V. Tech Shooting and gun control debate [Archive]

Kia

19th April 2007, 05:45

I'm afraid the media and the general population is going to be looking around for a reason to this brutality and come up with some stupid shit like "class war=shooting college students".

I doubt it. Quite a lot of killers and other criminals have listed some hatred for certain parts of society (class being one) as their reason for doing great harm; however most of the time the media tends to focus on something more tangible that can be easily solved..quick solution and everything can go back to being normal. I have a good bet that video games, music, and the polices actions from the first 2 shootings to the last are all going to be blamed.

In fact lots of people are making this out to be some sort of class-hate based incident but this petty-bourgeoise scumbag comes from a really well-doing family himself (his parents are in the drycleaning business) and his hate against the rich frat boys and girls has as much to do with our struggle as Hitler to "socialism"

He may have nothing to do with socialism or any other leftist politics and come from a "petty-bourgeoisie" family but that doesn't mean he didn't hate the class he belonged to. The kid realized what was wrong with the middle and upper class..he just acted in the wrong fashion. Maybe he went on mass murder vs looking for a political outlet because he was "mentally ill" (its in quotes because so little is known exactly what they meant by that and its a debate in itself) or maybe something else drove that we shall never find out about.

but no america dosnt regulate or even have gun control so more innocent people die, aghh fucking idiots

America does have some gun control laws. However they are not enough. America never learned from columbine or the quaker shootings or any other incident. The "constitutions says I can have guns" argument has gotten in the way of abolishing guns from America. If America doesn't want a repeat of the same incident again and again it needs to act. I'm probably going to get really pissed hearing different parts of the public blame the whole incident on different things without anyone ever suggesting that maybe the whole incident could never have happened if it wasn't for guns.

The deaths are horrible and saddening, I don't dispute that. However, I get angry how these deaths and those of 9/11 are given so much remembrance, so many tears fall for these deaths... yet a thousand Iraqis hardly makes a dent on the most liberal Americans.

The killers of 9/11, the killers of school shootings, their images become hated and provoke rage. People come together and unite against these killers.
What about the killers of an Iraqi citizen? They're glorified. They're heroes! They get awarded! What kind of message is that sending to the youth all around the world?

Actually this was one of the first things that popped into my head when initially reading about this incident. Its not too hard to figure out why America treats this differently then Iraqi deaths or any other. Hundreds of little reasons can be found. Iraq is in a war still so lives are expected to be lost, Iraqis deserve to die, These kids were innocent, it happened in America not outside of it, it was a massacre, etc...... None of these reasons however are good. The most likely reason is the fact that we associate closer to people who live similar lives to us, who are from the same area etc... and we tend disassociate ourselves from people who do not have the same culture/life. Personally this incident is sad in itself and unique (its happened before but this is worse) but it did wake me up and made me realize that thousands of people across the globe are killed by senseless violence.

I suggest whackos like this guy in future march to the top floors of large corporation and banking building and kill 33 capitalists. Leave off the students.

I don't. Whats the point in EXECUTING a bunch of people when it wont solve the problem. Is shooting a bank teller or a stockbroker going to solve the problem? No. Actually it would probably make it worse. I suggest dropping the gun and getting some help.

Personally I suggest paying close attention to events in the coming future related to this. Watch and see what the politicians do, who/what is blamed, how people react. Maybe something progressive will be done (unlikely..this is America..) or maybe we'll see strict laws passed for colleges, a tightening of security etc.....even racism possibly from this.

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2007, 06:38

^^^ Red October, if history is any indication, his actions and today's era of "terrorism" are indicative of us being in a global "Narodism" period.

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 06:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:45 pm

but no america dosnt regulate or even have gun control so more innocent people die, aghh fucking idiots

America does have some gun control laws. However they are not enough. America never learned from columbine or the quaker shootings or any other incident. The "constitutions says I can have guns" argument has gotten in the way of abolishing guns from America. If America doesn't want a repeat of the same incident again and again it needs to act. I'm probably going to get really pissed hearing different parts of the public blame the whole incident on different things without anyone ever suggesting that maybe the whole incident could never have happened if it wasn't for guns.

I suggest whackos like this guy in future march to the top floors of large corporation and banking building and kill 33 capitalists. Leave off the students.

I don't. Whats the point in EXECUTING a bunch of people when it wont solve the problem. Is shooting a bank teller or a stockbroker going to solve the problem? No. Actually it would probably make it worse. I suggest dropping the gun and getting some help.
Gun laws are not the problem. We don't need anymore gun laws. We need less. In fact we need less laws all together. Less gun laws means less guns for the working class. This means that the only class that will have guns will be the bourgeois, the owners, the armies and the bosses. I would not trade school shootings for unarmed slavery.

The point is that the people at the top floors of the large corporations are the problem. These are the same greedy fucks that run the state. It is called the revolving door of politics and business. A good example of this is Dick Cheney. Once President of Halliburton now the Vice Pres. of America.

anti_fa01

19th April 2007, 07:02

Gun Control only restricts firearms from the working class people.....

disarm the working class and you'll only hurt our movement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2007, 07:13

Chicano, unfortunately you exhibit a similar Narodnik attitude that won't lead to the revolutionary change that you and I so dearly seek.

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 07:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm
Chicano, unfortunately you exhibit a similar Narodnik attitude that won't lead to the revolutionary change that you and I so dearly seek.
I don't understand what a Narodnik attitude is but why is my attitude unfortunate?

Die Neue Zeit

19th April 2007, 07:40

^^^ The preference of shootings, assassinations, etc. instead of revolution per se :(

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 08:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:40 pm
^^^ The preference of shootings, assassinations, etc. instead of revolution per se :(
In that case I don't understand how that is my attitude. I assume you are commenting on what I said about the people at the top of the corporations. We were talking about nuts who are off their rocker. In that case bloody capitalist sham suggested having the nuts go loose on the top floor instead of going loose on the students.

I was not suggesting that we do that instead of start a revolution. I was just showing the point of letting the whackos let loose in that environment.

Nothing Human Is Alien

19th April 2007, 08:14

I just merged the two threads on this topic.

coda

19th April 2007, 08:48

<<or maybe something else drove that we shall never find out about. >>

Product of the system.. an extreme case of alienation, probably compounded by both cultural and racial exclusion. Probably years of it. It's astonishing that he was able to fall through the cracks. Actually, I'm surprised daily episodes of this aren't occurring, especially in work places.
Yes, as long as there are guns this kind of thing will happen.

Dominick

19th April 2007, 08:53

It is not an issue of gun control, rather, events like this seem to be the result of a society that alienates people on a daily basis and one which values violence.

