Marxist position on gun control?

[RadioRaheem84]

I know the conservative government is to have a bazooka in every home but the liberal position is literally to have all guns above pistols and shotguns in the hands of police and government.

I just watched an episode of Colbert where he was a bit smug, as usual for liberals, about mocking the right wing's fear of a government tyranny. while I do not think the US government is going to turn fascist anytime soon, what would happen if it did over the course of the decade or more? How do they reconcile this?

What's the Marxist position?

[Ostrinski]

I don't think there is what you could consider a cohesive position on such an issue among communists.

My view is that if there is no line to be drawn between what is acceptable and not acceptable for personal possession then we ought to just give tanks, anti-aircraft batteries, and atomic bombs to general citizens. Call me a liberal but I'm not unsympathetic to calls for a ban on assault weapons and weapons that are more destructive than necessary to hunt or protect your home with.

At the end of the day, though, I think if the success or prospects for success of the worker's revolutionary movement is going to be defined by how many weapons we can stockpile or whether or not we can overpower or strongarm the bourgeois state militarily then the bourgeois state has already won. A key feature of the bourgeois state is a monopoly on violence and means of destruction so they are always going to be able to overpower us in that regard.

At the end of the day I am ambivalent. One of the problems with gun control from a positon sensitive toward oppressed peoples is the ramifications this will have in poorer neighborhoods that house mostly minorities. This quite possibly will lead to cops going crazy with this and ramping up their abuses and violent acts toward people in these areas. Furthermore, any piece of gun control legislation is going to be eaten up and exploited by the follks on the right who are going to use it as proof of their conspiratorial fantasies of socialist tyranny coming into fruition.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It varies from person to person. I think background checks are necessary, and the mentally Ill shouldn't be given any guns. I'm a bit torn about the issue of assault rifle bans, though.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I'm from the south and grew up around guns. I learned how to handle them safely and all that stuff from a really young age, so this whole 'gun control debate' really perplexes me. Really, gun deaths pale in comparison to, say, alcohol (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm), cigarette, and car accident related deaths. Why aren't the liberals crying to ban cars, cigarettes, and alcohol? Or say, you're only allowed to have one beer a day?


Because they don't want to ask "what is causing gun violence" (or maybe a lot of them like to drink, smoke, and drive) ... you have socioeconomic stratification leading to property crime, which sometimes includes gun violence (robbery, etc), you have people with severe mental illness who cannot afford treatment, etc, etc, etc. A sane, happy, healthy person will not go on a killing spree. You remove guns from the picture, that same insane person who went on a killing spree would in all likelihood still be a murderer. But instead of killing 20 people at once, maybe they would kill 20 people over 3 years with knives or a bat or something.

The cause of the problem is not treated when you remove guns from the picture ...


I do support background checks, though I think banning non-violent felons from having guns is a little stupid. And I don't think we will ever eliminate violent crime totally ...

[Leftsolidarity]

I feel it simply comes down to whether you actually believe in arming the masses or not. We know that bourgeois laws are for the benefit of the bourgeoisie so why should we think differently to when they want to disarm the general population? Why should we cry out against the masses having arms when it's still nothing to what the true murderers (the state) have? We know a revolution is not going to be a tea party so why shouldnt we be concerned about our ability to acquire weaponry?

[RadioRaheem84]

The UK and Sweden both have gun laws restricting arms. One is a free wheeling capitalist nation with a lot of violent crime despite the restriction. The other has less crime but it's due more to the standard of living being met by a strong welfare state, not the lack of weapons.

US liberals are really ignoring the socio-economic aspect of this whole debate.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm all for prohibition of gun distribution and, if possible, less production of all types of arms.

Probably should get in before the 'liberal' accusations come out - the police and bourgie armies shouldn't have firepower to obliterate the working class and yes, gun restriction should be combined with far more effective mental health strategies.

But let's face it, workers' militias or not we are not going to outfight the capitalists. If it comes to a situation where the way we try to overthrow capitalism is through war, then clearly capitalism hasn't fully saturated yet or we are choosing the wrong method.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The UK and Sweden both have gun laws restricting arms. One is a free wheeling capitalist nation with a lot of violent crime despite the restriction. The other has less crime but it's due more to the standard of living being met by a strong welfare state, not the lack of weapons.

US liberals are really ignoring the socio-economic aspect of this whole debate.

Crime in the UK isn't evenly distributed, though. I grew up in London and there is a marked difference between violent crime in the rougher, poverty-stricken inner cities and the more affluent areas.

Yet in the US there are so many stories of gun-toting maniacs in affluent middle class areas running around shooting people. It's crazy. Guns offer no protection against violent crime, and for people to say that violent crime in the UK is relatively high because of lack of guns is the height of either idiocy or worse, dis-honesty.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I don't support banning or severely restricting ownership of firearms. I'm considering the purchase of a handgun at some point.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The problem in discussing any "rights" is that in the mainstream they are spoken of abstractly when in fact this is never the case. For example, no NRA spokesperson would condone selling guns to pot-dealers even though they probably have more legitimate need for "self-defense" than all the weekend warriors who support the NRA. While Charelton Heston talked about the 2nd ammendement defending us from some hypothetical government tyranny, he also was the spokesperson dennouncing ICE-T for "Cop Killa" even though songs like that were a direct reference to ACTUAL police tyranny. Another example is that Ronald Regan supported gun control when it was aimed at poor blacks as Governor of California.

So like "freedom of speech", gun-rights don't exist outside of society and so I think it's hard to have ONE standard marxist stance regarding this issue. It depends on the context and potential effects.

In this light, I can understand why some marxist might lightly favor some of the proposed restrictions on weapons that really are kind of outrageously useless for anything but shooting at large groups of people. These weapons are much more likely to be used against us by fascists or right-wing nuts angry at striking workers or a protest or "reds" in general than to be used by us for some kind of worker's militia - in the short term anyway.

But ultimately, I don't really take any sort of pro-position on gun control. I don't think it would actually do much for the problems such a ban would supposedly solve. There's always rifles and towers like before all these weapons, there's always fertelizer and so on.

[Clarion]

I believe in the gerneral arming of the people, workers' militias and all that so take my generally coming down in favour of gun ownership as read.

Now this doesn't mean that much of the US isn't seriously lacking in some common sense regulations. Yes, there should be a mandatory waiting period. No, people convicted of a violent crime shouldn't be able to buy guns. No, the right to bear arms doesn't confer the right to take your AR-15 when you go shopping.

It's worth considering that the easy availability of heavy weaponry to criminals, gangs, and just about anyone they want to stop plays a part in a vicsious cycle. It's convenient propaganda for an increasingly militarised police force, for police in schools, for attacks on civil liberties etc. Would they try to do these things anyway if the gun situation in the US wasn't one of controlled chaos? Yes, but they'd be a lot less convincing. The stable plurality of citizens who just want to get on with their daily lives wouldn't feel compelled to grant quite the same level of unchecked powers to the great leviathan.

[Yazman]

Yeah, I don't support the banning or severe restriction of guns either. It only serves to disarm the population, and I don't think that's something we should be looking to achieve. A strong-willed, intelligent population is a good thing, and arms are always useful in case of tyranny.

[TheEmancipator]

Guns are part of the factors of production. To deny them to regular citizens is wrong, but psychological tests should be made.

[RadioRaheem84]

Crime in the UK isn't evenly distributed, though. I grew up in London and there is a marked difference between violent crime in the rougher, poverty-stricken inner cities and the more affluent areas.

Yet in the US there are so many stories of gun-toting maniacs in affluent middle class areas running around shooting people. It's crazy. Guns offer no protection against violent crime, and for people to say that violent crime in the UK is relatively high because of lack of guns is the height of either idiocy or worse, dis-honesty.

These rickety "affluent" middle class burbs are rife with stress due to the debt financing of a lot of their living standard rather than a more stable welfare state apparatus that works as a social safety net in most European countries, even in the UK to some extent.

People still have to rely on debt, a job without real security and their employer for nearly every benefit. Their relatively high professional wage is always at risk. Their middle class existence constantly rocked by the tax burden shifting to them and continous stress. Not to mention a keeping up with the Joneses mentality too.

Point is the suburbs in America have their own problems.

[The Idler]

Guns no way (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/guns-no-way.html)


"Looking at the balance sheet around the world or even as closely as of the Troubles in Northern Ireland where the British ruling-class tested new military methods of controlling civilian dissent, armed struggle seems a deadly fantasy. If anarchists want to become the next Angry Brigade, armchair generals want to fill the left-wing version in the American militia movement, or adventurists want something in-between like the Baader-Meinhof RAF cult, the consequences will be disastrous. Use of guns are inescapably as an offensive weapon and an oppressive act."

[Leftsolidarity]

Guns no way (http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/guns-no-way.html)

Are you saying that article represents your views or are you just posting it?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Armed struggle is deadly by its very nature, it didn't take new social control methods to make it that way. I'm not interested in the morality of gun ownership or use. Psychological screenings and better mandatory training would go a long way. With the proliferation of guns already present, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to deter lone wolf terrorists or the mentally Ill from engaging in rampages, its necessary to address the conditions that create those individuals.

[Raúl Duke]

I generally support the ownership of guns, although I don't own any.

But the issue is the way it's all frame and perspective.
Certain people want to frame it one way or the other.

I support restriction to weapons, like checks and sale restrictions.
The NRA want to frame restrictions as some sort of "slippery slope" to full outlawing of gun ownership.
Certain liberals also play this "all or nothing" game to a certain extant.

In Florida (and a few other states), the most troublesome laws are those around "gun show sales" or "private transactions" where people can get their hands on all sorts of weapons without any checks, etc. I think this needs to be restricted.
In fact, many people who own weapons agree that this element is kinda wild and should be restricted.

I also support restrictions on automatic weapons ("machine guns") although many ARs and such sold for the civilian market are semi-auto types. I think semi-auto rifles are ok.

[Leftsolidarity]

Moving this in a slightly different direction than just the guns themselves. How do you feel about extended clips?

I support the ability to have them. My anarchist friend and I debated this for a few hours last week and it was very interesting.

[BIXX]

I think shorter clips will only encourage higher training.
I personally support ownership of guns, and have several, and shoot regularly.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I generally support the ownership of guns, although I don't own any.

But the issue is the way it's all frame and perspective.
Certain people want to frame it one way or the other.

I support restriction to weapons, like checks and sale restrictions.
The NRA want to frame restrictions as some sort of "slippery slope" to full outlawing of gun ownership.
Certain liberals also play this "all or nothing" game to a certain extant.

In Florida (and a few other states), the most troublesome laws are those around "gun show sales" or "private transactions" where people can get their hands on all sorts of weapons without any checks, etc. I think this needs to be restricted.
In fact, many people who own weapons agree that this element is kinda wild and should be restricted.

I also support restrictions on automatic weapons ("machine guns") although many ARs and such sold for the civilian market are semi-auto types. I think semi-auto rifles are ok.
It's extremely difficult to get automatic weapons, you need a federal permit. 99.999999% of AR-15 and AK-47 type rifles you find in the US are going to be semi-auto unless someone, some rogue gunsmith, modified them.

