, give us the benefit of your wisdom.

Guns, knifes and other objects with lethal capacity are merely means to an end. If a person is mentally capable of murdering his/her fellow man, then this person will find other way, if said firearms are not available. So if you remove firearms from the United States, then I would suspect that the figures for other types of homicides would rise in proportion to the drop in firearm-related homicides. Would you recognize this a being a potential scenario?...

No, that's not true and you will be able to see it's not true if you even think about it for a second.

If weapons designed to kill people are to hand, then there will be many more 'spur of the moment' killings than if a) improvised weapons are all that is available, or b) lethal weapons are only available over time.

The only case where it may be as likely that someone will kill with a gun as with a broken bottle, pillow or knitting needle is when the victim is surprised. In almost any situation, the use of a gun will give the attacker a significant advantage over the victim.

...Also, you did not respond to my question, so I will ask you again: Who should regulate the amount of guns in circulation and who should acquire them, if not the state?...

'Should'? Not exactly certain what you're driving at.

If you mean 'should the bourgeois state control access to guns, or should it encourage access to guns?' then no, it 'should' neither encourage nor discourage access to guns. It 'should' cease to be.

Who 'should' control access to guns in any state? Obviously, the working class organised in its soviets 'should' control access to guns, everywhere.

I have no prescriptions for fixing the bourgeois state. I didn't break it, I have no interest in prolonging its life.

But in a bourgeois state, the only force capable of resisting the spread of guns is I'd say the organised working class.

Is any of this relevant to why so many murders in the US are committed with guns?

...Sorry, If I didn't make my use of the word "mindset" clear, it was not meant to refer to a culture or a society as such. But the individual person, who would commit acts such as homicide.

So unlike Welshy, who seems to think that Americans are uniquely murderous among first-world nations because 'really' there are parts of the US that are more like 3rd-world nations, you seem to think that Americans are uniquely murderous among people in the developed world as a matter of individual psychology.

1-in-4 Brits will suffer mental health problems. The US has a 4-times-higher murder rate than the UK. Is mental heath a factor? If it were, is the implication that every person in the US suffers from mental health problems?

So, why do you think Americans are uniquely murderous?

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 11:21

No, that's not true and you will be able to see it's not true if you even think about it for a second.
If weapons designed to kill people are to hand, then there will be many more 'spur of the moment' killings than if a) improvised weapons are all that is available, or b) lethal weapons are only available over time.
The only case where it may be as likely that someone will kill with a gun as with a broken bottle, pillow or knitting needle is when the victim is surprised. In almost any situation, the use of a gun will give the attacker a significant advantage over the victim.
I agree, people who are armed clearly have a major advantage, but this doesn't apply solely to firearms. A person with a large knife, broken bottle or something equivalent, will also be clearly superior in a direct confrontation.

'Should'? Not exactly certain what you're driving at.
If you mean 'should the bourgeois state control access to guns, or should it encourage access to guns?' then no, it 'should' neither encourage nor discourage access to guns. It 'should' cease to be.
Who 'should' control access to guns in any state? Obviously, the working class organised in its soviets 'should' control access to guns, everywhere.
I have no prescriptions for fixing the bourgeois state. I didn't break it, I have no interest in prolonging its life.
But in a bourgeois state, the only force capable of resisting the spread of guns is I'd say the organised working class.
Is any of this relevant to why so many murders in the US are committed with guns? The original topic of this thread was about the Aurora-incident, and about how such things should be counteracted. This means that the main topic of this thread was gun control under the bourgeoisie system, as the impact of gun ownership in a revolution was also discussion in the original post. Which is why I asked, since the thread was about gun control under a capitalist system.

So unlike Welshy, who seems to think that Americans are uniquely murderous among first-world nations because 'really' there are parts of the US that are more like 3rd-world nations, you seem to think that Americans are uniquely murderous among people in the developed world as a matter of individual psychology.
1-in-4 Brits will suffer mental health problems. The US has a 4-times-higher murder rate than the UK. Is mental heath a factor? If it were, is the implication that every person in the US suffers from mental health problems?
So, why do you think Americans are uniquely murderous?
I hope that we can agree, that for a person to commit homicide it requires a certain kind of person, as the average person would not engage in such acts. Now, the causes of this mindset, which can justify murderous behavior is, what I consider to be, the most important aspect. These course are created by the socioeconomic (material) conditions, for that person.

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 11:24

Also a country with high homicide rate and low gun-ownership: Columbia.
6.2 guns per 100 residents and 37.5 firearm related homicides per 100,000.
/Joke ;)

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 12:10

I agree, people who are armed clearly have a major advantage, but this doesn't apply solely to firearms. A person with a large knife, broken bottle or something equivalent, will also be clearly superior in a direct confrontation...

OK, how about a situation where one person is capable of getting hold of an improvised weapon (kitchenm knife, hammer etc) and the other person has a gun? Are they equally dangerous to each other?

The original topic of this thread was about the Aurora-incident, and about how such things should be counteracted. This means that the main topic of this thread was gun control under the bourgeoisie system, as the impact of gun ownership in a revolution was also discussion in the original post. Which is why I asked, since the thread was about gun control under a capitalist system...