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 09:01

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:48 pm
<<or maybe something else drove that we shall never find out about. >>

Product of the system.. an extreme case of alienation, probably compounded by both cultural and racial exclusion. Probably years of it. It's astonishing that he was able to fall through the cracks. Actually, I'm surprised daily episodes of this aren't occurring, especially in work places.
Yes, as long as there are guns this kind of thing will happen.
Maybe there was something else that drove him. Or maybe he was just a nut. We probably will never know because his confession video was just a bunch of mumbling about nothing. He was very vague. I am sure that many hicks out there in Virginia gave him problems. That is not a reason to kill students indiscriminately.

In the US this episodes are occurring daily. In the city I live in an old guy walked into his work and killed a several of his co-workers and then killed himself. The sad thing is that a few of them were his good friends. One of them was actually the person that got him the job. Sometimes it is because of exclusion and what not but also it is just about nuts sometimes.

The problem is not the guns. You libs have been watching too much Michael Moore :rolleyes: The problem like you said is a symptom of the system. If there were no guns people would use knives. If there were no knives people would make bombs. No bombs people would use poison. No poison people would just choke someone with their bare hands. The problem is not what he used to do what he did. The problem is what drove him to what he did.

coda

19th April 2007, 09:25

Well, right. My point is if there are guns and a fucked up system than episodes like this one will occur. It's not that shocking. The system is the cause... that is the effect. No, It's not a reason to kill indisriminately, but it still happens.

Guns are the method of choice because they are easy to obtain, don't need brains to use, are relatively inexpensive, can take out one or two or mulitiple persons in little time and ensure lots of death, if that's what you want.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 09:28

Gun control needs to be regulated better not banned but regulated better. people can get guns far too easily and this shows what happens when you do

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.

Guns are the method of choice because they are easy to obtain, don't need brains to use, are relatively inexpensive, can take out one or two or mulitiple persons in little time and ensure lots of death, if that's what you want.

You can kill many people at once with a car, especially on a campus when everybody is going between classes.

but no america dosnt regulate or even have gun control so more innocent people die, aghh fucking idiots

HAHAHAHAHAHA, ROFL. Are you joking? America has a lot of gun control, way way to much, any is to much. But you are right, we can should trust the state with the guns, :wacko:

coda

19th April 2007, 09:28

Ooops.. I forgot to say.. "nuts' people shouldn't be able to have access to guns.

coda

19th April 2007, 09:35

<<This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.>>

Remember, the NRA is filled with right wing fascists!!!! :)

Anyhow, There is actually very little gun control atleast in the US. if you don't have a criminal or psychological record, you pretty much can carry a gun.

do you think everybody should be mandatorily armed and should carry weapons at all times?

Plan9

19th April 2007, 09:49

Calling for tighter gun control is a pathetic liberal response.

RaÃºl Duke

19th April 2007, 10:19

I find the idea that we are living in a "Narodnik" times very interesting.

Someone should do like a small timeline of similar actions and than explain how the actions, their point in time, etc are factors to support the theory.

In fact he shows extreme contempt towards "odd-jobs" in his story Richard Mc beef. (sorry for the spoilers) but i had to give my opinion.

What if his story was a vehicle to show society's contempt towards "odd-jobs"?

He may have nothing to do with socialism or any other leftist politics and come from a "petty-bourgeoisie" family but that doesn't mean he didn't hate the class he belonged to. The kid realized what was wrong with the middle and upper class..he just acted in the wrong fashion.

In the US this episodes are occurring daily. In the city I live in an old guy walked into his work and killed a several of his co-workers and then killed himself. The sad thing is that a few of them were his good friends. One of them was actually the person that got him the job. Sometimes it is because of exclusion and what not but also it is just about nuts sometimes.

I suppose this would support the "Narodnik era" theory; some people are feeling so alienated these days that they basically, you could say "crack", and prefer going the easy yet hard way out: by shootings, assasinations, etc. Psychologists however might say the guy is just a pyschopath and its likely he is, also one of the killers of columbine was considered a psychopath. (the diff between sociopath and pyschopath is that sociopaths are socialized into one while psychopaths are born that way. However...do psychopaths really exist? The term is used for people who are like sociopaths yet have not been through anything in life hat would make them that way.)

The killers of 9/11, the killers of school shootings, their images become hated and provoke rage. People come together and unite against these killers.
What about the killers of an Iraqi citizen? They're glorified. They're heroes! They get awarded! What kind of message is that sending to the youth all around the world?

I know..this hypocrisy infuriates me deeply.

It also makes me apathetic at times though.

Kia

19th April 2007, 10:51

Gun laws are not the problem. We don't need anymore gun laws. We need less. In fact we need less laws all together. Less gun laws means less guns for the working class. This means that the only class that will have guns will be the bourgeois, the owners, the armies and the bosses. I would not trade school shootings for unarmed slavery.

I agree less laws the better..but this isn't an anarchist society we're dealing with. My point is based on the current system of gov that is in power..I'm thinking of a short term solution to the problem (call it reactionary to a situation which i think needs to be fixed now rather then later)..not the long term solution that you (and I) want. Okay, so the argument is that without guns the working class will be unable to overthrow the government? I disagree. If the working class needs guns to fight the upper class and the military then they will get their hands on it. The black market for guns is extremely versatile and able to get guns anywhere in the world. I'm sure we would be able to smuggle large quantities of weapons into the country. The working class can also seize guns from armories, stockades, police headquarters, and a number of other places that would probably have guns before an all out war occurs. If gun laws were passed in America similar to those passed in other countries then the owners, bosses and the bourgeoisie would not have guns. The only people with guns would be the military and a small number of police units. Why would America pass gun laws saying working class people cant have guns yet the rich can? Its not something that would happen in the current system...not even senators would support that bill.

Also with the case of America..the thing that will cripple America and make it susceptible to revolution will be the downfall of the economy. The economy runs America, politics is based off of the economy..the whole system would completely crumble if the economy collapses again. The way western countries control its people is no longer through military force and the threat of violence..its through the economy and a system of laws.

If this was an anarchist or communist society and cultural trends had changed in America and somehow the shootings happened, I would no suggest gun laws. Things need to dramatically change in American society before it could handle no gun laws. To give an idea of how devastating guns are in America.....the CDC puts the number of homicide related deaths by guns for 2004 at 11,624. Source (http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=lscb5500&_port=5082&_sessionid=/NRDy4T1fm3&_program=wisqars.details10.sas&_service=&type=H&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=.&age2=.&agegp=AllAges&deaths=17357&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1age&ethnicty=0&ranking=20&deathtle=Death)
This probably doesn't include suicide by guns or people killed by the cops. a list of the last couple of years of gun related homicides.
2003 - 11,920
2002 - 11,829
2001 - 11,348
2000 - 10,801
1999 - 10,828
CDC Leading Cause of Death Search (http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)

The point is that the people at the top floors of the large corporations are the problem. These are the same greedy fucks that run the state. It is called the revolving door of politics and business. A good example of this is Dick Cheney. Once President of Halliburton now the Vice Pres. of America.