[MarxSchmarx]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, but is crucial to any "Marxist" analysis of the issue, is to understand that guns are ultimately a commodity produced under capitalism. A corollary of this is that the prevailing discourse about guns is intimately linked to the issue of marketing guns in a capitalist society. In America, gun manufacturers are the backbone of the NRA, and they frequently use their considerable financial wealth to facilitate the sale of their product, as any sane capitalist would.

If anybody ever wanted to look for a clear case of an "ideological superstructure" being buttressed by economic interests, they would really be hard pressed to find a better example than the American gun lobby.

Even the capitalist press, normally hostile to any suggestion that capitalists pull political strings in America, go ga-ga on this one issue:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/
Bloomberg news has gone so far as having credited the NRA's political activism as single-handedly saving a dying industry from complete economic collapse.

As Marxists, it is important to understand that discussions of "gun control" do not happen in an economic vacuum. The mass production of weapons, the interplay between the marketing and political promotion of guns, and the material practicalities of modern arms manufacturing entail that serious Marxists must go beyond the principles of "armed militias" bickered abut by powdered wigged proto-bourgeoisie in the 1700s. Any serious discussion of the merits/demerits of contemporary gun control must begin with this understanding: the capitalists control the means of production, and that most certainly includes the production of armaments.

[The Idler]

Are you saying that article represents your views or are you just posting it?
It represents my views.

[MP5]

As a Communist who supports violent revolution when peaceful means fail i don't see how Communists could not be in favor of gun ownership. I am at odds with many of the so called left here in Canada as well as in the US as well as they all seem to be in favor of gun control. I am totally against it in any shape or forum. Although i do practice gun control the way it was meant to be which is both hands ;) . I not only believe that people should be allowed to own any gun they want including fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns and automatic shotguns but as i believe that the governments of the world are not accountable or representative of the people they hardly have any place telling the people whether they can own guns or not. The price of guns or atleast assault weapons is well above what a working class person could afford and this is one thing that is never addressed by the pro gun people because of course Capitalism is good :rolleyes: . I can get a pump action Winchester shotgun for a few hundred bucks if i buy it off someone else instead of brand new (a good pump action shotgun is pretty hard to break) but with a assault rifle such as a AR-180 or AR-15 you are looking at a few grand easy. With submachine guns or machine pistols forget about it the price is ridiculous. So it smacks of elitism to say the least.

I do hate the NRA lobby in the US with a passion and i hate many gun owners in all countries including the ones here in Canada. Or atleast the political ones. They are all conservatives who ***** about Socialists trying to take away their guns :rolleyes: . So needless to say i have nothing to do with that sorry lot of losers.

Gun totting Communists must be a Conservatives or fascists worst nightmare :D .The government is not the least bit afraid of the NRA types as they pose absolutely no threat to the power structure. In fact in cases in the past the NRA has gone out of there way to support discriminatory gun control. Such as Regan's Mulford act in 1967 which prohibited the carrying of guns in public in California. This was nothing but a measure to stop the Black Panthers from carrying guns to protect the black communities against violence by white supremacists.

[The Idler]

Communists with fully automatics aren't gonna be able to do much apart from lose public sympathy very quickly. Nor will the fully automatics be much use when the government rolls in armoured personnel carriers and tanks.

[RevisioniningLeft]

Violent revolutions usually occur when there is little popular support for the rebelling forces.

When revolutionary movements turn to weapons to support their cause they create institutions within them that will become centres of power.

Complete communism or socialism includes giving up on all arms.

[Leftsolidarity]

Violent revolutions usually occur when there is little popular support for the rebelling forces.
.

Huh? Back this claim up with some hard analysis please because I can think of no example that affirms this. Quite the contrary, in fact, there have been no revolutions in which one class overthrows another in a peaceful way. Revolution, by its very nature, is violent.



When revolutionary movements turn to weapons to support their cause they create institutions within them that will become centres of power.
.

That's out of nessesity of cementing the class rule of the revolutionary class not because they use weapons. They pick up weapons for the same reason they create their own state. They don't create a state because they picked up weapons.



Complete communism or socialism includes giving up on all arms.

Why? The masses should remain armed so that they can always defend themselves.

[The Idler]

These topics like this on revleft used to remind me of CoD but now they remind me more of the 1983 classic with Matthew Broderick
http://uk.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/119/MPW-59668

[Philosopher Jay]

In the United States, about 1.3 million people have been killed in the last 50 years by guns. About 8-10,000 people die from guns a year, approximately 200 people every week. At the same time the gun manufacturers reap $1 billion in profits off of $12 billion in sales.

Communists should oppose this. Under a communist government, not one single gun should be produced and sold for profit.

It would be the highest priority of a communist government to protect the lives of all its citizens from murder by guns. In order to do this, the government should know and control the whereabouts of every single gun and should determine who carries a gun and who does not.

Every gun potentially is a murder weapon. A communist government should control every gun to make sure it never becomes a murder weapon.

Communists should demand that the United States protect its people through 100% gun control. If it cannot, a communist government which can and does protect all the citizens should take power.

People have a clear choice: to live freely by creating a communist government or to live in fear and terror and die bloodily shot by a private gun owner under a capitalist government.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

In the United States, about 1.3 million people have been killed in the last 50 years by guns. About 8-10,000 people die from guns a year, approximately 200 people every week. At the same time the gun manufacturers reap $1 billion in profits off of $12 billion in sales.

Communists should oppose this. Under a communist government, not one single gun should be produced and sold for profit.

It would be the highest priority of a communist government to protect the lives of all its citizens from murder by guns. In order to do this, the government should know and control the whereabouts of every single gun and should determine who carries a gun and who does not.

Every gun potentially is a murder weapon. A communist government should control every gun to make sure it never becomes a murder weapon.

Communists should demand that the United States protect its people through 100% gun control. If it cannot, a communist government which can and does protect all the citizens should take power.

People have a clear choice: to live freely by creating a communist government or to live in fear and terror and die bloodily shot by a private gun owner under a capitalist government.
Are you going to keep track of kitchen knives, too? Did you miss my post where gun deaths in the US pale in comparison to other, more socially acceptable, forms of death that nobody seems to be crying about?


Go back to democratic underground.

[Leftsolidarity]

Someday I will manage to sit down and give a full and serious rebuttal to those with an "anti-gun" stance. I haven't been able to yet because everytime I read those posts I get very frustrated and start pulling on my hair and only think of insults that I wish to say. Someday I will be able to calmly respond. Someday....

[The Idler]

Someday I will manage to sit down and give a full and serious rebuttal to those with an "anti-gun" stance. I haven't been able to yet because everytime I read those posts I get very frustrated and start pulling on my hair and only think of insults that I wish to say. Someday I will be able to calmly respond. Someday....
Its called being hot-headed and one of the reasons armed citizens with guns are a bad idea.

[Philosopher Jay]

This is a typical apples and oranges false comparison.

Knives have an entirely different function than guns. I use knives practically every single day of my life to cut food. On the other hand, I have never used a gun in my life and neither have the vast majority of people in the world. I would guess that 95% have never used a gun. The number of people who have never used knives is probably under 1%.

A better comparison would be demolition explosives and guns. The acquisition and use of explosives is strictly controlled in the United States, so entire years go by without any one dying in explosions. Here is some of the restrictions to having explosives:

C. USER PERMITTEE

1. An applicant (e.g., individual, company, partnership, corporation) who intends to purchase explosives from a
licensee (FEL) across State lines or transport explosives across State lines must obtain a user permit from
the ATF, § 842 (a)(3)(A), up to 10 years if violated. Criminal background check will be conducted of
the applicant, § 843 (h).

2. A user permittee must keep records of its acquisition of explosives, have proper storage facilities, keep
accurate physical inventories, and maintain records of the disposition / use of explosives,
§ 842 (f), § 555.125, 10 Yrs.

3. A user permittee must allow the ATF to conduct inspections of its records and explosives inventory,
§ 843 (f).

4. A user permittee must report the theft or loss of explosives from his stock to the ATF and local law
enforcement within 24 hours, § 844 (p) (theft), 5 years or § 842 (k) (loss), 1 year.

5. A user permittee may distribute surplus explosives to another licensee or permittee, § 842 (b).

A user-permittee may not distribute explosives to a:

a. Non-licensee or non-permittee, § 842 (b), 10 years.
b. Person under 21 years of age, § 842 (d), 10 years.
c. Prohibited person, § 842 (d), 10 years.

Treating guns as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 10,000 people a year in the United States.



It is because the gun manufacturers are making huge profits that guns are not treated as the dangerous explosives they are. It is certainly odd for people who call themselves socialists to be defending the profits of capitalist gun manufacturers and ignoring the annual murder of thousands of workers.










Are you going to keep track of kitchen knives, too? Did you miss my post where gun deaths in the US pale in comparison to other, more socially acceptable, forms of death that nobody seems to be crying about?


Go back to democratic underground.

[Leftsolidarity]

Its called being hot-headed and one of the reasons armed citizens with guns are a bad idea.

Being frustrated at liberal ideology and so called "revolutionaries" speaking about how bad guns are is not being hot headed.

Just read this article and it was decent.

http://www.gonzotimes.com/2013/01/why-the-communist-party-usa-is-wrong-on-guns-and-everything/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As a partisan advocate for working class hegemony, my position is simple - absolute opposition to any move or attempt to disarm the proletariat.

It doesn't matter if the workers only have pea-shooters and the ruling classes have orbital battleships - no disparity in firepower, no matter how great, excuses attempts to disarm the proletatariat.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

This is a typical apples and oranges false comparison.

Knives have an entirely different function than guns. I use knives practically every single day of my life to cut food.
I've used guns my entire life for food acquisition, vermin control, and fun (target practice).



On the other hand, I have never used a gun in my life and neither have the vast majority of people in the world. I would guess that 95% have never used a gun.
Source



The number of people who have never used knives is probably under 1%.

A better comparison would be demolition explosives and guns. The acquisition and use of explosives is strictly controlled in the United States, so entire years go by without any one dying in explosions. Here is some of the restrictions to having explosives:

[snip]

Treating guns as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 10,000 people a year in the United States.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2567281&postcount=4

"Treating alcohol as explosives and carefully regulating their purchase, storage and use would save the lives of about 40,000 people a year" according to the CDC link I posted in that thread.





It is because the gun manufacturers are making huge profits that guns are not treated as the dangerous explosives they are. It is certainly odd for people who call themselves socialists to be defending the profits of capitalist gun manufacturers and ignoring the annual murder of thousands of workers.
It's because explosives have virtually no legitimate use aside from mining operations. Nobody wants to mine coal in their back yard. How am I supposed to kill a coyote that's been stalking my dogs? Chase him with a bat? If I'm out in the woods hunting hog on foot, without a .45 side arm, would you like to take a bet on how long it would take me to be mauled to death by a sow protecting sucklings? I'll give you a hint, it's extremely difficult to use a scope with something running towards you in the woods in dusk or at night, when they're out, and I'm going to want more than a measly 10 shots because ... it's dark, I'm scared, it's angry, and it wants to kill me to protect its babies.