The thread was also about why such things happen; and no-one in the thread was challenging the notion that the bourgeois state's encouragement of gun ownership was a good thing.

'Why does the bourgeois state encourage gun ownership in the US? Because it means lots of dead workers and a frightened, atomised citizenry' is my take on it.

...
I hope that we can agree, that for a person to commit homicide it requires a certain kind of person, as the average person would not engage in such acts...

Oooh yes, motive. Motive is certainly important.

Now what else is important? Errrm, let me think... is it opportunity? Yes I think it is...

Now my contention is that I don't see why 'motive ' would be particularly different in regards to Americans compared to Brits, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Dutch... what's radically different is opportunity - in this case, opportunity to get hold of lethal weapons.

Now, the causes of this mindset, which can justify murderous behavior is, what I consider to be, the most important aspect. These course are created by the socioeconomic (material) conditions, for that person.

Right. It's all the poor blacks living in the ghetto, they go mad, is that it? And no other developed country has poor neighbourhoods or concentrations of ethnic minorities or people with mental health issues, is that what you're saying?

/Joke ;)

Were it not for the fact that 240 Americans but only one Brit have been killed by assailants using guns since the start of this stupid fucking argument, I would be laughing.

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 12:51

OK, how about a situation where one person is capable of getting hold of an improvised weapon (kitchenm knife, hammer etc) and the other person has a gun? Are they equally dangerous to each other? Of course they are not, but homicide is rarely a matter of two armed and equal individuals, but rather one dominating, and most likely armed, person who exerts his/her dominance.

The thread was also about why such things happen; and no-one in the thread was challenging the notion that the bourgeois state's encouragement of gun ownership was a good thing. "Well as I'm sure most of us expected the recent tragedy in Colorado has rekindled the debate about gun laws in the U.S. It is very easy to get guns in the U.S. I was wondering where you all stand on the issue? I don't think we should ban all guns, but I really see no reason to own an assault rifle." - Orignial post.

'Why does the bourgeois state encourage gun ownership in the US? Because it means lots of dead workers and a frightened, atomised citizenry' is my take on it. No, I don't think so, it is much easier for a state to subjugate the masses, if they are unarmed.

Oooh yes, motive. Motive is certainly important.
Now what else is important? Errrm, let me think... is it opportunity? Yes I think it is...
Now my contention is that I don't see why 'motive ' would be particularly different in regards to Americans compared to Brits, Germans, Italians, Japanese, Dutch... what's radically different is opportunity - in this case, opportunity to get hold of lethal weapons. Lethal weapons are plentiful in both Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. but they do not commit murder to the same extent as the United States. So accessibility of guns do not seem to be best correlation to gun-related homicides.

Right. It's all the poor blacks living in the ghetto, they go mad, is that it? And no other developed country has poor neighbourhoods or concentrations of ethnic minorities or people with mental health issues, is that what you're saying? See, this is what we call a strawman, I have never said that "they go mad". But I was saying that the biggest cause of such criminality, murder and the likes, are caused by poverty. When people are scrambling to go from day to day, then resorting to such activities become much more prominent.

Were it not for the fact that 240 Americans but only one Brit have been killed by assailants using guns since the start of this stupid fucking argument, I would be laughing. Yes, banning firearms would have solve this issue right away. Except for the fact that about 97% of all homicides involving guns are gang-related.

Blake's Baby

31st July 2012, 20:59

Of course they are not, but homicide is rarely a matter of two armed and equal individuals, but rather one dominating, and most likely armed, person who exerts his/her dominance...

So why do you want to make is so easy for one person to dominate another?

You agree that improvised weapons are more deadly than no weapons; and you agree that guns are more deadly than improvised weapons; and yet you continue to claim no guns would just mean more people being killed with teaspoons.

The point I was trying to get at, is that one person having a gun almost guarantees a fatality in an attack, whereas one person grabbing an improvised weapon (we've already dropped the chance of a fatality considerably here) can be countered to some extent by the intended victim also grabbing an improvised weapon.

An assailant having a gun can only be equalised by the intended victim having a gun.

"Well as I'm sure most of us expected the recent tragedy in Colorado has rekindled the debate about gun laws in the U.S. It is very easy to get guns in the U.S. I was wondering where you all stand on the issue? I don't think we should ban all guns, but I really see no reason to own an assault rifle." - Orignial post...

Yeah? Where I stand on the issue is that the ease of getting guns in the US a contributing factor in the high number of gun deaths. What's your point?

No, I don't think so, it is much easier for a state to subjugate the masses, if they are unarmed...

Were the class struggle in the US more developed than in (let's say) Europe, I might agree with you, but it isn't, so I don't.

Lethal weapons are plentiful in both Switzerland, Sweden, Norway etc. but they do not commit murder to the same extent as the United States. So accessibility of guns do not seem to be best correlation to gun-related homicides...

You can't get this the right way round, can you?

Show me a country with high gun deaths but low access to guns and I'll concede you have a point.

I've already said motive is important. Now it's your turn to say 'yes you are right, in order to kill someone with a gun, you must have access to a gun'. Show me where I've said 'everyone who is near a gun will kill, and kill again...'.