I realize i missed reading the word "top" in his statement. I however actually agree with you when it comes to people who are high ranking in the system. People like Dick Cheney and many other do deserve to be shot. I'm against executions though, I prefer public hearings and prison or something more constructive then just blowing the brains out of a few people who are our enemies.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 11:08

Anyhow, There is actually very little gun control atleast in the US. if you don't have a criminal or psychological record, you pretty much can carry a gun.

Really? Here in the state of Kansas we just now got the "permission" for concealed carry. And we still are not allowed to own class3 weapons and destructive devices at all. There are other states in the same boat. And you also have to be at least 18 to purchase a long arm and 21 to purchase a handgun. Also there is a new bill that would outlaw pretty much and kind of firearm, be it an evil assault rifle or a hunting rifle.

do you think everybody should be mandatorily armed and should carry weapons at all times?

Mandatory, no. But I do think that everybody should be armed and should carry weapons at all times.

Here is an interesting piece that I posted when I first joined;

Here is are some statistics from the US Department of Transportation

According to a preliminary report from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 43,200 died on the nation’s highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent. Fifty-five percent of passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2005 were unbelted

43,200 died! 2.68 million injured!!! just last year. How many people were killed and injured last year by firearms?

What about all of those Jews who used guns to hold off the Nazis durring WW2. Are they "fucking idiots" for using a gun to protect themselves?

And another interesting post;

A gun was the only thing protecting some people in New Orleans.
If you had a gun would you want to go out and kill people? Why are you afraid of other people owning one? Is it because you actually don't trust yourself with one?
How is someone supposed to support themselves out in the wild if they can't hunt?
And what about Switzerland!? All males are required to own a type of rifle called a Sig. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland It talkes about some of the laws but look at the picture on the right. The guy is walking around in a store with a rifle slung across his back and yet no one is freaking out and there isn't a bloodbath in the aisles. Why is that if firearms are so bad?
Also try comparing D.C., guns are super evil, to Virginia, guns are good. D.C., high crime rate, Virginia, low crime rate.

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

DC - 81
Prince George's County MD - 53
Alexandria City VA - 47
Arlington City VA - 33
Montgomery County MD - 31
Prince William Country VA - 29
Loudoun County VA - 24
Fairfax County VA - 24

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

You can read the whole thread here, http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=56505&st=0

anti_fa01

19th April 2007, 13:23

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.

exactly ...........Notice these kinda things only happen in "GUN FREE ZONES"

you dont see these nuts running into a gun store or a police station and go on a shooting spree!!!

RaiseYourVoice

19th April 2007, 13:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:23 pm

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.

exactly ...........Notice these kinda things only happen in "GUN FREE ZONES"

you dont see these nuts running into a gun store or a police station and go on a shooting spree!!!
I dont know about the U.S. but here in europe i actually see lots of fights with the police... its bullshit to say that people who own guns are somehow protected of harm. IT THE PERSON WHO SHOOTS FIRST WHO WINS. (in most cases at least) its not like... "oh he shot at me, now i'm going to get that bastard", if you are dead buddy, no gun will help you any more.

for switzerland...

Approximately 300 deaths per year involve the use of Swiss army guns, mostly suicides and family murders

You can kill many people at once with a car, especially on a campus when everybody is going between classes.
And cars are NEEDED as a means of transportation. i never in my life needed a gun though.
also the chance of killing people running them over with a car is slightly less than shooting them in the head. a car is loud, a big target, easy to keep track of, you cant hide it on your body etc.
the constant comparison of guns and cars is stupid

What about all of those Jews who used guns to hold off the Nazis durring WW2. Are they "fucking idiots" for using a gun to protect themselves?
When was the last time you were in danger of being put into a concentration camp?
If a fashist group, with the open aim to kill me would come to power, i'd still have lots of time to arm myself.

for the propaganda posters...

Sure Guns and freedom are like one and the same. thats why countries with lots of guns like the U.S. are so free. yea i see how your guns help that no oppressive regime comes to power, how the protect your civil liberties.... next thing you tell me is that guns make a country communist :D

ah and sorry for being off topic to the shootings, i cant say anything about the situation cuz my american days are too far behind.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 15:54

I dont know about the U.S. but here in europe i actually see lots of fights with the police... its bullshit to say that people who own guns are somehow protected of harm. IT THE PERSON WHO SHOOTS FIRST WHO WINS. (in most cases at least) its not like... "oh he shot at me, now i'm going to get that bastard", if you are dead buddy, no gun will help you any more.

You know that being shot doesn't mean that you are instantly dead. Are you saying that you would rather be at the mercy of the person trying to do you harm?

for switzerland...

QUOTE
Approximately 300 deaths per year involve the use of Swiss army guns, mostly suicides and family murders

How is this helping you?

And cars are NEEDED as a means of transportation.

No, they are not needed. You have these things called feet, or you could ride bike.

i never in my life needed a gun though.

Have fun when you do need one and do not have one.

also the chance of killing people running them over with a car is slightly less than shooting them in the head.

No really. No one will think anything if you drive around in a big truck, but in todays society if I was to walk out with my rifle it wouldn't be long until the police show up to deny me my inalienable Second Amendment rights.

When was the last time you were in danger of being put into a concentration camp?

lol, tell that to the Jews within Nazi Germany. Are you saying that they should of just done what the Nazis told them to do, that they should of just given up and not resist?

If a fashist group, with the open aim to kill me would come to power, i'd still have lots of time to arm myself.

No, you wouldn't. By then it would be almost impossible to get the necessary supplies. Simply having a gun isn't enough also. You need to know how to use it effectively and also you need to know tactics. Also you would need a stockpile of ammunition and survival gear, with the knowledge to use them. You are in for a world of hurt.

thats why countries with lots of guns like the U.S. are so free.

The guns are used to insure your freedom. And it will not be long when they will be used for that very purpose.

Funny how you didn't even mention about the differences in gun crime between the cities, or how many people die and are injured each year from cars, which is FAR more than that of guns.

edit - almost forgot. Last weekend I went to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot for the second time. In case you do not know what it that is, you can rent to shoot fully automatic firearms, even a flame thrower. Guess how many people died there.... NONE. Lots and lots and lots of ammunition being shot and not one death, :o
PICTURES!!, http://www.pamedia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=657&start=15

The Grey Blur

19th April 2007, 16:20

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.
What a fucking horrible argument.

This was a tragedy. I believe it is due to both the Capitalist system, which alienates people from their labour, studies and even other human beings, as well as the ease of access to weapons in the States. This availability means that anyone who gets angry (their girlfriend broke up with them, someone said something nasty to them, etc) instead of being angry for a while then calming down (like they would here), they have the immediate option to go stock up on guns and go blow someone up.