[Leftsolidarity]

Communists with fully automatics aren't gonna be able to do much apart from lose public sympathy very quickly.

Why? If there's an armed struggle going on then the masses should already be on the side of the communists. You're detaching the left from the working class. The left is part of the working class and if it's to the point of armed struggle then the working class should be on the left as well. This also just isn't "should self described communists have guns?" it is about the masses having guns.


Nor will the fully automatics be much use when the government rolls in armoured personnel carriers and tanks

I hear this a lot but it really doesn't make much sense to me. What about all the guerilla struggles that beat out much stronger and heavily equipped enemies? This comes down to particular tactics not a general defeatist "they out gun us so lets just give up now" ideology. If you think this way why are you even a communist? The bourgeois state is the strongest the world has even known and the odds are stacked against us. Might as well just give up on proletariat revolution now.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

As an addendum to my previous posts in this thread I'll just put this here. The whole thing is a good read, and it's really short, but I'll quote the applicable part below


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm


... the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition ... Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. ...

[Ostrinski]

I am not arguing for "disarming" the proletariat (such would be an impossible feat, even for the bourgeois state), but of reasonable limits on certain kinds of firearms as well as restrictions on the purchasability of them for certain people such as the mentally unwell.

also brb people's war

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I am not arguing for "disarming" the proletariat (such would be an impossible feat, even for the bourgeois state), but of reasonable limits on certain kinds of firearms as well as restrictions on the purchasability of them for certain people such as the mentally unwell.

also brb people's war

Do you really want those "reasonable limits" to be defined by the bourgeois state though?

If one can't trust the bourgeois state to define "reasonable limits" to poverty or quality of life, then I fail to see how one can trust the bourgeois state to define "reasonable limits" to possession of weaponry.

[Narcissus]

It's because explosives have virtually no legitimate use aside from mining operations. Nobody wants to mine coal in their back yard. How am I supposed to kill a coyote that's been stalking my dogs? Chase him with a bat? If I'm out in the woods hunting hog on foot, without a .45 side arm, would you like to take a bet on how long it would take me to be mauled to death by a sow protecting sucklings? I'll give you a hint, it's extremely difficult to use a scope with something running towards you in the woods in dusk or at night, when they're out, and I'm going to want more than a measly 10 shots because ... it's dark, I'm scared, it's angry, and it wants to kill me to protect its babies.

THIS, I have no sympathy for. If you go to try and kill a pig, I hope it does turn around and maul you. What the hell gives you the right to kill an animal that is defending its young just because you want to kill it?

If you are ambushed in the woods taking a stroll by a hog then climb a fucking tree. Don't kill it because it will inconvenience you.

How about you trap the coyote and relocate it? Dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, and as such you should not favour one over the other. The same goes for humans vs anything.

Guns are specifically designed to kill things. Who wants something like that to exist?

Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

If you go out with the intention of killing something, and then it kills you; you deserve it. Hogs have done nothing wrong. Fascists however...

[Os Cangaceiros]

:drool: But pigs/boar are so tasty!


Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

This is terrible advice when you're confronted with a dangerous wild animal. Running away is what you DON'T do! Anything on four legs (like a boar, a bear, a moose, a hippo etc) will catch up to you and kill your ass! :ohmy:

[Os Cangaceiros]

anyway, I'm sure you all know a lot of the stuff that's in this article, but I'll post it here anyway:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/21/a-brief-peoples-history-of-gun-control/

[The Red Comet]

I believe gun control is detrimental. Do you think the National Guard or any other tools for repression (FBI Included) are going to submit to gun control? No. They aren't. Gun control is a means of keeping tools for revolution out of the hands of the proletariat.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

:drool: But pigs/boar are so tasty!



This is terrible advice when you're confronted with a dangerous wild animal. Running away is what you DON'T do! Anything on four legs (like a boar, a bear, a moose, a hippo etc) will catch up to you and kill your ass! :ohmy:

Running is for counter-revolutionaries. A real proletarian would toughen up and face the beast of capital head on.

Bloody Ultra-left reactionaries.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

THIS, I have no sympathy for. If you go to try and kill a pig, I hope it does turn around and maul you. What the hell gives you the right to kill an animal that is defending its young just because you want to kill it?

If you are ambushed in the woods taking a stroll by a hog then climb a fucking tree. Don't kill it because it will inconvenience you.

How about you trap the coyote and relocate it? Dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, and as such you should not favour one over the other. The same goes for humans vs anything.

Guns are specifically designed to kill things. Who wants something like that to exist?

Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

If you go out with the intention of killing something, and then it kills you; you deserve it. Hogs have done nothing wrong. Fascists however...

You are weak like your bourgeouis-liberal mind. I will hunt as many bear and deer as I can to prove the might of the proletarian-crafted weapons that shake with the thunder of a thousand hammers in the palms of my hands.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

THIS, I have no sympathy for. If you go to try and kill a pig, I hope it does turn around and maul you. What the hell gives you the right to kill an animal that is defending its young just because you want to kill it?

If you are ambushed in the woods taking a stroll by a hog then climb a fucking tree. Don't kill it because it will inconvenience you.

Have you ever seen a pig on a farm? Now imagine that same pig with long thick bristly hair, an irritable temperament (farm animals, unlike wild boars, are bred for docility), and tusks as long as one's hand that are at just the right height to sever major arteries in the legs.

Now you know why it's a good idea to carry a sidearm in boar country.


How about you trap the coyote and relocate it? Dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, and as such you should not favour one over the other. The same goes for humans vs anything.

No, dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, but they are worth going to some trouble for because they are useful animals. Relocating coyotes is an exercise in futility unless one has the resources to move them hundreds of miles from their original location, which most people don't have and in any case, coyotes aren't remotely an endangered species.

As for humans, I'll admit my bias and state that there few if any animals that I would trade a human life for.


Guns are specifically designed to kill things. Who wants something like that to exist?

No, guns are designed to throw little bits of metal at high speed. They're useful for killing things, but they're also massive fun to shoot and it's generally rather difficult to get any hunting done without killing an animal.


Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

Situations can develop far too fast in order to run through all those options. If an animal is charging you, then we're well past the point where threat displays are useful.


If you go out with the intention of killing something, and then it kills you; you deserve it. Hogs have done nothing wrong. Fascists however...

There's nothing wrong with hunting, and you are a massive tool for believing otherwise. Hunting is an activity that spans across history and across cultures, a well-aimed shot with a rifle bullet or crossbow bolt after a wild existence is probably a better end than most farmed animals meet, and there's no reason why it can't be ecologically sustainable - in fact, certain animals can cause environmental problems if their numbers are not kept in check.

[Narcissus]

Weak! If I am cornered by a pack of wolves, I will first consider giving to them my life as a gift if they look hungry. If they are well fed, then I still would not need a gun to defeat them. I shall throttle each and every one of them, whispering faintly audible lines from Dido songs in their ears, until I stand on top of a mound of wolves.

Never confuse strength with power.

My mind is almost completely detached from the shackles of reality and conditioning.

Humans are the oppressors of the animal world. I could kill a thousand humans before feeling as much remorse as I would killing a dog.

I understand better than many the insignificance of existence, and that in an instant it can simply cease. I do not feel that it is cruel to kill - but cruel to take pleasure in it. Is it really necessary for you to hunt? What makes you more important than the pig.

It's been done for thousands of years is NOT a good argument.

I have always been fixated with justice, at the expense of anything. I am no pathetic liberal.

[Narcissus]

Surviving is reactionary. I will embrace oblivion while you cling to what you know. I hope the pig makes a nice meal of me.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Weak! If I am cornered by a pack of wolves, I will first consider giving to them my life as a gift if they look hungry. If they are well fed, then I still would not need a gun to defeat them. I shall throttle each and every one of them, whispering faintly audible lines from Dido songs in their ears, until I stand on top of a mound of wolves.

Never confuse strength with power.

Macho posturing. Humans developed artificial weapons for the very good reason that we're rubbish at fighting without tools, compared to other animals.


My mind is almost completely detached from the shackles of reality and conditioning.

Ignoring reality can get you killed.


Humans are the oppressors of the animal world. I could kill a thousand humans before feeling as much remorse as I would killing a dog.

Possible psychopathic tendencies? I'm not a psychiatrist, but I am disturbed.


I understand better than many the insignificance of existence, and that in an instant it can simply cease. I do not feel that it is cruel to kill - but cruel to take pleasure in it. Is it really necessary for you to hunt? What makes you more important than the pig.

Why not? It makes no difference to the boar whether it gets killed by a pack of predators, a hunter with a rifle, or a speeding truck. Except that a well-trained hunter is considerably more likely to bring a swift end to the animal's life.


It's been done for thousands of years is NOT a good argument.

You're right, of course. But it might help you to examine why that is. Hunting other animals is at least as human as clothing.


I have always been fixated with justice, at the expense of anything. I am no pathetic liberal.

Boars have no concept of justice. Such things are wasted on them.


Surviving is reactionary. I will embrace oblivion while you cling to what you know. I hope the pig makes a nice meal of me.

You know, if you bury yourself alive, you would provide a meal to millions of different species. Why don't you do that? Why haven't you done that?

[Narcissus]

Macho posturing. Humans developed artificial weapons for the very good reason that we're rubbish at fighting without tools, compared to other animals.

We have also developed brains, which we might use to help us evade tusked animals.

Macho posturing - not really. Unless you equate strength with masculinity, in which case you're a sexist moron. In all actuality though, I don't think it would be beyond me to throttle one wolf.


Ignoring reality can get you killed.

Who cares.


Possible psychopathic tendencies? I'm not a psychiatrist, but I am disturbed.

Dogs are innocent. Humans are not. Have I betrayed my species? Is that the issue? You draw the line at species, others at skin colour; discrimination is discrimination - you're all as bad as each other. You must think objectively, and you will see that I speak the truth.


Why not? It makes no difference to the boar whether it gets killed by a pack of predators, a hunter with a rifle, or a speeding truck. Except that a well-trained hunter is considerably more likely to bring a swift end to the animal's life.

Why does it make a difference to you who kills it? I think it would be nice for it to die of old age - spending as much time with its family as possible.


You're right, of course. But it might help you to examine why that is. Hunting other animals is at least as human as clothing.

Not the best example - clothing in mild climates is a redundant practice; based upon ancient social conventions. It only serves to bring a more readily visible divide between rich and poor.

I personally hunt non-sentient life - such as potatoes.


Boars have no concept of justice. Such things are wasted on them.

Precisely. Humans however do have a concept of justice, but choose to ignore it, and continue to exploit others. I'm killing the human first.


You know, if you bury yourself alive, you would provide a meal to millions of different species. Why don't you do that? Why haven't you done that?

I hope in my lifetime to allow many more life forms than my body can feed to come into existence, and remain in existence. I am more use to these millions of species alive than dead.

There is nothing special about human life/existence. On a serious note, I hope to be a part of making the world a fairer place, and would be honoured to die in the process. We all die. Whether it is at the hands of the state or the tusks of a boar, it doesn't really matter.