See, this is what we call a strawman, I have never said that "they go mad". But I was saying that the biggest cause of such criminality, murder and the likes, are caused by poverty...

Or, on the other hand...

...
I hope that we can agree, that for a person to commit homicide it requires a certain kind of person, as the average person would not engage in such acts...

... If a person is mentally capable of murdering his/her fellow man, then this person will find other way...

... I didn't make my use of the word "mindset" clear, it was not meant to refer to a culture or a society as such. But the individual person, who would commit acts such as homicide.

... So if psychopaths and people with other mental disorders cannot find any guns, they are not going to, say, find another weapon to commit the murder with? ...

So 'a certain kind of person' who is 'mentally capable of murder' who, not as a matter of 'culture and society' but the 'individual person', in other words 'psychopaths and other people with mental disorders', as you have described them, are not, in the end, 'mad'?

As you said earlier: cool story bro. You've spent pages claiming that everyone who kills is a psychopath, and now I pull you up on it, you decide that Welshy was right all along, it's all cultural, and now claim that they're not mad? Make up your fucking mind.

...
When people are scrambling to go from day to day, then resorting to such activities become much more prominent...

So why are there poor areas of other countries (eg the UK) that have no gun murders from one year to the next?

... Yes, banning firearms would have solve this issue right away. Except for the fact that about 97% of all homicides involving guns are gang-related.

I didn't say it would 'solve this issue', nor have I advocated the state banning anything, so take your strawmen out of your ass again. You're making stupid jokes about a situation that involves the murder of around 9,000 Americans a year. 30 people being murdered a day is hardly something to laugh at.

Source that 97% of US gun homicides are gang-related?

Does this confirm that you really do think it's poor blacks in the ghetto that have gone mad?

Prinskaj

31st July 2012, 23:49

So why do you want to make is so easy for one person to dominate another?
You agree that improvised weapons are more deadly than no weapons; and you agree that guns are more deadly than improvised weapons; and yet you continue to claim no guns would just mean more people being killed with teaspoons.
The point I was trying to get at, is that one person having a gun almost guarantees a fatality in an attack, whereas one person grabbing an improvised weapon (we've already dropped the chance of a fatality considerably here) can be countered to some extent by the intended victim also grabbing an improvised weapon.
An assailant having a gun can only be equalised by the intended victim having a gun.
Here I agree fully with you, guns are a bad thing, because of it's inherent nature. But I cannot see a stricter "gun control", as this thread is named, as being a the best solution to this problem. Since if guns were outright banned, then people wouldn't have the means to defend themselves against people with firearms, such as gangs and the likes. Because, as you said, guns are the only equalizer to guns.

Were the class struggle in the US more developed than in (let's say) Europe, I might agree with you, but it isn't, so I don't. Well, that depends on the time period. But compering the United States to Europe is a very bad comparison, since the difference are so major.

You can't get this the right way round, can you?
Show me a country with high gun deaths but low access to guns and I'll concede you have a point. [...]what's radically different is opportunity - in this case, opportunity to get hold of lethal weapons. - You
Right there, you said that the "radical difference" is the availability, as in if it's easy to acquire a gun, then gun-related homicides must be higher.
Switzerland, Sweden, Norway: Plenty of weapons and low homicide rates.
But if you want a country with low gun ownership and high firearm-related homicide rate, then I welcome you to the paradise of Jamaica! With only 8.1 guns per 100 residents and a stunning 47.44 gun-related murders per 100,000.

I've already said motive is important. Now it's your turn to say 'yes you are right, in order to kill someone with a gun, you must have access to a gun'. Show me where I've said 'everyone who is near a gun will kill, and kill again...'. Haven't I said that before? Yes. Access to a gun is necessary to commit homicide with a firearm. In the same way that a another person is necessary for rape to occur.

So 'a certain kind of person' who is 'mentally capable of murder' who, not as a matter of 'culture and society' but the 'individual person', in other words 'psychopaths and other people with mental disorders', as you have described them, are not, in the end, 'mad'?
As you said earlier: cool story bro. You've spent pages claiming that everyone who kills is a psychopath, and now I pull you up on it, you decide that Welshy was right all along, it's all cultural, and now claim that they're not mad? Make up your fucking mind. Point me to where I said: "There is no cultural or societal factors what so ever". I said: "it was not meant to refer to a culture or a society as such", which was about the way I used the word "mindset" in that particular sense. I have however talked about factors of socioeconomic conditions and the cultural aspect (in the case of the United States).
Secondly, you seem to be trying to paint me as a person would thinks of these people as being a person would merely wants to throw everyone in an insane asylum (I do not know if this is deliberate or not). But that is not the case, these people and their actions are made in relations to the conditions that they live under.

I didn't say it would 'solve this issue', nor have I advocated the state banning anything, so take your strawmen out of your ass again. You're making stupid jokes about a situation that involves the murder of around 9,000 Americans a year. 30 people being murdered a day is hardly something to laugh at. So you propose we just do nothing, until the glorious socialist revolution comes and saves all of our problems?
Those 9,000 Americans are still humans, our brothers and sisters, so how can you even suggest, that we should merely sit on the sideline while this occurs. We may oppose capitalism, but whether we like it or not, we are a part of it, all of us. And we as communist most have a responsible to helping the working class, regardless of the current mode of production.