We shouldn't fetishize guns, they may be neccessary in our revolution but they are a terrible invention.

RaiseYourVoice

19th April 2007, 16:20

You know that being shot doesn't mean that you are instantly dead. Are you saying that you would rather be at the mercy of the person trying to do you harm?
did you ever try to pull your guns, unlock it and shoot someone with it AFTER being hit by a bullet? please do that and put the video on youtube

No, they are not needed. You have these things called feet, or you could ride bike.
have fun waking up / going to bed 2-3 hours later /earlier
and not having a life. if you are not a school kid that is, than i guess you have the time to waste.

Have fun when you do need one and do not have one.
no actually i have fun when other people want to harm me and dont have one. i rather get punshed in the face than being stabbed / shot.

No really. No one will think anything if you drive around in a big truck, but in todays society if I was to walk out with my rifle it wouldn't be long until the police show up to deny me my inalienable Second Amendment rights.
are you really that stupid? if you run over people with a car than the description will be givin out, ppl will stay INSIDE buildings and you in your truck will be taken down pretty fast. also driving on sidewalks trying to hit ppl might just cause suspicion.

Oh you cant walk around in a park with a rilfe? well if you have the intetion of killing people you are actually a fucking dumbass. 1. if i want to kill ppl i dont just walk around 2. i avoid cops 3. i take a gun that i hide under my jacket.

you are comparing a smart person using a car with the intention to kill to someone walking in the park with a fucking rilfe. do you realize that?

lol, tell that to the Jews within Nazi Germany. Are you saying that they should of just done what the Nazis told them to do, that they should of just given up and not resist?
actually there is no nazi germany so i cant talk to anyone there. the point that you clearly failed to spot was, that you are in no way in the situation like jews were in nazi germany. resulting from that you cannot take people in a whole different situation to justify YOUR need for guns.

No, you wouldn't. By then it would be almost impossible to get the necessary supplies. Simply having a gun isn't enough also.
back up that claim please. how is it impossible to steal weapons / get them from other countries when any fashist fraction get militarily strong enough to take over power.

Simply having a gun isn't enough also. You need to know how to use it effectively and also you need to know tactics.
well first of all, if anyone want to LEARN shooting, i dont object to that. keep your gun at the shooting range. for knowing tactics i can aswell play paintball. that all does not in any way justify me walking the street with an ak-47.

Also you would need a stockpile of ammunition and survival gear, with the knowledge to use them. You are in for a world of hurt.
or i leave the country. seriously if i wanted to fight a war alone against a fashist regime for a long time.... i would be fucking stupid. what your plan comes down to is that i would have to spend all my time for
1. hand to hand combat
2. knife combat
3. rifle combat
4. urban fighting
5. fighting in the woods
6. survival training

and in the end i would be the first one they shoot.

I'd rather spend my time helping the movement to grow and be an active antifashist so this never happens again.

The guns are used to insure your freedom. And it will not be long when they will be used for that very purpose.
my freedom? thats so nice but my country has strong weapon restrictions so i wont ever be free.

Funny how you didn't even mention about the differences in gun crime between the cities, or how many people die and are injured each year from cars, which is FAR more than that of guns.
no its funny how you bring (like 75% of all gun-junkies) the stupid argument guns vs cars again.

Last weekend I went to the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot for the second time. In case you do not know what it that is, you can rent to shoot fully automatic firearms, even a flame thrower. Guess how many people died there.... NONE. Lots and lots and lots of ammunition being shot and not one death,
wow you know what? a few years ago i visited a U.S. marines camp... duh there were so many marines and no one died. GO US MARINES

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 17:28

did you ever try to pull your guns, unlock it and shoot someone with it AFTER being hit by a bullet? please do that and put the video on youtube
HAHAHAHA Unlock it? Have you ever even seen a gun? They do not have locks. And also, how does being shot all of a sudden make you not able to function?

have fun waking up / going to bed 2-3 hours later /earlier
and not having a life.

Why do I need to wake up / go to bed 2-3 hours later / earlier?

no actually i have fun when other people want to harm me and dont have one. i rather get punshed in the face than being stabbed / shot.

You didn't really respond to my post. Have you ever heard of the saying, "It is better to have and not need than to need and not have"? Also since you have brought up the topic of being stabbed. Are you saying that you also think that knives and such should be banned too?

are you really that stupid?

Are you?

if you run over people with a car than the description will be givin out, ppl will stay INSIDE buildings and you in your truck will be taken down pretty fast. also driving on sidewalks trying to hit ppl might just cause suspicion.

If your intention is to kill someone then what what does it matter if you only kill one person or a whole lot, what does it matter if everybody goes inside after you have already killed some people?Walking on sidewalks trying to shoot people might also cause suspicion. Did I say to use the truck to kill people on sidewalks? All you would have to do wait until in between classes at a college when everybody is outside and then you could kill a bunch of people at once, or you could also take it to any place that has a large gathering of people, like say an amusement park.

Oh you cant walk around in a park with a rilfe? well if you have the intetion of killing people you are actually a fucking dumbass.

Who said that I have an intention to to kill people just because I wish to be able to carry a rifle?

1. if i want to kill ppl i dont just walk around

Actually it would seem that that is all they do, just walk around until they find someone and then shoot them.

2. i avoid cops

Can't avoid them if someone called them, which is what I meant. And I also didn't mean that it would be used to hurt someone.

the point that you clearly failed to spot was, that you are in no way in the situation like jews were in nazi germany. resulting from that you cannot take people in a whole different situation to justify YOUR need for guns.

They needed the guns BEFORE the situation arose. They couldn't predict that that was going to happen, that is the point. We do not know when something like that will happen.

back up that claim please.

You do know that Hitler had maid ownership of firearms illegal before he did everything right? And do you know why? Because it makes it harder to resist without the means to resist.

how is it impossible to steal weapons / get them from other countries when any fashist fraction get militarily strong enough to take over power.

I never said that it would be completely impossible. But it will be almost impossible because they usually guard there weapons. And exactly what country am I supposed to get them after they are made illegal here? Canada? Also, why would you wait. that is stupid.

keep your gun at the shooting range.

Why? What is the point? Also what if my shooting range is my back yard? Also what if I actually use my firearm for hunting, or for self protection? A ot of good it does me to have it at a shooting range.

for knowing tactics i can aswell play paintball.

Yeah, paintball will help you. :rolleyes: First of all, no. If you wish for better training then airsoft is far superior. I talk about it here, http://www.pamedia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=969 And you have missed the point that I was getting at. The point is that you need to know these things BEFORE you actually need to use them. Not after.

seriously if i wanted to fight a war alone against a fashist regime for a long time.... i would be fucking stupid.