[l'Enfermé]

MOD ACTION:

Choler...just no...

This is a verbal warning

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We have also developed brains, which we might use to help us evade tusked animals.

You mean the same brains which enabled us to develop effective enough weaponry to become the predominant apex predator on six continents?


Macho posturing - not really. Unless you equate strength with masculinity, in which case you're a sexist moron. In all actuality though, I don't think it would be beyond me to throttle one wolf.

I think you'd get ripped to pieces, since wolves actually tend to come in packs, fool.


Who cares.

People who want to continue living?


Dogs are innocent. Humans are not. Have I betrayed my species? Is that the issue?

No, the issue is that you are displaying a certain kind of contempt for human life.


You draw the line at species, others at skin colour; discrimination is discrimination - you're all as bad as each other. You must think objectively, and you will see that I speak the truth.

Racism is bullshit because there is more variance within ethnicities than between them. Not so for species, where the differences in physical and mental abilities are very clear.


Why does it make a difference to you who kills it? I think it would be nice for it to die of old age - spending as much time with its family as possible.

It makes a difference to me because the first two are animals acquiring food, and the last one is (usually) an accident.

"Family" is a human concept that should not be applied to animals. You are anthropomorphising on a level that comes close to a Disneyfied view of nature. You think falcons give a shit about the smaller birds they prey on, except as a meal? Why is it wrong for humans but A-OK for falcons?


Not the best example - clothing in mild climates is a redundant practice; based upon ancient social conventions. It only serves to bring a more readily visible divide between rich and poor.

I personally hunt non-sentient life - such as potatoes.

I was implying that hunting is common, not universal. It's a way of acquiring meat, which many humans find to be tasty and which is highly nutritious. Potatoes are a good source of carbohydrates and go well with many meats, which are a rich source of protein.


Precisely. Humans however do have a concept of justice, but choose to ignore it, and continue to exploit others. I'm killing the human first.

Humans exploit other humans. They don't exploit animals (except in the sense that one exploits a seam of iron ore) because the concept of exploitation has no meaning to them - a pig doesn't care greatly about the fact she's confined to a farm as long as she is comfortable.


I hope in my lifetime to allow many more life forms than my body can feed to come into existence, and remain in existence. I am more use to these millions of species alive than dead.

How?


There is nothing special about human life/existence.

Intrinsically? No, of course not. But humans are social creatures, and as a human I care about other humans above all else.


On a serious note, I hope to be a part of making the world a fairer place, and would be honoured to die in the process. We all die. Whether it is at the hands of the state or the tusks of a boar, it doesn't really matter.

Maybe not to you. It does to me.

[Narcissus]

You mean the same brains which enabled us to develop effective enough weaponry to become the predominant apex predator on six continents?

Yep, that's the one. Domination is so primal.


I think you'd get ripped to pieces, since wolves actually tend to come in packs, fool.

Well, I wouldn't be there in the first place, so nothing is getting killed.


People who want to continue living?

The will to live is pathetic.


No, the issue is that you are displaying a certain kind of contempt for human life.

Humans are pretty contemptuous though. Look at the things humans have done. Look at the world around you. Slavery.

Dogs however are relatively stupid, and if they are aggressive it's almost always because a human has trained them to be this way.

Your average dog is more innocent than your average human.


Racism is bullshit because there is more variance within ethnicities than between them. Not so for species, where the differences in physical and mental abilities are very clear.

That wasn't my point. Discrimination between species is still discrimination. It shows a lack of empathy on your part (yeah you heard me right).


It makes a difference to me because the first two are animals acquiring food, and the last one is (usually) an accident.

My point was, why does it have to be you that kills it? Do you derive pleasure from hunting?


"Family" is a human concept that should not be applied to animals. You are anthropomorphising on a level that comes close to a Disneyfied view of nature. You think falcons give a shit about the smaller birds they prey on, except as a meal? Why is it wrong for humans but A-OK for falcons?

Because falcons, along with dogs, are stupid; they cannot help that. They are driven by a basic will to live - something they can never change. Humans are smart and could live without killing any other animals - but choose not to because we enjoy the taste of flesh. This is very selfish.


Humans exploit other humans. They don't exploit animals (except in the sense that one exploits a seam of iron ore) because the concept of exploitation has no meaning to them - a pig doesn't care greatly about the fact she's confined to a farm as long as she is comfortable.

Humans exploit everything. Cows for instance for their milk. The whole process is abhorrent. Humans exploit the earth and all it's resources too.


Intrinsically? No, of course not. But humans are social creatures, and as a human I care about other humans above all else.

Why? This doesn't follow. This is a bias that you should really address. You seem to have a great deal of dogma about the issue, and as such I doubt you will change your mind (like a staunch capitalist). It is important to constantly examine and re-examine yourself, and your beliefs.


Maybe not to you. It does to me.

Cool.

[Leftsolidarity]

You're ridiculous and I really think you have to be trolling from some of the bat-shit crazy things you're saying. I was a vegetarian for 7 years but still acknowledged the nessesity of self-defense and even hunting. You claim to want no discrimination between species but yt you seem to hate humans a hell of a lot. You obviously have no contact with reality if you are pushing the idea that we should let ourselves be killed by wild animals.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yep, that's the one. Domination is so primal.

Not really, since we're still doing it.


Well, I wouldn't be there in the first place, so nothing is getting killed.

So you are posturing.


The will to live is pathetic.

Then why are you still bothering to find food?


Humans are pretty contemptuous though. Look at the things humans have done. Look at the world around you. Slavery.

Actually, we're not alone (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/01/the-rebellion-of-the-ant-slaves/) when it comes to slavery. Other animals aren't the angels you seem to think they are.


Dogs however are relatively stupid, and if they are aggressive it's almost always because a human has trained them to be this way.

Your average dog is more innocent than your average human.

Stupidity equals goodness? Is that it? While a dog can't be blamed for having a shitty owner, that doesn't mean that dogs can't be vicious of their own accord.


That wasn't my point. Discrimination between species is still discrimination. It shows a lack of empathy on your part (yeah you heard me right).

If I were looking for someone to be a truck driver, even a human with no legs would be a more likely candidate than any dog. This is because dogs cannot learn to operate a motor vehicle. That may be discrimination, but it's discrimination for a damn good reason.

Empathy is the reason I don't derive pleasure from seeing other animals suffer, and is why if I do decide to kill an animal, the killing itself serves only as a means to an end (e.g. clothing, food), not an end in itself. That same empathy also compels me to end animals' lives as quickly and as humanely as I can.


My point was, why does it have to be you that kills it? Do you derive pleasure from hunting?

I've never hunted, but I would like to, since I enjoy eating meat and I consider hunting a perfectly valid a method of acquiring it. Plus there's the whole element of eating something that is not only delicious (I've been lucky enough to enjoy game meats hunted by others, like venison and pheasant), but also derives entirely from the sweat of one's own brow.

Although I did work in a slaughterhouse once; I didn't kill any animals (I didn't have the health and safety training), but I did work in the gut room for at least a week, where I separated the stomachs and intestines of sheep. It was not exactly pleasant and occasionally messy, but far from putting me off eating meat, it gave me a new appreciation of the processes involved in bringing meat to the dinner table.


Because falcons, along with dogs, are stupid; they cannot help that. They are driven by a basic will to live - something they can never change. Humans are smart and could live without killing any other animals - but choose not to because we enjoy the taste of flesh. This is very selfish.

Well, I have some bad news as well - even if you are the strictest vegan on the planet, you are still killing other animals simply through competing for limited living space. All those wonderfully non-sentient grains you love scrumming down? Well, imagine what happens when a field mouse and a combine harvester come together...


Humans exploit everything. Cows for instance for their milk. The whole process is abhorrent. Humans exploit the earth and all it's resources too.

As soon as the cows and manganese nodules present a list of demands, I'll listen. Until then...


Why? This doesn't follow. This is a bias that you should really address. You seem to have a great deal of dogma about the issue, and as such I doubt you will change your mind (like a staunch capitalist). It is important to constantly examine and re-examine yourself, and your beliefs.

I'm biased towards humans because I am one, and can thus empathise with and relate to my fellows on a level that simply cannot be matched through any relationship I might have with other species of animal.

Non-human animals can make awesome pets, but they're crappy friends.


Cool.

I think you'll find that most peoples' opinions on the matter of how one dies are closer to mine than they are to yours. Asking people to not give a shit about their own lives is going to be a very hard thing to promote, except perhaps among the terminally depressed.

[Popular Front of Judea]

Eh if they are wily Maoist guerrillas they may elect to retreat and fight another day... :)


Running is for counter-revolutionaries. A real proletarian would toughen up and face the beast of capital head on.

Bloody Ultra-left reactionaries.

[Lowtech]

The title of this thread should be "reasonable and informed individual's position on gun control?"

-gun regulation in the united states is completely insufficient.
-more guns is not the answer, the wild west was hardly gun violence free
-armed citizens have little defense against the most overly funded war machine on the planet.
-gun rights reactionaries are typically zenophobic and believe they need guns to protect themselves from urbanized minorities they see as criminals and foriegners they believe are "stealing" their jobs

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The title of this thread should be "reasonable and informed individual's position on gun control?"

-gun regulation in the united states is completely insufficient.

Insufficient for what purpose, exactly?


-more guns is not the answer, the wild west was hardly gun violence free

More guns aren't the answer to what, exactly?


-armed citizens have little defense against the most overly funded war machine on the planet.

Like I said, that a major disparity in firepower exists between proletarians and the bourgeois state doesn't excuse any attempts to make that disparity even wider. Also, there is such a thing as asymmetric warfare.


-gun rights reactionaries are typically zenophobic and believe they need guns to protect themselves from urbanized minorities they see as criminals and foriegners they believe are "stealing" their jobs

So what? Not everyone in favour of firearms possession is a right-wing reactionary.

[Os Cangaceiros]

-more guns is not the answer, the wild west was hardly gun violence free


Not gun violence free, but not nearly as violent as it's portrayed in popular culture...

[PC LOAD LETTER]

THIS, I have no sympathy for. If you go to try and kill a pig, I hope it does turn around and maul you. What the hell gives you the right to kill an animal that is defending its young just because you want to kill it?
Food. A ~$30 box of high quality .30-06 ammo will yield a hell of a lot more meat than $30 will at the grocery store.



For one, in common parlance hog = male and sow = female. You'll notice I said if I'm out hunting hog. However, that doesn't stop a sow from seeing me and, with them being quite vicious creatures, much moreso than the males, trying to kill me.




If you are ambushed in the woods taking a stroll by a hog then climb a fucking tree. Don't kill it because it will inconvenience you.
This is absurd. You won't have time to climb a tree. It's life-and-death, and, unfortunately for the sow, I'll kill her to protect my own life.


How about you trap the coyote and relocate it? Dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, and as such you should not favour one over the other. The same goes for humans vs anything.
Okay, like Noxion said, you would need to transport it hundreds of miles away. And then there's lots more coyotes around anyways, so that it futile. Like with the sow-and-me "dilemma", if I have to take the life of a coyote in order to protect the lives of my dogs, then I will kill the coyote. I'll feel really bad about it, I'm not a sociopath, I love animals, but I will do it.