Source that 97% of US gun homicides are gang-related? I am sorry, I remembered incorrectly. It was a figure showing that 97% of gang-related violence involved guns (That I found a year or two ago). And again sorry, I was not trying to misinform.

Does this confirm that you really do think it's poor blacks in the ghetto that have gone mad? The term "going mad" is very offensive to people with psychological issues.

Blake's Baby

1st August 2012, 13:09

...

So you propose we just do nothing, until the glorious socialist revolution comes and saves all of our problems?
Those 9,000 Americans are still humans, our brothers and sisters, so how can you even suggest, that we should merely sit on the sideline while this occurs...?

Says the person attempting to make jokes about it. You sick fuck. 9,000 dead Americans are a source of humour to you.

I propose, for a start, criticising the notion that more guns will result in fewer deaths, the notion that the only reason to try to limit the number of guns in the US is to strengthen the state, and the notion that gun ownership under capitalism is to be encouraged. So, take your sanctimonious head out of your arse. If your only contributions to the debate are 'guns don't kill people' and 'only the state can stop gun crime' then you're part of the problem here not part of the solution so I suggest you fuck off.

Prinskaj

1st August 2012, 13:52

Says the person attempting to make jokes about it. You sick fuck. 9,000 dead Americans are a source of humour to you. The "joke" I made, was about Columbia, and about how the relationship you wanted to show was there (low amount of firearms and high gun-related homicides), but that it should be disregarded because of the civil conflict in the country.
You are the one, who propose doing nothing what so ever to help the proletariat, because the system is capitalist.

I propose, for a start, criticising the notion that more guns will result in fewer deaths, the notion that the only reason to try to limit the number of guns in the US is to strengthen the state, and the notion that gun ownership under capitalism is to be encouraged. So, take your sanctimonious head out of your arse. I know that you have been criticizing those things, because we have discussed it for quite a while now, what I want to know is: What do you concretely what to do about rate of gun violence in the short term? I have yet to hear any concrete solutions from your side to how this effect can be counteracted.

Blake's Baby

1st August 2012, 23:56

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 00:28

What can I do from only 1000km closer to the US than you are, via an internet forum, do you mean? I can do absolutely nothing but criticise and hope that some of the comrades in the US begin to consider this issue more seriously than some of them are. What else could I possibly do?

Thankfully you are the minority among communists, we need to keep liberalism and pacifisism out of communism. Liberals and communists are not the same

Theres a big diffrence between ultra liberal sites like democraticunderground and communists sites like revleft

They belive that voting democrats will magicily fix everything

They belive in banning people to defend themself from tyranny with guns ,they sure belief in gun control for the public but have no issue with the national guard,the police having fully automatics machineguns.

They belive holding signs will somehow defeat the captalist system, :laugh:

Gun rights helped the civil movement, the black panthers kept kkk scum out of there neigherhoods with yes guns! You think that a group like kkk would have lisened too a bunch of hippes with signs? No they would have lynched them

You know one of the first gun law passed(1865) was to ban freemens(ex-slaves) and african americans to own guns? Oh jey i wonder why that was,

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 00:55

Yay! It's fantastic that 10,000 Americans are killed with guns every year! I'm ecstatic!

Oh, no wait, I'm fucking horrified, and even more horrifed that you think this is a good thing.

Ruinous

2nd August 2012, 01:02

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was a board for revolutionaries. If you think any amount of 'expropriation' is going to overthrow capitalism and the state, I suggest you get back in your time machine and return to the late 19th century, as your tactics have been somewhat discredited in the last 120 years.
I won't stoop to your level of sarcasm, tempting as it may be.
I didn't say that expropriation will overthrow the capitalist system (And you talk about strawmen). These guns merely provide a means of survival for those hit hardest by the system without resorting to exploiting our fellow working class by hustling drugs or what have you.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 01:19

Yay! It's fantastic that 10,000 Americans are killed with guns every year! I'm ecstatic!

Oh, no wait, I'm fucking horrified, and even more horrifed that you think this is a good thing.

I dont, if not for guns those 10000 americans would be killed by some other means, be it a pickaxes,knives,baseball bats,home made bombs,metal pipes,hammers, screwdrivers, ice picks, or any of the endless types of blunt and sharp objects you can use to kill a person

Spray killings make what? less then 0.5% of all murders in usa? You have a bigger chance of choking to death on a peanut(kills i think around 1000 a year in Usa) then by a spray killer

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 01:21

I dont, if not for guns those 10000 americans would be killed by some other method like stabbings,
Spray killings make what? less then 0.5% of all murders in usa?

I'll tell you what, I'll get some Republican to write an article on 'the racist assumption that the murder of black people would continue with improvised weapons' and maybe you'd believe it.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 01:26

I'll tell you what, I'll get some Republican to write an article on 'the racist assumption that the murder of black people would continue with improvised weapons' and maybe you'd believe it.

Even if you were right(which you are not,which has been proven,gun control does not decrease or increase murder rate) having the option and the tools to fight tyranny and capitalism far outweighs 10000 lives a year

Prinskaj

2nd August 2012, 01:29

Yay! It's fantastic that 10,000 Americans are killed with guns every year! I'm ecstatic!