Yeah, fighting for what you believe in even if you are the last one is pretty stupid. :rolleyes:

what your plan comes down to is that i would have to spend all my time for

Why?

I'd rather spend my time helping the movement to grow and be an active antifashist so this never happens again.

Then you should support gun rights.

my freedom? thats so nice but my country has strong weapon restrictions so i wont ever be free.

I pity you.

no its funny how you bring (like 75% of all gun-junkies) the stupid argument guns vs cars again.

Then you have failed to see the point. You say that guns should be banned because people die from them. Well people also are killed and injured from vehicles too, in far greater numbers. So by your logic vehicles should also be banned.

wow you know what? a few years ago i visited a U.S. marines camp... duh there were so many marines and no one died. GO US MARINES

A little different from my example but even your example hurts you. All of those firearms and no one died. The point of my example is that there is a whole line of fully-automatic firearms lined up, even at least one mini gun, which ANYONE can rent to shoot and no one died.

And you still have not touched on the difference in crimes between those to cities. Why?

Qwerty Dvorak

19th April 2007, 17:54

HAHAHAHA Unlock it? Have you ever even seen a gun? They do not have locks. And also, how does being shot all of a sudden make you not able to function?
Usually because you're dead, and if you're not dead then you're very badly injured and in intense agony.

Then you have failed to see the point. You say that guns should be banned because people die from them. Well people also are killed and injured from vehicles too, in far greater numbers. So by your logic vehicles should also be banned.
Bullshit. Guns exist solely to cause harm.

RaiseYourVoice

19th April 2007, 18:04

HAHAHAHA Unlock it? Have you ever even seen a gun? They do not have locks. And also, how does being shot all of a sudden make you not able to function?
unsecure it, whatever the fuck its called.
uhm, how about outstanding pain? adrenaline rush? in any stress situation you dont function at 100% even more if you already got shot. i doubt you have though.

Have you ever heard of the saying, "It is better to have and not need than to need and not have"?
do you always wear a helmet? that would be alot of security. it would sure not be as cool as a gun though.

Are you saying that you also think that knives and such should be banned too?
in my country long military and some other kinds of knives are banned. i think for some kinds its a good thing.

If your intention is to kill someone then what what does it matter if you only kill one person or a whole lot, what does it matter if everybody goes inside after you have already killed some people?Walking on sidewalks trying to shoot people might also cause suspicion. Did I say to use the truck to kill people on sidewalks? All you would have to do wait until in between classes at a college when everybody is outside and then you could kill a bunch of people at once, or you could also take it to any place that has a large gathering of people, like say an amusement park.
The number of people matters from the point you start to compare a car and a gun as means to kill people. hell i could kill people with my bare hands, that doesnt make them as dangerous as weapons.

Who said that I have an intention to to kill people just because I wish to be able to carry a rifle?

because we were talking about the effectiveness of cars compared to guns in terms of killing people.

They needed the guns BEFORE the situation arose. They couldn't predict that that was going to happen, that is the point. We do not know when something like that will happen.
Actually before jews were openly killed the hatred towards them was pretty damn clear. jews going in the woods and arming themselves would have been just one more argument to kill them. "see those jews are planning their conspiracy"

You do know that Hitler had maid ownership of firearms illegal before he did everything right? And do you know why? Because it makes it harder to resist without the means to resist.
1. guns are your only means to resist? damn you are uncreative...
2. making ownership illegal doesnt get rid of guns out there. you just have to get them illegally.

Why? What is the point? Also what if my shooting range is my back yard? Also what if I actually use my firearm for hunting, or for self protection? A ot of good it does me to have it at a shooting range.
You should actually also remember you own posts, you were talking about TRAINING and for that shooting ranges are good.
hunting is so last year... you dont need to hunt to survive these days.
self protection? rifles? sure someones attacks me and i pull out my hunting rilfe... lol did you ever protect yourself with a gun? do you know anything about self protection?

And you have missed the point that I was getting at. The point is that you need to know these things BEFORE you actually need to use them. Not after.
yea i could be running around in the woods all my spare time... i wouldnt have time for many other things though.

Why?
because some people work?

Then you should support gun rights.
no. guns are in todays fight with fashists about the most stupid weapon to use. anyone who claims the opposite either knows nothing about antifashism or is plain stupid.

I pity you.
and i pity you for more racism, police brutality, more imperialistic wars, less welfare, less union power.

actually i think i am fine without guns. when your guns prevented another war or oppression in your country please pm me.

And you still have not touched on the difference in crimes between those to cities. Why?
because i am not an american and not familiar with american cities. i dont trust any statistics i didnt falsify myself and i wont debate on a ground that you can throw any bullshit at me and i cant prove it wrong. i leave that to americans.

The Something

19th April 2007, 18:23

You know what I found odd was hearing an FBI psycologist talk about how he could have been paranoid delusional. Making all these injustices up in his head and taking every little thing and making it personal.

No grant it it was like 3 in the morning and may have been on fox news*yuck I know* so I might not remeber all of it very well. It just seems funny to me that these news people and law enforcement agencies never think that "hey maybe he really did get picked on all the time" forcing some sort of mental trauma. I know when I was in middle school having being picked on all day every day was horrible and having a bad home life starts to slowly drive you insane. Been there done that and moved on. Perhaps he was weaker and succumbed to this rage that has built up for so long while others avoid it.

I'm not trying to make excuses for him it just seems like such a copout to say "oh hes fucked up in the head" that's why he did it. That these people on the news and such don't understand that all this stuff affects people differently, in fact they were most likely the rich kids making fun of people.

I mean if anyone saw this kids roomates on the interview on CNN anyone could plainly see how much of assholes they were. What did everyone do when they saw he was weird? Shun him. Teachers harrassing him about his hat and his mest up poetry. Fuck man his poetry was in itself a cry for help and attention, but did any of the teachers try to approach him in a positive concered way?

No. The one teacher wanted to quit because of him. How shitty do you think that makes someone feel to find out everyone thinks youre weird and a teacher dislikes you so much they wanna quit. Yeah, I think that'll make your allready depressed disposition worse.

Grant it his mental condition most likely played a role in this, but I think this is a bigger social and culteral issue of competition and superiority and not an issue of gun control. Gun control is a mere distraction from the real issue. Gun control is another copout. If someone wants to kill people with a gun wether or not there is gun control is irrelevent. They will get a gun and do it, legally or otherwise.

Don't punish the masses because of the actions of a few.

Sorry if this rambling seems incoherent, just sorta came out this way.

luxemburg89

19th April 2007, 18:45

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.

um a student was armed and look what happened - he murdered 33 people. I have no opinion on gun control as I have only lived in a country where civilians are not allowed guns, but all i can say is this is a poor arguement for it. However i recognise that people may want the right to protect themselves - i am unsure on the matter hopefully this thread will have some good arguements both ways.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 18:55

Usually because you're dead, and if you're not dead then you're very badly injured and in intense agony.