Guns are specifically designed to kill things. Who wants something like that to exist?
False premise. Like Noxion said, they're designed to throw bits of metal at high speed. They're a tool to be used for many purposes.


Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

If you go out with the intention of killing something, and then it kills you; you deserve it. Hogs have done nothing wrong. Fascists however...
Petty bourgeois moralism. If you injure a sow that wants to kill you, she's going to die in the woods anyhow, albeit a much more painful death than a .45ACP to the skull would have done. I don't go out with the intention of killing, that's vile. I go out with the intention of harvesting one animal for food. Maybe several in the case of squirrel because they don't yield much meat individually.

[Ismail]

For what it's worth, Albanian propaganda was pretty big on how everyone in the country had to learn how to use weapons. Hoxha also said that, "All our people are armed in the full meaning of the word. Every Albanian city-dweller or villager, has his weapon at home." (Selected Works Vol. IV, p. 501.) Three visitors to Albania in the 70's and 80's pointed out the widespread existence of guns amongst the populace. It already had a reputation as a gun-loving country before 1944 so it wasn't a big leap. Of course all these guns had a negative effect in 1991-1992 and 1997 when the state's authority crapped out, but I doubt any logical person would see that as a strike against gun ownership anymore than knives must be banned because people often use them in muggings.

[Narcissus]

You're ridiculous and I really think you have to be trolling from some of the bat-shit crazy things you're saying. I was a vegetarian for 7 years but still acknowledged the nessesity of self-defense and even hunting. You claim to want no discrimination between species but yt you t seem to hate humans a hell of a lot. You obviously have no contact with reality if you are pushing the idea that we should let ourselves be killed by wild animals.

Am I though? Misanthropy is inevitable if you think critically enough. Humans have the capability to be so good and just (and a few are) but for the most part they ignore the feelings of others for their own selfish gains. Capitalism is the perfect example of this. I do not discriminate against humans; there are plenty of humans I like a lot more than I could ever like pigs because I can relate to them better, and have conversations with them. This does not make them more valuable though. It does not make a human's life have more worth than a dog's. Animals are ignorant; humans are not - they should know better than to do amoral things.

If you do think that humans are inherently worth more than animals, then societal conditioning has more of a grip on you than you thought. Humans are not special, but we are the only animal that does bad things, despite having the ability to avoid doing bad things.

With regards to guns: In America, a person like me could easily get a gun. Would you like that? You all seem to think I'm crazy and all, but doctors have nothing on my mental health, except that I suffered from depression. A HUGE percentage of people have suffered from depression in their lives - do you let us have guns or not?

I would like to point out, that if people didn't have guns in the first place, no one would need guns to protect themselves. They would need a shield, and a spear (the kind you hold). I don't see anyone trying to go further into a house in which someone is holding a spear. Kitchen knives do the trick too.

With regards to protecting yourself when being rushed by a pig trying to protect its babies. There must a be a stun gun that will knock a pig out. If you want to hunt, then fine; but you had better eat it all. Does anyone here really believe that eating meat is neccessary? You are all sacrificing the lives of animals because you think it is tastier than veggies. I personally think it is oppressive, and that it is done for such a trivial reason is AS disgusting as what the bourgeois do to the proletariat. Class struggle exists because of injustice - and so we must be committed to fighting injustices - ALL injustices. If not you are simply trying to make life better for yourself - not fighting for equality.

[bigred]

i personally keep a rifle just in case ho i don't expect a revolution in my lifetime i still rather keep it just in case the 2nd amendment was made to protect people like us who don't agree with the government not just those looking to protect their homes or hunting rifles

[Leftsolidarity]

I do value human life more than I value the life of a non-human animal. Our society is a human society. That doesn't mean I want to kill animals, like I said I was a vegetarian for 7 years and only stopped being one for economic reasons. It means that when it comes down to it I will sacrific a non-human to save a human whether that be me or someone else. Do I agree with factory farms, animal testing, etc.? No, those things are cruel and pretty much unneeded. Just because we do not wish to sacrifice ourselves to the holy and ignorant wild animals like you preach, doesn't mean we wish harm onto animals for our enjoyment. And no, we're not the only animal that do bad things when we know they're bad. Simply example, ever had a pet dog or cat? Cats know they are supposed to go in their litterbox but sometimes they'll purposefully shit right next to it cuz they're mad at you.

As for allowing people that suffer from depression have guns, I don't see why not as long as they aren't shown to be a major threat to themselves or others.

[Fourth Internationalist]

THIS, I have no sympathy for. If you go to try and kill a pig, I hope it does turn around and maul you. What the hell gives you the right to kill an animal that is defending its young just because you want to kill it?

If you are ambushed in the woods taking a stroll by a hog then climb a fucking tree. Don't kill it because it will inconvenience you.

How about you trap the coyote and relocate it? Dogs aren't inherently better than coyotes, and as such you should not favour one over the other. The same goes for humans vs anything.

Guns are specifically designed to kill things. Who wants something like that to exist?

Killing should be a last resort of you are attacked. If you can't outrun it, then threaten it, if it can't be threatened, injure it, LAST RESORT is killing.

If you go out with the intention of killing something, and then it kills you; you deserve it. Hogs have done nothing wrong. Fascists however...


While I agree with you on the issue of animals, etc. If something/someone attacks you, the only important thing is that you live, not the other way around.

[Narcissus]

I do value human life more than I value the life of a non-human animal. Our society is a human society.

Our society is also a capitalist society; in which rich people have more value than poor people. Just because it is so in society does not make it right.

I don't understand what affiliation you have with our present society. It is rife with inequality and injustice. Marx himself said that the ends of the communists can only be attained by the forcible overthrow of ALL existing social conditions. I see the oppression of animals by humans as one of those conditions.

We have no NEED to enslave and eat animals. In fact it is a giant waste of resources to feed a cow for its whole life, and then eat the cow.

The bourgeois have no NEED for lots of money, but they like it. Just as we have no NEED for bacon but we like it, and will ignore that we enslave others to get it. If you disagree it is merely proof that you are not thinking objectively, and are still influenced greatly by our current shitty society.


Just because we do not wish to sacrifice ourselves to the holy and ignorant wild animals like you preach, doesn't mean we wish harm onto animals for our enjoyment.

That's really not what I meant. I was just asking rhetorically why it should be the pig that must die in place of ourselves, when it was us that aggravated it? It seems like either death would be the fault of the human (who chose to go hunting).


And no, we're not the only animal that do bad things when we know they're bad. Simply example, ever had a pet dog or cat? Cats know they are supposed to go in their litterbox but sometimes they'll purposefully shit right next to it cuz they're mad at you.

Are we really going to compare slavery and genocide to vindictive shitting? Not all humans do truly bad things, but that humans created capitalism is to me perfect proof that there are plenty of terrible people in the world - whose lives I would have far fewer qualms ending than the life of a single dog.

If you take an average dog, and an average human; the human will have done worse things, far more often than the dog. The dog is unavoidably ignorant and stupid - and therefore innocent (or far more innocent). The human does not deserve to die less than the dog just because WE are human.

You must consider equality, without your own personal bias.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

[snip]

With regards to guns: In America, a person like me could easily get a gun. Would you like that? You all seem to think I'm crazy and all, but doctors have nothing on my mental health, except that I suffered from depression. A HUGE percentage of people have suffered from depression in their lives - do you let us have guns or not?
I can't make a judgment here because I'm A: not a doctor and B: communicating with you via text, but if you are insane enough to go on a killing spree you'll do it whether or not you have a gun.



I would like to point out, that if people didn't have guns in the first place, no one would need guns to protect themselves. They would need a shield, and a spear (the kind you hold). I don't see anyone trying to go further into a house in which someone is holding a spear. Kitchen knives do the trick too.
You're slowly coming around here. Without eliminating the conditions that create gun violence, then violence will manifest itself in different forms. Instead of robbing and shooting you, a mugger may rob and stab you instead. Or club you, crushing your skull with an aluminum bat. Once you have eliminated the conditions that lend themselves to the manifestation of gun violence, then gun control is a moot point anyhow. You also haven't explained why the 10,000 people a year (est) who die in the US from gun violence are somehow more noble and worthy of protection than the 40,000 people a year (est) who die from alcohol. Why are you not arguing for alcohol prohibition?



With regards to protecting yourself when being rushed by a pig trying to protect its babies. There must a be a stun gun that will knock a pig out.
No


If you want to hunt, then fine; but you had better eat it all.
Nearly every hunter does this. There's this myth going around animal rights circles, they believe hunters are sociopaths going out and slaughtering everything in sight. Every single person I know that hunts (I grew up in the rural south even though I live in a city now) will only take as much as they can use. This psychopathic wanton animal-killer is just as much a myth as the Reaganite welfare queen. You've been had. Also, since humans have driven out the natural apex predators of the south (black bear and wolves), prey species (white-tail deer) have exploded in population, are overgrazing and wreaking havoc in local areas. Hunting is the answer to this, especially in light of the poorly performing reintroduction of apex predators. There are also bag limits, but I know of exactly zero people who have ever reached the season's bag limit on anything. There's no reason to. I'm sure a few people here and there do, but the vast majority don't. Hog are also an introduced species, and are extremely destructive to the local ecosystems.


Does anyone here really believe that eating meat is neccessary? You are all sacrificing the lives of animals because you think it is tastier than veggies. I personally think it is oppressive, and that it is done for such a trivial reason is AS disgusting as what the bourgeois do to the proletariat. Class struggle exists because of injustice - and so we must be committed to fighting injustices - ALL injustices. If not you are simply trying to make life better for yourself - not fighting for equality.I think you need to re-evaluate your position here. It's vegetarianism that is unsustainable. There's enough for the fringe folks to follow a vegetarian diet, but, ignoring artificial scarcity created by the market, the entire human population could not be fed without the caloric density of animal products. If your issue is animal death without regard to feeding the human population, then you need to understand that harvesting machinery doesn't stop for bunnies in the way. If you think we can go to a petty-bourgeois dreamland of self-sustaining farms for each family harvested by hand with great care, then you need to put down the weed.

[Narcissus]

I can't make a judgment here because I'm A: not a doctor and B: communicating with you via text, but if you are insane enough to go on a killing spree you'll do it whether or not you have a gun.

For your peace of mind, I am not going to go on a killing spree. If I were though I could kill far more with a gun than I could with a knife. FAR MORE.


You're slowly coming around here. Without eliminating the conditions that create gun violence, then violence will manifest itself in different forms. Instead of robbing and shooting you, a mugger may rob and stab you instead. Or club you, crushing your skull with an aluminum bat. Once you have eliminated the conditions that lend themselves to the manifestation of gun violence, then gun control is a moot point anyhow. You also haven't explained why the 10,000 people a year (est) who die in the US from gun violence are somehow more noble and worthy of protection than the 40,000 people a year (est) who die from alcohol. Why are you not arguing for alcohol prohibition?