Oh, no wait, I'm fucking horrified, and even more horrifed that you think this is a good thing. Nowhere did Rottenfruit say that the deaths of those Americans is a good thing, nowhere.
Stop misrepresenting peoples' arguments.

With all your critiquing you still have not given me a clear answer: What is the best course of action to stop these murders from occurring, in the short term? (Abolishing capitalism is a long-term goal)

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 01:31

Even if you were right(which you are not,which has been proven,gun control does not decrease or increase murder rate) having the option and the tools to fight tyranny and capitalism far outweighs 10000 lives a year

Which is where you and me part company.

Capitalism must be ended because of those 10,000 deaths, and all of the others. Not in spite of them.

I'd call you an anti-humanist piece of shit, but frankly I can't be bothered with Rafiq's radar that hones in on the word 'humanist'. There are enough ranting blood-crazed fanatics in this thread already.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 01:40

Which is where you and me part company.

Capitalism must be ended because of those 10,000 deaths, and all of the others. Not in spite of them.

I'd call you an anti-humanist piece of shit, but frankly I can't be bothered with Rafiq's radar that hones in on the word 'humanist'. There are enough ranting blood-crazed fanatics in this thread already.

Yeah because those lives would totaly be saved somehow by banning guns

Like in Hondurs where gun ownership is 14 times lower then in Usa and yet the murder ratio per captia is 18 times higher then in Usa.

For each murder in Usa, 18 people are killed in Honduras and yet almost no gun ownership there, one of the lowest in the world.

Stop blaming the gun and start focusing on the real root of why so many people are killed . Issues like poverty, discrimination, institutional racism and classism

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 01:44

Nowhere did Rottenfruit say that the deaths of those Americans is a good thing, nowhere.
Stop misrepresenting peoples' arguments...

He said the 10,000 dead Americans every year are worth it for the sake of the revolution, 3 minutes before you posted. I've quoted it. So I don't see as how I'm 'misrepesenting his argument', as he's agreed with me.

Anyone who supports high levels of gun ownership in the US supports the murder of 10,000 Americans by guns every year, because it's a consequence of high gun ownership. You can't say 'I support pushing people off cliffs, but I don't agree with them hitting the ground'.

With all your critiquing you still have not given me a clear answer: What is the best course of action to stop these murders from occurring, in the short term? (Abolishing capitalism is a long-term goal)

No, that isn't your question. You question was 'what do I propse to do about it?' or maybe it was 'what's your advice for the bourgeois state?', I forget to be honest.

Short of community control of the guns, there is no solution; it's a bit like asking 'what does the working class do about a nuclear reactor leak?' or 'what should workers do about the outbreak of a deadly disease?' or 'what should workers do if someone pushes them off a cliff?'.

Capitalism has created this shit, now we have to deal with it. Adding more guns to the mix is not dealing with it, it's making it worse. As I said pages ago, workers' organisation (in this case to control the proliferation of guns) is the only answer.

I'd love to see workers' defence squads, I really would. Red Guard (or Black Guard, I'm not going to deny the Anarchists the opportunity to arm) would be absolutely amazing - but we're not in a revolutionary situation.

Short of that, no, on the whole I'd rather there were no guns and murderers (and their victims) just had to take chances with improvised weapons like they do elsewhere. Obviously, that's not going to happen.

So constant criticism of the pro-gun agenda of the American right, that has permeated over into some who consider themselves on the Left, is the only thing I can do.

What the comrades in the US can do, those who actually agree that proliferation of guns is not the way forward, is up to them, but I'd support any and all efforts at working class self-organisation that might curb gun proliferation.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 01:47

He said the 10,000 dead Americans every year are worth it for the sake of the revolution, 3 minutes before you posted. I've quoted it. So I don't see as how I'm 'misrepesenting his argument', as he's agreed with me.

Anyone who supports high levels of gun ownership in the US supports the murder of 10,000 Americans by guns every year, because it's a consequence of high gun ownership. You can't say 'I support pushing people off cliffs, but I don't agree with them hitting the ground'.

.
Capitalism kills far more americans then 10000 a year. Thats what i mean by saying its worth it

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 01:48

...
Stop blaming the gun and start focusing on the real root of why so many people are killed . Issues like poverty, discrimination, institutional racism and classism

And these don't exist outside of the US of course. They don't exist in Europe. No, there are no poor in Europe, did you know that? There's no discrimination. Class system? We don't even what it means in Europe. Racism? Who ever heard of a racist European? C'mon.

Grow up. Wake up and smnell the cordite. America has 40 times the gun homicide rate of the UK and the primary reason is it's very easy to get hold of guns in the USA.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 01:51

And these don't exist outside of the US of course. They don't exist in Europe. No, there are no poor in Europe, did you know that? There's no discrimination. Class system? We don't even what it means in Europe. Racism? Who ever heard of a racist European? C'mon.

Grow up. Wake up and smnell the cordite. America has 40 times the gun homicide rate of the UK and the primary reason is it's very easy to get hold of guns in the USA.