You watch to many movies. Bullets are not magical pieces of metal, they do not instantly kill you. Also if you are hit you can still function.

Bullshit. Guns exist solely to cause harm.

No they are not. Are you saying that a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 is only used to cause harm? You are very naive about firearms.

unsecure it, whatever the fuck its called.

What? Do you actually mean push the safety? If so then it isn't very hard to push a button to take it off of safe.

adrenaline rush?

Actually it is because of adrenaline that keeps you from feeling the pain, it allows you to keep on fighting. That is why it sometimes takes a lot more than 5 shots to bring someone down, all the while they are still functioning just fine as if they haven't been shot.

do you always wear a helmet? that would be alot of security. it would sure not be as cool as a gun though.

You mean a helmet for riding a motorcycle? I don't ride one. Even then, they serve to different functions. Are you saying that you can not where a helmet and carry a firearm?

in my country long military and some other kinds of knives are banned. i think for some kinds its a good thing.

Long military, what is that? Why is banning knives a good thing? What is to keep someone from making there own knife? How are people supposed to cut there food without knives? Are you saying that you would rather be at the mercy of someone with a knife than be able to defend yourself. I only have this to say to you, "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The number of people matters from the point you start to compare a car and a gun as means to kill people. hell i could kill people with my bare hands, that doesnt make them as dangerous as weapons.

In that case your hands would be a weapon. You could kill a bunch of people with a knife, especially in a crowded place, and nobody would know who was doing it. But of course you don't think that people should be allowed to own knives.

Actually before jews were openly killed the hatred towards them was pretty damn clear.

So, they didn't know that when they was boarding that train they was sealing there fate.

because we were talking about the effectiveness of cars compared to guns in terms of killing people.

No, that is not what that statement was doing. I was saying that if I went outside with a firearm,because it is my inalienable Second Amendment right, then it wouldn't be long until the cops showed up to take it away from you. I said that because you could easily use a vehicle to kill people because it is normal to drive around in a vehicle.

jews going in the woods and arming themselves would have been just one more argument to kill them. "see those jews are planning their conspiracy"

So what? They where already hated so what does it matter if there is one more argument? Are you saying that they should of have just been compliant and just let themselves be killed?!

1. guns are your only means to resist? damn you are uncreative...

They are the most effective, keep in mind that this is during the revolution.

2. making ownership illegal doesnt get rid of guns out there. you just have to get them illegally.

Your point?

hunting is so last year... you dont need to hunt to survive these days.

Unless you wish to live outside the capitalist system. What if that is how I wish to survive?

self protection? rifles? sure someones attacks me and i pull out my hunting rilfe...

Yeah, or whatever firearm you currently have. Of course the firearm also acts as a deterrent. Why would someone attack me if they know, or think it possible, that I can defend myself very efficiently.

lol did you ever protect yourself with a gun?

I haven't had to yet. But if I need to I keep a rifle in the trunk of my car, and hopefully soon I will be actually carrying a handgun on me.

yea i could be running around in the woods all my spare time... i wouldnt have time for many other things though.

Why do you think that you wouldn't have any time for other things?

because some people work?

Why so long? That is what I was asking.

and i pity you for more racism, police brutality, more imperialistic wars, less welfare, less union power.

That is this country I happen to live in, however you do not have the means to complete the revolution, I do.

when your guns prevented another war or oppression in your country please pm me.

Oppression, would stopping someone from harming someone be counted as stopping oppression? You know, using it in self defense.

because i am not an american and not familiar with american cities. i dont trust any statistics i didnt falsify myself and i wont debate on a ground that you can throw any bullshit at me and i cant prove it wrong. i leave that to americans.

Of course you can't prove it wrong, because it is you who is wrong. You do not have to be an American or familiar with American cities to understand what it is saying. Here is what was said again;

Also try comparing D.C., guns are super evil, to Virginia, guns are good. D.C., high crime rate, Virginia, low crime rate.

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

DC - 81
Prince George's County MD - 53
Alexandria City VA - 47
Arlington City VA - 33
Montgomery County MD - 31
Prince William Country VA - 29
Loudoun County VA - 24
Fairfax County VA - 24

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

Everything is explained in it.

edit -

um a student was armed and look what happened - he murdered 33 people.

Yeah, he was armed where the law says that it is illegal to carry a firearm. A lot of good that law did.

luxemburg89

19th April 2007, 19:02

im not being pedantic or sarcastic this is a straight question. would it be better to let him have easier access to guns then - would that have stopped the event? i mean i don't think it would maybe one or two would have died, instead of 33 people, but that is still innocent people dying - someone would have been killed either way. And that is a tragedy.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 19:11

would it be better to let him have easier access to guns then - would that have stopped the event?

If everyone had better access to guns then it would of have prevented most, if not all, of the killings. If he knew that the people would fight back then I don't think that he would of have done it. Even if he did still try to go on the killing spree, it wouldn't of have been long before someone else with a gun stopped him.

Jesus Christ!

19th April 2007, 19:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:49 am
Calling for tighter gun control is a pathetic liberal response.
Feel free to call me a pathetic liberal but I stand by the fact that people who were involuntarily admitted to a mental institution should not be able to buy guns. Also don't you think the dealer should've called the school and mentioned " hey your gun free zone is no longer gun free because I just sold a gun to one of your students." ? he told the dealer he was a student at v tech and his name and everything, the only thing he lied about was he said he had never been involuntarily admitted to a mental institution, which he had. background check maybe? o wait no that is pathetic and liberal, i'm sorry.

I think one of the most powerful stories that came out of this incident was the holocaust survivor teacher who blocked the door while his students jumped out the window. Cho eventually got in and shot him in the head.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 19:32

Forgot to add this to one of my above posts,

you were talking about TRAINING and for that shooting ranges are good.

Not just firearm training, survival training also. But what if my shooting range is my own back yard?

Also don't you think the dealer should've called the school and mentioned " hey your gun free zone is no longer gun free because I just sold a gun to one of your students." ?

No. How many of those students have guns but keep them off of the school property? Just because he sold a gun to one of the students doesn't mean that it is no longer gun free.

I think one of the most powerful stories that came out of this incident was the holocaust survivor teacher who blocked the door while his students jumped out the window.