I would far rather face a mugger with a knife than one with a gun. Knives can be run away from, bullets not so much.

A bottle of vodka isn't going to come up to me in the street and kill me. I have to make the decision to let it kill me. I am not being killed by the vodka, I'm killing myself with the vodka. Also vodka is not designed for the purpose of killing people. Guns are. That metal is projected from them is incidental - killing is their purpose.


No

Well that's just not true. I bet if I took a stun gun to a pig, I could run away before it was ready to run again. As I understand it stun guns come in various strengths - you would need one that would not kill the pig, but stun it enough to make an escape. I'm sure there are plenty out there.


Nearly every hunter does this. There's this myth going around animal rights circles, they believe hunters are sociopaths going out and slaughtering everything in sight. Every single person I know that hunts (I grew up in the rural south even though I live in a city now) will only take as much as they can use. This psychopathic wanton animal-killer is just as much a myth as the Reaganite welfare queen. You've been had. Also, since humans have driven out the natural apex predators of the south (black bear and wolves), prey species (white-tail deer) have exploded in population, are overgrazing and wreaking havoc in local areas. Hunting is the answer to this, especially in light of the poorly performing reintroduction of apex predators. There are also bag limits, but I know of exactly zero people who have ever reached the season's bag limit on anything. There's no reason to. I'm sure a few people here and there do, but the vast majority don't. Hog are also an introduced species, and are extremely destructive to the local ecosystems.

I have lived in the UK for the majority of my life. Here we have fox hunters, and rabbit hunters, and pheasant hunters, and the bourgeois are also desperate to kill all the badgers. They may eat the odd token rabbit, but it is predominantly a sport. I know personally a family who LOVE to kill rabbits, they are always at the farmer they live next to to let them kill them all. They kill hundreds more than they can eat. I know the don't represent every hunter, but these people exist, and they are very common among the largely aristocratic hunting demographic in the UK.

As you hinted to, the reason that the ecosystems are out of balance is because humans have killed the predators. I understand that there must be a balance - and it is a great shame that a load of morons made it neccessary to address the problem created by guns, with yet more guns.


I think you need to re-evaluate your position here. It's vegetarianism that is unsustainable. There's enough for the fringe folks to follow a vegetarian diet, but, ignoring artificial scarcity created by the market, the entire human population could not be fed without the caloric density of animal products. If your issue is animal death without regard to feeding the human population, then you need to understand that harvesting machinery doesn't stop for bunnies in the way. If you think we can go to a petty-bourgeois dreamland of self-sustaining farms for each family harvested by hand with great care, then you need to put down the weed.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/vegetarian-2050-190426669.html

First link on google I found. Vegetarianism is far more sustainable than producing meat. It's the future. I really can't believe that you genuinely think otherwise.

Of course food production will be mechanised. Things can be done to stop small animals from getting minced by combine harvesters, but of course there will be some casualties. I can handle a couple hundred/thousand bunnies/mice getting killed BY ACCIDENT for the sake of feeding billions of humans, as long as those humans are working to preserve the environment and help all the species within it. Humans do not own the earth.

[Aduk]

ALL guns should be banned. There have been so many gun massacres in America and it has to stop.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

For your peace of mind, I am not going to go on a killing spree. If I were though I could kill far more with a gun than I could with a knife. FAR MORE.
An insane person is still going to kill people whether or not there is a gun involved, whether it's over time, or all at once.



A bottle of vodka isn't going to come up to me in the street and kill me. I have to make the decision to let it kill me. I am not being killed by the vodka, I'm killing myself with the vodka. Also vodka is not designed for the purpose of killing people. Guns are. That metal is projected from them is incidental - killing is their purpose.
Completely absurd - a bottle of alcohol isn't going to kill you, but an alcoholic who says "fuck it" and drives down a residential road at 80mph will. If he mows down a group of third graders and nuns and bunnies crossing the street, will you argue for prohibition even if it's not indicative of a normal trend within alcohol users (ex, it's an outlier, just as violent gun owners are an outlier).



Well that's just not true. I bet if I took a stun gun to a pig, I could run away before it was ready to run again. As I understand it stun guns come in various strengths - you would need one that would not kill the pig, but stun it enough to make an escape. I'm sure there are plenty out there.
Hahahaha. Oh my god. You clearly have no experience with the wilderness. You do that, I'll have an ambulance on standby to clean up the mess when the sow eviscerates you for pissing it off.




I have lived in the UK for the majority of my life. Here we have fox hunters, and rabbit hunters, and pheasant hunters, and the bourgeois are also desperate to kill all the badgers. They may eat the odd token rabbit, but it is predominantly a sport. I know personally a family who LOVE to kill rabbits, they are always at the farmer they live next to to let them kill them all. They kill hundreds more than they can eat. I know the don't represent every hunter, but these people exist, and they are very common among the largely aristocratic hunting demographic in the UK.
These hunters are from a bourgeois background. The vast majority of hunters in the US are from a proletarian background and hunt for food. Sport hunters are a small minority and are usually wealthy, they are irrelevant and not indicative of any trend within the majority of American hunters.



As you hinted to, the reason that the ecosystems are out of balance is because humans have killed the predators. I understand that there must be a balance - and it is a great shame that a load of morons made it neccessary to address the problem created by guns, with yet more guns.
Complete non-sequitur. "Some people eradicated wolves with a sledgehammer. Let's ban sledgehammers!!"





http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/vegetarian-2050-190426669.html

First link on google I found. Vegetarianism is far more sustainable than producing meat. It's the future. I really can't believe that you genuinely think otherwise.
Aaaand you're citing a blog. Until you come up with something from multiple reputable sources (I swear if you cite NaturalNews I'm going to stop replying to you) that state we'll have to drastically change our diet to continue existing as a species, I'm not going to buy it.



Of course food production will be mechanised. Things can be done to stop small animals from getting minced by combine harvesters, but of course there will be some casualties. I can handle a couple hundred/thousand bunnies/mice getting killed BY ACCIDENT for the sake of feeding billions of humans, as long as those humans are working to preserve the environment and help all the species within it. Humans do not own the earth.
Petty (-bourgeois) moralism. Go back to democratic underground.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

ALL guns should be banned. There have been so many gun massacres in America and it has to stop.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm


Alcohol kills more people in the US each year than guns. How do you feel about prohibition? Banning tobacco? Outlawing cars?

[Narcissus]

An insane person is still going to kill people whether or not there is a gun involved, whether it's over time, or all at once.

I know this viewpoint is pretty commonplace, but I fundamentally disagree with it. You may be aware that after these killing sprees the person will often commit suicide. This to me is a result of severe depression and also guilt at what they have done. I don't think that every person that goes on a killing spree would be capable of committing a series of murders over time on account of their fragile state of mind. Not to mention that I would think stabbing someone or slitting their throat would be far more graphically horrifying than shooting someone (and yes I do know that gun wounds can be horrific). There is almost a sense of detachment related to shooting someone, because you do not have to be within a foot, see the persons fear... etc. something that many of these people would not be capable of doing.

My point here is that there will undoubtedly be more murders when guns are so easy to come by.


Completely absurd - a bottle of alcohol isn't going to kill you, but an alcoholic who says "fuck it" and drives down a residential road at 80mph will. If he mows down a group of third graders and nuns and bunnies crossing the street, will you argue for prohibition even if it's not indicative of a normal trend within alcohol users (ex, it's an outlier, just as violent gun owners are an outlier).

I would argue for cars that only start once it breathalised you.


Hahahaha. Oh my god. You clearly have no experience with the wilderness. You do that, I'll have an ambulance on standby to clean up the mess when the sow eviscerates you for pissing it off.

I'm guessing that neither of us has electrocuted a sow before, but I'm gonna bet that after she stops spasming on the ground, she is gonna want to get the hell away from whatever that was. I'll be long gone too - zap and run.


These hunters are from a bourgeois background. The vast majority of hunters in the US are from a proletarian background and hunt for food. Sport hunters are a small minority and are usually wealthy, they are irrelevant and not indicative of any trend within the majority of American hunters.

Fine, then why not limit guns to hunting rifles or just bolt action rifles? If you complain about sidearms again then I'm sticking with - if you pick the fight, then you had better be able end it.

OR

Tranquilising dart guns + knife.


Complete non-sequitur. "Some people eradicated wolves with a sledgehammer. Let's ban sledgehammers!!"

Read back over what I said. I didn't imply this at all. I recognised that ecosystems must be balanced - and that we are probably going to have to do this ourselves (with guns). I then stated that it was a shame. It would have been non-sequitur if I had then implied that this was a good reason to get rid of guns. However I do think its a pretty good reason to stop killing things without first thinking through very carefully the consequences/stop killing things period.


Aaaand you're citing a blog. Until you come up with something from multiple reputable sources (I swear if you cite NaturalNews I'm going to stop replying to you) that state we'll have to drastically change our diet to continue existing as a species, I'm not going to buy it.

Aaaand as I stated it was simply the first link on google. I will oblige, but how about you research it yourself - that way you can hear it coming from a source that you find reliable - and see that almost every respectable source recognises it to be so. Vegetarianism is the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism


Petty (-bourgeois) moralism. Go back to democratic underground.

How does it serve the interests of the bourgeoisie? My morals are not derived from society (as you may be able to tell from my position on 'the sanctity of human life' or lack of it). My morals are my own.

It's beginning to look like I'm more radical than you actually, so how about you stop with the pejorative name calling - you don't see me calling you right wing conservative nut bag, just because on this occasion you happen to agree with them.

I'm fairly certain I'm right on all counts; which is why I have those opinions. I thought about them for myself and made conclusions. If you or anyone provide great enough evidence or arguments, then I will change my mind! It's that simple. I rid myself of the dogma society places in all of us long ago.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Aaaand as I stated it was simply the first link on google. I will oblige, but how about you research it yourself - that way you can hear it coming from a source that you find reliable - and see that almost every respectable source recognises it to be so. Vegetarianism is the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-dev...-vegetarianism
And, to meet his criteria of multiple reputable sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQlekfaPyaA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I know this viewpoint is pretty commonplace, but I fundamentally disagree with it. You may be aware that after these killing sprees the person will often commit suicide. This to me is a result of severe depression and also guilt at what they have done. I don't think that every person that goes on a killing spree would be capable of committing a series of murders over time on account of their fragile state of mind. Not to mention that I would think stabbing someone or slitting their throat would be far more graphically horrifying than shooting someone (and yes I do know that gun wounds can be horrific). There is almost a sense of detachment related to shooting someone, because you do not have to be within a foot, see the persons fear... etc. something that many of these people would not be capable of doing.

My point here is that there will undoubtedly be more murders when guns are so easy to come by.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-16175439


Also, you're reiterating standard liberal talking points on that last bit. With a handgun you usually have to be within 10-ish meters, plenty of room to see someone's fear and lots of blood. Most handgun murders are committed at a closer range because most people suck at shooting


I would argue for cars that only start once it breathalised you.
Easily overcome. Plus you're ignoring the influence of alcohol on violent crime in general.