Yeah so, In usa you are more likly to get shoot then stabbed to death in Uk you are more likly to get stabbed to death then shot to death,
I've sad it before, gun control effects how people get killed, not how many, you rather want to be stabbed to death then shoot? We should not focus on HOW people get killed but WHY and work to fix the WHY.

In the end it does not matter if you get killed by a blade or a gun, you are still dead and a murder has then been commited. This is a pointless subject to argue it's like arguing which is worse, Freezing or burning to death.

Guns are not the reason for the murder rate in Usa, If guns were the reason behind murders a nation with one of the lowest gun ownership in the world Honduras would not have whopping 18 times higher murder rate then Usa

By the way i'm a Icelandic so yeah i know damn well that europians can be racist

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 02:06

Yeah so, In usa you are more likly to get shoot then stabbed to death in Uk you are more likly to get stabbed to death then shot to death,
I've sad it before, gun control effects how people get killed, not how many, you rather want to be stabbed to death then shoot? We should not focus on HOW people get killed but WHY and work to fix the WHY...

And yet...

The USA still has a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK's. But the number of non-gun homicides is comparable (1.7 per million in the US, 1 per million in the UK). But the number of gun homicides is out by a factor of 40 (33 per million in the US, less than one in million in the UK). What's the reason for the statistic being so very different?

I agree that if one is dead, it's difficult to say that being killed with a knife or a chairleg or a cricket bat is any different to being shot, dead is dead. But it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife or a chairleg, and it will therefore happen more often. It's just not true to say that 'without guns those murderers will just use knives and bats instead.' Some will, some won't, because they won't get away with it; and some lives will be saved as a result.

By the way i'm a Icelandic so yeah i know damn well that europians can be racist

So, you agree it's a ridiculous argument that racism is the cause of the US's horrifically high murder rate?

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 02:09

And yet...

The USA still has a murder rate 4 times higher than the UK's. But the number of non-gun homicides is comparable (1.7 per million in the US, 1 per million in the UK). But the number of gun homicides is out by a factor of 40 (33 per million in th eUS, less than one in million in the UK). What's the reason for the statistic being so very different?

I agree that if one is dead, it's difficult to say that being killed with a knife or a chairleg or a cricket bat is any different to being shot, dead is dead. But it is easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife or a chairleg, and it will therefore happen more often. It's just not true to say that 'without guns those murderers will just use knives and bats instead.' Some ill, some won't, because they won't get away with it; and some lives will be saved as a result.

So, you agree it's a ridiculous argument that racism is the cause of the US's horrifically high murder rate?

Institutionalized racisim and my answer is No i dont find it ridiclious that the effects of decades of Institutionalized racisim play a huge role in usa murder rate

Institutionalized racisim is police brutality against minoritys, minirotiys in Usa get higher prison sentences then whites for the same crime on avarage,more likly to get convicted,blacks are more likly to suffer from police brutality then whites.
These are examples of Institutionalized racisim

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 02:10

Then why don't the same racist practices in Europe produce the same murder rates? By your logic pretty much all countries in Europe should match the murder rates of the US.

Prinskaj

2nd August 2012, 02:13

He said the 10,000 dead Americans every year are worth it for the sake of the revolution, 3 minutes before you posted. I've quoted it. So I don't see as how I'm 'misrepesenting his argument', as he's agreed with me. Yes, 34 minutes AFTER you misrepresented the argument. And Rottenfruit did not portray happiness, but saw it as a tradeoff.

Capitalism has created this shit, now we have to deal with it. Adding more guns to the mix is not dealing with it, it's making it worse. Has anybody said, anything resembling "Let's give everybody a gun"?

I'd love to see workers' defence squads, I really would. Red Guard (or Black Guard, I'm not going to deny the Anarchists the opportunity to arm) would beabsolutely amazing - but we're not in a revolutionary situation. And I would love to a see a magical world filled with unicorns and rainbows.. Turn down on the utopianism, we will not find ourselves suddenly in a revolutionary situation, we must be prepared for the revolution to occur, for such a phase to exist. So disarming the proletariat, before a revolution, seems like a bad idea.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 02:19

Then why don't the same racist practices in Europe produce the same murder rates? By your logic pretty much all countries in Europe should match the murder rates of the US.

Some do Russia has 3 times higher murder rate then Usa also Moldivia ,Estonia,Ukraine and Lithuania have a higher murder rate then Usa

StalinFanboy

2nd August 2012, 02:35

Why is it when a white kid unloads on a bunch of people somewhere everyone immediately starts foaming at the mouth about mental illness and gun control, but when a black kid gets gunned down in his own neighborhood he's a statistic?

also, wtf most of the murder rates in america don't happen because of some kid that hates the world. all of a sudden i see a lot of so-called "materialist leftists" jumping on this stupid bandwagon. People are killed because, first of all, violence is a part of humanity - suck it up - and, second, because desperate times drive people to do desperate things. we know that the material conditions one lives in is a direct influence on how they live their lives. Yes, america has a shit ton of guns, especially compared to Europe, but America also has an insane wealth gap and a ridiculous amount of people here live in poverty. I'm seeing revolutionaries spouting the same goddamn line i see yuppie conservatives and liberals spouting all the time - that if we increase policing, then violence or crime or whatever will disappear. for real?!

edit:

also the reason that some of ya'll are giving to justify their support of the state having another bit of control of people's lives is the exact same reason that police (and actually the state itself) justify their stupid existence: that people need to be protected.