Yup. I still do not understand why no one set a trap to stop him, such as once he opens the door someone smashes in his face with a chair.

anti_fa01

19th April 2007, 19:44

Hey Freakazoid.. you shouldnt even waste your breath........Most of these peoples knowledge of firearms comes from what they see and hear in the media......

coda

19th April 2007, 20:01

it's good to have everybody capable of defending themselves against somebody trying to take their life. But defending personal property, which most people have guns for, is completely anti-communist. And not everyone can handle firearms. They don't have the temperment or ability. cops especially should immediately be disarmed. For self-defense i am pro Taser, stun and pepper shot guns. They demobilize without killing or seriously injuring. Anybody who doesn't want a gun specifically for the joy of killing would be pro-Taser.

http://www.tbotech.com/advancedtaser.htm

OneBrickOneVoice

19th April 2007, 21:41

what i find most sick about the Virginia School Shooting is that on the same day 183 Iraqis died yet you wouldn't know it from CNN and NBC. Seems they weigh American lives heavier than foreign ones.

Kia

19th April 2007, 21:49

Calling for tighter gun control is a pathetic liberal response.

Instead of using leftist slurs..why don't you try argue your point or maybe even make a point.

anti_fa01

exactly ...........Notice these kinda things only happen in "GUN FREE ZONES"

you dont see these nuts running into a gun store or a police station and go on a shooting spree!!!
Do you watch the news? Do you even live in America? They may not be walking into police stations or gun stores opening fire but they do walk into liquor stores (many of them who OWN GUNS) and killing people. Do gang fights mean anything to you?

"Gun Free Zones" are useless. There is no way to stop someone armed from walking into a no gun area and shooting people...gun free zones only works on a large national basis not school to school or building to building..its the same thing as a "drug free zone".

The Something

Grant it his mental condition most likely played a role in this, but I think this is a bigger social and culteral issue of competition and superiority and not an issue of gun control. Gun control is a mere distraction from the real issue. Gun control is another copout. If someone wants to kill people with a gun wether or not there is gun control is irrelevent. They will get a gun and do it, legally or otherwise.

Again I agree. Guns control isnt the absolute solution to the problem..their is a greater cultural and social issue at hand..but I expected someone else to bring this up and make a point so i felt no need to have to state it myself. Cultural and Social changes though take much longer then passing laws that would minimize the problem.

What baffles me about so many people on this forum is that they seem to think America is some military regime running around murdering thousands of its own citizens..it doesn't. The American Gov controls its people though economy..the working class main enemy isn't the military or the police..its the economy. The economy is what stops us from having a workers state/ or stateless society. America is not Nigeria..its not N.Korea, its not Sudan, its not many other countries in which the military is used to keep CONTROL over its people, America functions differently then that..the same way to bring about a revolution in Zimbabwe is not the same for the USA. If the USA had a similar gov to Nigeria then I wouldn't suggest gun control..it only works for certain places.
The idea that if both people are armed then neither will shoot each other is ridiculous. That system functions on nothing more then FEAR..It relies on you to fear all people around you as being potential enemies and that you must be armed to protect yourself from your fellow man turning on you and blowing your brains out. This is nothing more then a smaller version of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assure d destruction only lasts up to a point..then some person with a little less sense comes along tipping the scales...and BAM...you've created mass conflict. Again, the idea that if everyone is armed and ready to fight off the "enemy" at any given point is creating a mentality of fear and paranoia....it just doesn't work in the end.

Has anyone ever taken into account suicide rates or accidents from guns?

Kia

19th April 2007, 22:02

what i find most sick about the Virginia School Shooting is that on the same day 183 Iraqis died yet you wouldn't know it from CNN and NBC. Seems they weigh American lives heavier than foreign ones.

Didn't that bombing happen the day after? And yes it wasn't headline news..want to know why? Because this happened at home. This happened in the land of peace and tranquility (ha). A catastrophe at home is more important to most people then one in a foreign land. This social phenomena happens everywhere. If your house burns to the ground and all your family members die and in the same day 100 people die in Sudan do you care so much about the Sudanese people? No. This isn't to say someone is a bad person for this..its a shock thing. If someone in general doesn't care about the lives of the Sudanese or other foreign lives then yes...that would be weighing one group of lives over the other.
And CNN and many other news groups did report deaths in Iraq..it just wasn't front page.

Personally I think this should make many Americans wake up and realize that 33 people died here so how much pain and suffering must people feel in Iraq for the hundreds of fellow lives lost each day.

freakazoid

19th April 2007, 22:06

Has anyone ever taken into account suicide rates or accidents from guns?

If someone is going to kill themselves not having a gun is not going to stop them.

black magick hustla

19th April 2007, 22:08

People who advocate gun control are liberals.

anti_fa01

19th April 2007, 22:12

KIA

[/QUOTE]Do you watch the news? Do you even live in America?[QUOTE]

Yes and Yes............and who gives a fuck about gangs killing each other.........

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 22:13

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 07:20 am

This shows the problems of gun control. If the students and teachers themselves where armed this would of have never happened.
What a fucking horrible argument.

This was a tragedy. I believe it is due to both the Capitalist system, which alienates people from their labour, studies and even other human beings, as well as the ease of access to weapons in the States. This availability means that anyone who gets angry (their girlfriend broke up with them, someone said something nasty to them, etc) instead of being angry for a while then calming down (like they would here), they have the immediate option to go stock up on guns and go blow someone up.

We shouldn't fetishize guns, they may be neccessary in our revolution but they are a terrible invention.
It's not that bad of an argument though. Cho killed 33 people on that campus. I am not sure where abouts he killed them but he might have went into some dorm buildings. The buildings might have been hard to escape from. If people had some handguns or rifles they could have taken him out at maybe 2 or 3 people dead instead of 33.

Guns are only a bad invention to the person or persons who don't own them. For example the Native Americans didn't own any guns when the Europeans came. They did however have bows and arrows and spears and such. Natives had weapons just like everyone else. It is not a bad thing to have weapons to protect yourself from nuts.

OneBrickOneVoice

19th April 2007, 22:16

if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 22:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:40 am

I dont know about the U.S. but here in europe i actually see lots of fights with the police... its bullshit to say that people who own guns are somehow protected of harm.
Yeah but the police in the US have handguns. If you get into a fight with a cop here you better be willing to kill them or else you are going to be dead when they light you up.

fashbash

19th April 2007, 22:26

Personally, I object to the media's portrayal of this event. First and foremost, I work as a nurse in a mental health unit. The media have pounced on this very rare, isolated instance of a mentally ill person harming others. Stories presented in a way such as this make the public very hostile towards the mentally ill, as well as preventing people suffering from psychological problems from comming forward because they fear they will be locked up. For example one patient I see regularly suffers from Paranoid Schizophrenia and early-stage dementia. She is terrified of telling doctors about her physical pain because she thinks she won't be believed and sent to the 'nuthouse'. The fact that she's already there hasn't occured to her though.

Secondly, he is portrayed as hating the rich-kids at his college. On one level I can identify with him, but that does not make him a socialist. There was no political motivation to his actions, but this is too good an opportunity for propaganda for the right wing press to miss out on. It makes me sick.