I'm guessing that neither of us has electrocuted a sow before, but I'm gonna bet that after she stops spasming on the ground, she is gonna want to get the hell away from whatever that was. I'll be long gone too - zap and run.
Alright, look, dude. Like I said before, you obviously have no experience in the wilderness. If your shot is not a clean kill shot, if you hit the shoulder, if you hit a non-vital chest region, if you hit the back, it's going to piss off that sow. It's the same with hogs! But worse with sows. It's not going to stop, even if it has only three legs, because in its mind it has to sacrifice its life to protect the sucklings. You try to electrocute a sow and I'll have an ambulance on standby to clean up the mess after she eviscerates you. This is part of the reason why I specifically mentioned a .45ACP sidearm. Not much else will put a charging sow down.



This is x10,000 for bear. The wilderness isn't some hippie wonderland where the sow will say "oh my bad" if you use a tazer. If you can't kill a charging sow, you're dead. That's not a fucking exaggeration.





Fine, then why not limit guns to hunting rifles or just bolt action rifles? If you complain about sidearms again then I'm sticking with - if you pick the fight, then you had better be able end it.

OR

Tranquilising dart guns + knife.
At night, you don't want to try fiddling with a scope when you're being charged. A handgun is the only way to safely protect yourself. No rambo movie bullshit ("dart guns and knife").





Read back over what I said. I didn't imply this at all. I recognised that ecosystems must be balanced - and that we are probably going to have to do this ourselves (with guns). I then stated that it was a shame. It would have been non-sequitur if I had then implied that this was a good reason to get rid of guns. However I do think its a pretty good reason to stop killing things without first thinking through very carefully the consequences/stop killing things period.
Again, this is a huge misconception. Hunting is tightly regulated in the US. Areas are surveyed constantly to monitor the population of game. If a population of animal XYZ is suddenly depleted, hunting that animal will be reduced or barred completely until the population returns. It's not a free-for-all killing spree like animal rights activists like to pretend. Game wardens are out and about all year - you can expect to be stopped at some point if you hunt regularly. If you have an animal without a tag (ex, proof that you are within the legal take limit of that animal) or an animal out of season (say, a buck in march) you are going to jail. It's actually more strict than that, you can be fined (in some areas jail) or have your shit (guns/gear) confiscated if you don't have tags on you, or even if you don't have string and a pen/pencil to attach said tag to said animal.






Aaaand as I stated it was simply the first link on google. I will oblige, but how about you research it yourself - that way you can hear it coming from a source that you find reliable - and see that almost every respectable source recognises it to be so. Vegetarianism is the future.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/aug/26/food-shortages-world-vegetarianism
Interesting. Looks like two reports have come out, that one and the one the other guy/gal posted. I'll keep an eye on this, although, again, more data, more reports, more convincing. 'Tis science.




How does it serve the interests of the bourgeoisie? My morals are not derived from society (as you may be able to tell from my position on 'the sanctity of human life' or lack of it). My morals are my own.
You are using abstract concepts of morality rather than analyzing why gun violence happens in the first place, or, more generally, why violent behavior happens. You began with a position (ban guns - guns bad - animals innocent - people bad) and sought to reinforce it.



It's beginning to look like I'm more radical than you actually, so how about you stop with the pejorative name calling - you don't see me calling you right wing conservative nut bag, just because on this occasion you happen to agree with them.
My position is one that most Marxists will agree with rather than the idealistic notion that removing guns from the picture will have any effect on violence, it will just manifest in different ways as the conditions that lend themselves to violent behavior have not been rectified (in the US: widespread poverty, socioeconomic stratification, no public mental health system)

[Narcissus]

Removing guns would make a difference. Any difference no matter how small has got to be worth not getting to hunt. The easier it is to kill someone the more likely people are to do it. Less guns; less deaths.

With regards to the pig - the best way to not get killed, and not have to kill, is to not piss it off in the first place. If you don't go hunting, nothing has to die.

Capitalism is the reason there is such violence. Of course taking guns away won't eliminate murder, but it WILL reduce it. Glasgow has one of the highest crime rates in the world (I lived in Scotland for 6 years) - its crime rate would be even higher if you were to add guns.

Guns are quite expensive, only quite rich people can afford the best guns - inequality.

I am most concerned with equality. It has formed my views completely. I care about people, I care about animals; when I see an opportunity to reduce the deaths of both, I will support it.

Passing off my views as 'Liberal' is pathetically weak. You have to admit that you would substitute the deaths of both humans and animals, for hunting. That's what it comes down to.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Removing guns would make a difference. Any difference no matter how small has got to be worth not getting to hunt. The easier it is to kill someone the more likely people are to do it. Less guns; less deaths.
A very small difference in a radically stratified shit hole like the US. An irrelevant difference, when other things you could support in a capitalist framework - like universal healthcare, a strong social safety net, and more favorable labor laws - would have a much greater effect on violent crime.



With regards to the pig - the best way to not get killed, and not have to kill, is to not piss it off in the first place. If you don't go hunting, nothing has to die.
Hunting is an economically rational decision - it is cheaper to spend $30 on a box of bullets and get 50 pounds of venison and 75 pounds of hog, just by spending a day or two in the woods, than it is to spend $30 at the grocery store and get 10 pounds of ground beef.



Capitalism is the reason there is such violence. Of course taking guns away won't eliminate murder, but it WILL reduce it. Glasgow has one of the highest crime rates in the world (I lived in Scotland for 6 years) - its crime rate would be even higher if you were to add guns.
You're coming 'round, here. I don't have much to add



Guns are quite expensive, only quite rich people can afford the best guns - inequality.
Well that's not true at all. I paid $600 for my two hunting rifles (used), total. Another $100 each for a decent scope. A sidearm can be had for less than $400 easily. If you can afford a computer, you can afford to hunt. Camouflage clothing can be found at local thrift stores for nearly nothing.



I am most concerned with equality. It has formed my views completely. I care about people, I care about animals; when I see an opportunity to reduce the deaths of both, I will support it.
admirable



Passing off my views as 'Liberal' is pathetically weak. You have to admit that you would substitute the deaths of both humans and animals, for hunting. That's what it comes down to.
It's not that I would substitute the deaths of humans and animals for hunting, it's that removing guns will not have a significant effect on violent crime in the US. Example: the crack epidemic. Gun violence has fallen since the tail end of the crack epidemic. Not because guns got harder to get, but because the conditions changed.

[Klaatu]

It is my opinion that there are assault weapons out there because the capitalist gun manufacturing industry is trying to make a buck. And they own the N.R.A. leadership. LaPierre does not even support background checks (but he did ten years ago - looks like the capitalist lobbyists got to him)

It is also my opinion that most of these assault rifles go to drug gangs outside the country.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Am I though? Misanthropy is inevitable if you think critically enough. Humans have the capability to be so good and just (and a few are) but for the most part they ignore the feelings of others for their own selfish gains. Capitalism is the perfect example of this.

You can't pin capitalism on humanity, since the species has been around for much longer than capitalism has. You are just sublimating your political frustrations into a generalised devaluation of the human species, and that is not critical thinking at all.


I do not discriminate against humans; there are plenty of humans I like a lot more than I could ever like pigs because I can relate to them better, and have conversations with them. This does not make them more valuable though. It does not make a human's life have more worth than a dog's. Animals are ignorant; humans are not - they should know better than to do amoral things.

Except that humans can apologise and make amends for their actions, unlike other animals.


If you do think that humans are inherently worth more than animals, then societal conditioning has more of a grip on you than you thought. Humans are not special, but we are the only animal that does bad things, despite having the ability to avoid doing bad things.

Where as animals do whatever takes their fancy and never apologise or try to make up for any of the bad things they do.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Also, as an addendum to Noxion's post, malevolent behavior is present in animals as well. Bottle-nose dolphins are notoriously violent against podmates, as are Pan troglodytes (the common chimp), and wolves. All three have been observed assaulting other animals and even their own species, and even murder (as in, killing not for food).

[DoCt SPARTAN]

I dont think you should be able to get a M16 so easy, should be background checks on metal illnesses and other capabilities. also no giant box clips, there is absolutley no reason to have any excuse to have this on a gun! What will you hunt a Freaking' T-Rex?. Believe pistols, shotguns,rifles, semi assault (with small clips)

[Lowtech]

Insufficient for what purpose, exactly?insufficient in regulating who should and shouldn't own a gun or what types of firearms. regulation in this sense is actually a kind of law enforcement. arguing for more guns in the hands of people and less law enforcement is ridiculous.
More guns aren't the answer to what, exactly?crime in general. self defense is good; self defense using firearms is good also, but don't assume a gun in and of itself is enough self defense, you won't always have time to dig it out of a drawer or be lucky enough to not have it wrestled away from you. if someone walks around boasting that they're safer for owning a gun but aren't serious about self defense are actually compensating for penis size or being down right sexually repressed.
Like I said, that a major disparity in firepower exists between proletarians and the bourgeois state doesn't excuse any attempts to make that disparity even wider. Also, there is such a thing as asymmetric warfare.when rebellion is necessary is a whole other context. if gun reactionaries really cared about this "disparity" you describe, they wouldn't vote for idiots that draft things that rhyme with "the patriot act"
So what? Not everyone in favour of firearms possession is a right-wing reactionary.those who aren't right-wing reactionaries are the exception.

the culture that advocates "gun ownership" as an expression of xenophobia is the same culture that advocates larger prisons instead of better law enforcement and social safety nets.

why fix a problem when you can throw money at it or bullets?

[Tuggback]

The UK and Sweden both have gun laws restricting arms. One is a free wheeling capitalist nation with a lot of violent crime despite the restriction. The other has less crime but it's due more to the standard of living being met by a strong welfare state, not the lack of weapons.

US liberals are really ignoring the socio-economic aspect of this whole debate.

Sweden is actually number four in Europe when it comes to the number of firearms per capita. We are a nation of hunters.

[MP5]

I will agree with gun control the day when the state forces throw away their guns but until then i do not believe that any guns should be banned including combat weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols, automatic combat shotguns, etc. Why should we as Communists allow the bourgeois state to tell us if we are or are not allowed to own weapons?

This is not to say i agree with the NRA at all but just because those morons give all gun owners a bad name does not mean that Socialists should toss away their guns.

[Lowtech]

I will agree with gun control the day when the state forces throw away their guns but until then i do not believe that any guns should be banned including combat weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles, submachine guns, machine pistols, automatic combat shotguns, etc. Why should we as Communists allow the bourgeois state to tell us if we are or are not allowed to own weapons?

This is not to say i agree with the NRA at all but just because those morons give all gun owners a bad name does not mean that Socialists should toss away their guns.

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.
They become surivalist wackos because they become survivalist wackos? It has nothing to do with the fact that gun deaths are lower than alcohol-related deaths. Is there an alcohol death epidemic in the US? It's loaded terminology used as a talking point.


As for that last bit, you're obviously quite ignorant so I don't know why you're in the thread.