Rottenfruit

2nd August 2012, 02:44

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 03:30

...
If more people actually got the chance to handle a firearm, under trained supervision, then maybe we wouldn't have so many fucking ignorant hoplophobes who like to cast heterosexist aspersions on firearms enthusiasts.

Oh, missed this one.

You do know that the term 'haplophobe' was invented by an ex-Marine officer who worked for the arms industry and wanted to imply that people who were not into guns were mentally ill, don't you? It has no scientific validity, and was invented as a term of abuse by a radical rightwinger?

'Heterosexist'? Not really. One can be gay or straight or bi-sexual, transgendered or hermaphroditic, and disatisfied with the size and utilty of one's penis, and seek to compensate, with cars, or guns, or any number of other distractions.

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 03:49

Why is it when a white kid unloads on a bunch of people somewhere everyone immediately starts foaming at the mouth about mental illness and gun control, but when a black kid gets gunned down in his own neighborhood he's a statistic? ...

Because the USA is a shitty country where human life is cheap, because the weapons to easily take it are readily available.

... desperate times drive people to do desperate things. we know that the material conditions one lives in is a direct influence on how they live their lives. Yes, america has a shit ton of guns, especially compared to Europe, but America also has an insane wealth gap and a ridiculous amount of people here live in poverty...

Are you claiming that wealth and class divisions in Europe are less 'insane' and 'ridiculous'? They're really not. But the murder rates, especially the gun murder rates, are much lower.

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 03:53

...
Has anybody said, anything resembling "Let's give everybody a gun"?

... we will not find ourselves suddenly in a revolutionary situation, we must be prepared for the revolution to occur, for such a phase to exist. So disarming the proletariat, before a revolution, seems like a bad idea.

So which is it?

I have advocated neither 'give everyone a gun' nor 'disarming the proletariat', these are both your options. So which do you support?

Invader Zim

2nd August 2012, 04:02

From an article today (http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12673/), on the issue of the correlation between gun availability and homicide rates:

Who ever wrote that article is, quite frankly, an idiot. Obviously nobody is suggesting that gun culture is the only factor resulting in a high murder rate. There are considerable socio-economic and cultural factors at play. And that explains Mexico's high murder rate. Therefore, to make any kind of meaningful comparative analysis of the impact of gun control it is necessary to compare nations with broadly similar socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Britain is probably the closest potential nation to survey - in the regard that the cultures are broadly similar, both are economically and technically developed to approximately the same level, both operate under a similar political ethos, and reflecting those broad material and cultural similarities unsurprisingly both have similar violent crime crime rates. The one major relevant cultural aberration is gun culture and, correspondingly, murder rates.

It is beyond wishful thinking to assume that if Britain's violent criminals were armed to the teeth with guns akin to US criminals, British culture or socio-economic conditions would be such that the murder rate would do anything other than sky rocket. It is just the kind of thing that conservative xenophobes in this country like to trot out, when they argue that British cultural exceptionalism makes us different from Americans. It's bullshit, and anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot or a bigot.

StalinFanboy

2nd August 2012, 04:37

Because the USA is a shitty country where human life is cheap, because the weapons to easily take it are readily available. Human life only has value in a market relation. I don't see how it would be better to live in a country that places more value on human life than one that doesn't, because at the end of the day you're still in a fucking bullshit capitalist country just like us. The way I'm seeing it, based on this part of your post, you're essentially sitting in the smarmy superiority of the house slave over the field slave. :thumbup1:

Are you claiming that wealth and class divisions in Europe are less 'insane' and 'ridiculous'? They're really not. Yes, that is what I am saying, because the wealth and class divisions are smaller there. Why do you want to gloss over these real and important differences.

But the murder rates, especially the gun murder rates, are much lower.
That's cool dude.

Also, Western Europe, especially the UK (and I honestly have no clue where you're from), is extremely heavily policed. People don't get shot in London because its crawling with pigs and covered in cameras. Peaceful and safe areas are always the most heavily policed and pacified.

Geiseric

2nd August 2012, 05:43

Well the issue is usually petit bourgeois gun ownership, and the issue of allowing mentally ill people to possess firearms. The opposite effect that gun control has always had (as in the past use of disarming the working class blacks and latinos) needs to be implemented once the petit bourgeoisie is moreso on its way to becoming the fascist class, although with the "militias" and border control they already make up, it's not too long untill gun ownership by the people who can afford extended magazine assault carbines with infared sights and .50 caliber sniper rifles will be a deadly issue for the working class. Imagine strike breakers, fascists, voulanteer state militias with a cutting edge arsenal. the gun ownership in the country, at least where most of the guns are, is concentrated in a smaller segment of the petit bourgeois population.

black magick hustla

2nd August 2012, 08:08

fuck europe and the uk and their gun control

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 11:30

Human life only has value in a market relation. I don't see how it would be better to live in a country that places more value on human life than one that doesn't, because at the end of the day you're still in a fucking bullshit capitalist country just like us. The way I'm seeing it, based on this part of your post, you're essentially sitting in the smarmy superiority of the house slave over the field slave. :thumbup1:...