[Lowtech]

They become surivalist wackos because they become survivalist wackos? It has nothing to do with the fact that gun deaths are lower than alcohol-related deaths. Is there an alcohol death epidemic in the US? It's loaded terminology used as a talking point.


As for that last bit, you're obviously quite ignorant so I don't know why you're in the thread.

i am ignorant about many things, but i don't buy a gun to compensate for my ignorance and inability to address things that i dislike.

gun rights advocates are the equivalent of road rage applied to life in general.

google the video: How Russians deal with road rage - the gun in the video was likely unloaded. now the guy chasing them was deterred but hey, in his mind he probably just needed a bigger gun.

"an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"

[Nick]

I think it's gay to not have gun. I truly believe that guns make you a better person to be around. I think all faggots should not have a gun.

[ellipsis]

I think it's gay to not have gun. I truly believe that guns make you a better person to be around. I think all faggots should not have a gun.


and banned.

[Narcissus]

You can't pin capitalism on humanity, since the species has been around for much longer than capitalism has. You are just sublimating your political frustrations into a generalised devaluation of the human species, and that is not critical thinking at all.

Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs. My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.


Except that humans can apologise and make amends for their actions, unlike other animals.

Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place. There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.


Where as animals do whatever takes their fancy and never apologise or try to make up for any of the bad things they do.

Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

and banned.

Thanks man! God, what an a-hole.
Makes me wishi was gay though.



Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs. My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.



Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place. There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.



Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

Every death is one too much. We don't need gun-control, we need a complete gun-ban.

Guns are made to kill or maime people or animals. No good could ever come from that.

Owning a gun sounds a bit like owning a huge car. What do you need to compensate?

[MP5]

No one is suggesting to go completely without guns. But better gun regulation is needed.

Other users here have claimed in the US there is no real gun violence epidemic. If this is so, why do some people become sirvivalist wackos?

its not so much the benefit of gun ownership that they advocate as it is what it means to them to have a gun; protection against urbanized minorities they see as criminals.

In the US at the very least, only two kinds of people have or want guns; those who are gang affiliated or those that are racist and think non whites are taking over thier world.

They become survivalist nut jobs because they are reactionary conservatives who still do not know that the cold war is over. They would be like that guns or no. Also i know many people in both Canada and the US that have guns that fit neither of those categories and i would be one of them. Also i don't think guns can be given all the blame for all the gun related deaths in the US. Just because there are alot of guns in a area does not mean there will be a high murder rate as if this was the case my province would have the highest murder rate in Canada instead of one of the lowest. Granted if you pull a gun on someone here you are considered a pussy right from the bat for not being able to fight like a man so maybe there's just more taboo against gun violence here.

Also believe it or not people do need guns for hunting as it is a rather cheap way to get alot of meat. Hell for the price of a .303 shell and getting someone to cut it up i now have a freezer full of moose meat that cost all total about $160. If i where to buy that much beef in a supermarket it would run me into the thousands.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I'm sure as hell not pinning capitalism on frogs.

You're missing the point, which is that when it comes to naturally developed socioeconomic arrangements, playing the blame game is stupid and futile. One can point the finger at individuals who actively support oppressive systems, but if you're going to go beyond that then you might as well hang yourself as a collaborator.


My political frustrations are but a fraction of my quarrels with humanity, and source of my misanthropy. Has any species enslaved and killed so many living things as humans? The answer you are looking for is 'no'.

I dunno, ants fight each other a lot, and practice slavery themselves. Nature isn't nice, whatever you might have learned from Disney.


Perhaps if they are so clever as to apologise, they could have not done the awful thing in the first place.

Being able to apologise, make amends and show remorse in no ways implies perfect behaviour - the point is that we can recognise when we do fuck up, whereas animals only fear retribution.


There are some things one cannot make amends for. For example if someone were to kill your mother I imagine 'I'm sorry, have $10,000' wouldn't really cut it.

Maybe not, but if I had good reason to believe that they truly regretted their actions, then I might find it in myself to forgive them.


Children get less jail time for murder than adults. Why is this? Because children do not always have all the mental faculties that adults have, and may be excused for their actions to a certain extent.

Wolves are even less smart than 11 year old humans, and so I would excuse the wolf of murder before the child.

Except that wolves don't grow up into adult humans with the capacity for criminal responsibility. Once again you are comparing oranges with potatoes.


My point is that we have the mental faculties to survive without killing animals and other humans yet we continue to do so. We enslave animals and humans when it is not neccessary to do so.

Define "necessary", since merely by living we kill and displace other animals.


Our species is the cruelest that lives. I am ashamed of it.

I'm ashamed of you. Stop pushing human concepts onto creatures incapable of even comprehending them. It is a burden they literally cannot bear.


I admit that removing guns would only reduce the amount of deaths by a little, but for me any amount of people being saved is enough to sacrifice slightly cheaper food, and a little sport.

Humans need food and entertainment, and there are more effective ways of reducing human deaths which do not involve disarming hunters and shooters.


A true revolutionary loves his people more than he hates his oppressor.

Other animals are not people.


Every death is one too much. We don't need gun-control, we need a complete gun-ban.

Guns are made to kill or maime people or animals. No good could ever come from that.

Owning a gun sounds a bit like owning a huge car. What do you need to compensate?

Do you think we should ban all drugs and alcohol? After all, every death is one too much...

[Narcissus]

You're missing the point, which is that when it comes to naturally developed socioeconomic arrangements, playing the blame game is stupid and futile. One can point the finger at individuals who actively support oppressive systems, but if you're going to go beyond that then you might as well hang yourself as a collaborator.

You have turned this into something it was not. My point was that humans are capable of the most cruel things - more so than any other species; despite being unique in having the capability for moral decisions. My example was capitalism. Enslavement on a global scale.


I dunno, ants fight each other a lot, and practice slavery themselves. Nature isn't nice, whatever you might have learned from Disney.

I dislike Disney, as did my mother and father; I'm glad to say that none of the crap was pushed down my throat.

I am aware that nature is cutthroat. Humans are smart enough not to have to be.


Maybe not, but if I had good reason to believe that they truly regretted their actions, then I might find it in myself to forgive them.

An admirably moral decision. This is an example of the greatness humans are capable of, but unfortunately all to often fail to live up to, in favour of petty selfishness.


Define "necessary", since merely by living we kill and displace other animals.

Necessary means necessary. Essential to survival. It is not essential to your survival that you and your friends be the ones to kill things with guns.


Being able to apologise, make amends and show remorse in no ways implies perfect behaviour - the point is that we can recognise when we do fuck up, whereas animals only fear retribution.


Except that wolves don't grow up into adult humans with the capacity for criminal responsibility. Once again you are comparing oranges with potatoes.


I'm ashamed of you. Stop pushing human concepts onto creatures incapable of even comprehending them. It is a burden they literally cannot bear.

All of these statements demonstrate my argument here. Animals have no sense of morality and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. Humans however have the capacity to consider the moral implications of their actions - and therefore can be held responsible for them.


Humans need food and entertainment, and there are more effective ways of reducing human deaths which do not involve disarming hunters and shooters.

Humans can get food in other ways. I really don't care about your precious hunters, and that they may lose murder as a sport.


Other animals are not people.

And therefore not worth caring about? Have a little solidarity for your fellow sentient beings. They have emotions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You have turned this into something it was not. My point was that humans are capable of the most cruel things - more so than any other species; despite being unique in having the capability for moral decisions. My example was capitalism. Enslavement on a global scale.

And my point was that capitalism can't be compared to the crimes of individuals.


I dislike Disney, as did my mother and father; I'm glad to say that none of the crap was pushed down my throat.

I am aware that nature is cutthroat. Humans are smart enough not to have to be.

The ability to recognise one's mistakes is not equivalent to having perfect behaviour.


Necessary means necessary. Essential to survival. It is not essential to your survival that you and your friends be the ones to kill things with guns.

It is not absolutely necessary to your survival that you possess a motor vehicle, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or eat food containing anything beyond essential nutrients. All those things come at the expense of other animals' lives, so why not ban them as well?


All of these statements demonstrate my argument here. Animals have no sense of morality and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions. Humans however have the capacity to consider the moral implications of their actions - and therefore can be held responsible for them.

And if the relative of hunted animals wish to bring charges, I'll support them all the way. But they don't, so...


Humans can get food in other ways. I really don't care about your precious hunters, and that they may lose murder as a sport.

Even if those ways (agriculture) involve the deaths of more animals in the long run?


And therefore not worth caring about? Have a little solidarity for your fellow sentient beings. They have emotions.

Solidarity is a two-way street. Most animals, except certain pets, would leave me to die or even take advantage of me in a deathly situation.

[Narcissus]

And my point was that capitalism can't be compared to the crimes of individuals.

Yes, I did not dispute this.


The ability to recognise one's mistakes is not equivalent to having perfect behaviour.

I agree. I didn't demand perfect behaviour. The point is not that you do something bad and are repentant. The point is that you consider the morality of the thing you are about to do, and don't do it if it is bad - which humans are capable of.


It is not absolutely necessary to your survival that you possess a motor vehicle, or drink alcohol, or take drugs, or eat food containing anything beyond essential nutrients. All those things come at the expense of other animals' lives, so why not ban them as well?

Freedom of practicality. There will be ways in which these things - transport and nutrition will be achieved in the future without animals having to die.


And if the relative of hunted animals wish to bring charges, I'll support them all the way. But they don't, so...

Mocking those without a voice... do you even care about anything other than yourself?


Even if those ways (agriculture) involve the deaths of more animals in the long run?

As we discussed earlier, yes the combine harvester will kill bugs and bunnies, but these will be accidental deaths in the feeding of millions of people.

If you are eating bacon it doesn't matter wether you hunted the pig, or you got it from the supermarket - a pig died for your bacon. You could even argue that the pigs killed by supermarket were always going to die, but the wild one wasn't.


Solidarity is a two-way street. Most animals, except certain pets, would leave me to die or even take advantage of me in a deathly situation.

Yes solidarity is a two-way street - as in - if I were in the pig's position I would want the human to stick up for me. The pig is getting screwed over. I've been screwed over before/I wouldn't want to be screwed over. I object to things being screwed over. I'm going to try to stop the pig getting screwed over.

The reason the pig probably won't save you is that it is too stupid. Several dogs however have saved people from drowning.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Also believe it or not people do need guns for hunting as it is a rather cheap way to get alot of meat. Hell for the price of a .303 shell and getting someone to cut it up i now have a freezer full of moose meat that cost all total about $160. If i where to buy that much beef in a supermarket it would run me into the thousands.

No, you WANT a gun for hunting. Why? Two reasons:

1) A lot of people use a crossbow. I think it's probably fairer to the animals and you can reuse the arrow. So it's cheaper too!
2) I'm a total hypocrit. I like meat...a lot. But if comes to the point where i have to kill my meat, i'll become vegetarian. Just like that. Why can't we all?



Do you think we should ban all drugs and alcohol? After all, every death is one too much...

You do that to yourself. You don't become a victim of a shooting by choice.
True, i don't care if they were banned. I don't do both.

But then you might ban food in total. You just might suffocate.
And some foods can give you cancer.
It's a shit argument.