And yet other parts of the globe are no less capitalist than the US. So everywhere life has a market value. value. It seems to be cheap in the US, compared to other first world countries. More like Peru or Thailand than Germany, Japan, UK, Italy...

...
Yes, that is what I am saying, because the wealth and class divisions are smaller there. Why do you want to gloss over these real and important differences...

It may be that the disparity between the richest and poorest in in the US is greater than in most European countries, but as you linked to a CNN report rather than an academic study it was difficult to tell; but the same report also listed China as being a country with a bigger gap between the rich and poor than the US, and that has a lower murder rate (as a counter-example) and though CNN didn't refer to India, to suggest that India has less poverty than the USA is ridiculous, yet India also has a lower muder rate (as another counter example).

So if one looks at capitalism as a long term process and compares the US with Europe and Japan, the US has a much higher murder rate; and if one looks at wealth disparity and compares the US to India and China, the US has a much higher murder rate. So by neither comparison is the US where one would expect. Its murder rate is very high for what it is; an advanced capitalist country with some areas of pretty extreme poverty.

...

Also, Western Europe, especially the UK (and I honestly have no clue where you're from), is extremely heavily policed. People don't get shot in London because its crawling with pigs and covered in cameras...

There are lots of cameras sure; but people didn't get shot here even before there were cameras, so that's not it.

As for 'crawling with pigs'... Michael Bloomberg refered to the NYPD as 'the seventh largest army in the world'; and British police aren't even regularly armed. Comparing London to New York, London has a population of 8.1 million and nearly 37,000 police (including special constables, who are part-timers with fewer powers than regular cops) and New York has a population of 8.2 million and 36,000 police. The ratio of cops to citizens in London is 1:222; in New York, it's 1:229. Obviously, huge differences there. Oh, no, wait, they're almost exactly the same. And yet the murder rates are hugely different - in London in 2009-10 there were 139 homicides, in New York in 2009 there were 466, three-and-a-half times as many, which incidently is close to the average difference between the US and the UK in murder rates. These figures were both regarded as historically low, implying that murder rates are going down as the recession bites. Another demonstration that it's poverty that causes high murder rates? I don't think so.

As to police-to-population ratios, India has one of the lowest in the world, and yet fewer murders than the US. So, no, that's not it either.

...Peaceful and safe areas are always the most heavily policed and pacified.

Exactly the opposite. The most peaceful areas don't need to be pacified. That's why both London and New York have police-to-population rations in the 200s (because they're both large crowded cities), while more peaceful areas may have ratios in the 500s.

Blake's Baby

2nd August 2012, 11:32

Nothing to see here.

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

2nd August 2012, 12:39

'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'

...the gun definately provides an advantage.
A so called 'tool' that can fire a projectile faster than the speed of sound at another human being, deliberately or accidentally, requires more consideration as to who owns one than 'everyone has a right, help yourself masses'. It feels like Mutually Assured Destruction to me, which may or may not work I guess, but seems pretty risky.
It's a weapon that maims and kills, so the attitude of less regulation or controls is really baffling to me...anyway, it's not my country or my problem, feel free to dismiss my attitude as Brit ignorance or 'liberal' bullshit :)

Invader Zim

2nd August 2012, 19:18

Yes, that is what I am saying, because the wealth and class divisions are smaller there. Why do you want to gloss over these real and important differences.

A comparison between income discrepancies would not reveal differences as large as you imagine. We are talking about a few points difference vs. dozens of points difference at the extreme ends of the scale.

Geiseric

2nd August 2012, 19:52

Wow i'm going to be shot if I keep living in the U.S, guess i'm gonna have to move to Canada, where it's safer.

DasFapital

3rd August 2012, 06:05

Number people killed since 2000 in 'sprees' or 'massacres' using guns (includes school shootings, workplaces shootings and familicide)

USA - 89 (6 seperate instances)

UK - 12 (1 instance)

(Source: wiki)

it has to be more than that. what the definition of a "spree" here?

Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant'

3rd August 2012, 09:18

it has to be more than that. what the definition of a "spree" here?

According the wiki page relating to what they term 'spree' or 'rampage' killers (definition below).
No doubt there's more data from other sources, but not had time to review it.

Mass murder cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
Mass murder cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Europe

Invader Zim

3rd August 2012, 13:05

According the wiki page relating to what they term 'spree' or 'rampage' killers (definition below).
No doubt there's more data from other sources, but not had time to review it.

Mass murder cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
Mass murder cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Americas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers#Europe

Six seems an arbitrary figure, especially given that a serial killer is defined only as an individual who murders half as many. And of course, how many more are killed or injured in less deadly mass killings?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-shootings.pdf

And then what of all the tens of thousands of people murdered or injured in other shootings? Or the tens of thousands more killed or injured by accident?

http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.p df

Gun violence is a blight on US society, and it defies logic, sense and understanding to comprehend why the American public still holds the right to own a gun dear when it leads to more of them to be killed than in any other developed nation. The fact is that you are just as likely to die in a car accident in the US as you are to be killed in a shooting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Which just seems to me as really bizarre.