And finally, this is no longer news. It happened on Monday and yet it is still dominating the front pages of the tabloid press. The news values of the UK are all thrown out of proportion, sure it's desperately sad but it is not important.

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 22:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:04 am

Then you should support gun rights.
no. guns are in todays fight with fashists about the most stupid weapon to use. anyone who claims the opposite either knows nothing about antifashism or is plain stupid.

I pity you.
and i pity you for more racism, police brutality, more imperialistic wars, less welfare, less union power.

actually i think i am fine without guns. when your guns prevented another war or oppression in your country please pm me.

And you still have not touched on the difference in crimes between those to cities. Why?
because i am not an american and not familiar with american cities. i dont trust any statistics i didnt falsify myself and i wont debate on a ground that you can throw any bullshit at me and i cant prove it wrong. i leave that to americans.
Your problem seems to be less about guns and more about your American comrades. You keep talking about your country and how they have good laws about not having knives and guns. Well you know what? I don't really give a shit about your country or my country. Yes there is racism, police brutality etc.... in America. That is all the more reason to be armed.

The Grey Blur

19th April 2007, 22:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives
Yes. Clearly more weaponry is the solution. :rolleyes:

anti_fa01

19th April 2007, 23:00

Yes. Clearly more weaponry is the solution. rolleyes.gif

no...there are 400 million firearms in circulation in the U.S.......More people being allowed to carry firearms is the solution......

Firearms are here!!!...Thats a Fact....We need to be able to defend our selves against people who want to misuse guns...

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 23:05

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+April 19, 2007 01:54 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ April 19, 2007 01:54 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives
Yes. Clearly more weaponry is the solution. :rolleyes: [/b]
Of course it's not the solution in theory but when you have some asshole coming down your dorm hall lighting up the place you better bet your ass that your glock under your bed is the solution to your immediate problem.

The Grey Blur

19th April 2007, 23:14

So you're suggesting every person in the country should have a gun on them at all times, wherever they go. That's totally impractical.

That is your solution to acts like this where the ease-of-access to guns is the catalyst?

Bloody hell.

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 23:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:13 pm
you are a tosser, do you know that? you are actually a knobead. You actually, really, literally have a tiny penis dangling limply from your zit-covered forehead. Oh if only you could get it to stiffen. Night after night you lay there in bed frantically trying to get your useless head-tool to awaken but no. It remains flacid.

I'M TALKING ABOUT YOU ANTI_FA01. twat
Are you ok? What's with the attacks?

El Chavo

19th April 2007, 23:18

I feel the shooter's class resentment but his problem was that he lacked a cogent and clear class analysis of his estrangement from his university peers. Lacking a Marxist class analysis he went the wrong way. This guy must have been very distubed too!

Chicano Shamrock

19th April 2007, 23:20

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 02:14 pm
So you're suggesting every person in the country should have a gun on them at all times, wherever they go. That's totally impractical.

That is your solution to acts like this where the ease-of-access to guns is the catalyst?

Bloody hell.
I don't think everyone should carry a gun at all times. I think we should be able to carry a gun if we want and there are things you can fill out here to get a permit to carry concealed. I know a women who drives across country a lot and she has a permit. When people want to rape you a gun might change their fucking mind.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/LBCDEMON/38-JPG.jpg

The Grey Blur

19th April 2007, 23:27

We all have the right to self-defense, I don't feel I disputed that.

I don't think everyone should carry a gun at all times.
Isn't that contradictory to what you said that all of the students should have been armed? I mean, a university full of students carrying guns about is impractical, extremely dangerous, and would definitely fall under "everyone should carry a gun at all times".

Pirate Utopian

19th April 2007, 23:51

If people always should carry guns, what about fights with angry outbursts?
And one kills the other because the killer carried guns around all the time.
If they didnt have guns maybe one would have a blue eye but that would it.

How about sush a situation?

Kia

19th April 2007, 23:52

anti_fa01 I would think people would care about gangs killing each other. Needless violence is something that usually bothers people and most think it needs to be solved.

I'm assuming your American and maybe this is just a cultural thing that i never quite understood. Maybe someone who has a better understanding culturally why guns are banned in other countries could explain why the laws exist.

Firearms are here!!!...Thats a Fact....We need to be able to defend our selves against people who want to misuse guns...
....wouldn't not having any guns stop people from misusing them? I fail to see the logic in increase arms as a solution...could you attempt to explain in greater detail how this would solve the problem at hand?

Freakzoid

If someone is going to kill themselves not having a gun is not going to stop them.

Actually it would. A person with a gun is much more likely to kill themselves and accomplish it if they have a gun. Shooting yourself in the head is a quick way to suicide and gives no time for people to try and talk you out of it or get help. I had a friend last year attempt suicide by taking sleeping pills and alcohol...he called me up just after he had, asking for help. Lucky I was able to get the cops to his place in time to get him to the hospital where he was Okay. He is damn lucky (and i am extremely grateful) that he didn't have access to a gun..if he had..i would have lost another friend to suicide. I believe their is a statistic out there that a person is 20times more likely to commit suicide if they have a gun..ill try find the source.

Marmot

People who advocate gun control are liberals.

Is somehow using a supposed insult going to change my views? If i call you a fascist is that suddenly going to make you switch to my way of thinking? NO. Get a damn argument.

Seems to be the argument is that having more guns saves lives..someone find a statistic or something that proves this.

Beginning to think that a large group of leftists live in some state of perpetual paranoia....

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 00:02

What i was saying is that guns are already here... trying to take them off the streets is improbable...There are simply too many guns in circulation....

Everyone has the right to be able to defend them selves......

"God created man...Sam Colt made them equal"

and FASHBASH is a liberal Douche

Kia

20th April 2007, 00:32

anti_fa01

What i was saying is that guns are already here... trying to take them off the streets is improbable...There are simply too many guns in circulation....
It wouldn't be an easy task, no. But it is doable..other countries have done it. I'm not suggesting that with one wave of the magic hand of the law that all gun problems would be solved. I'm saying that an effective and medium short partial solution to the problem at hand can be solved with gun laws.

Everyone has the right to be able to defend them selves...... I agree. But that doesn't mean it has to be with guns. Get a can of pepper spray if you feel threatened..or take some martial arts classes. There are a number of solutions to protecting oneself that don't increase the problem. If the right to defend oneself has no sensibility applied then one could easily argue that I have the right to own chemical weapons in case someone tries to hurt me.

"God created man...Sam Colt made them equal"
yeah..the Native Americans sure learnt that didn't they.

Qwerty Dvorak

20th April 2007, 01:00

You watch to many movies. Bullets are not magical pieces of metal, they do not instantly kill you. Also if you are hit you can still function.
Dude you seriously have to get in touch with reality, guns are extremely fucking dangerous and they kill/horribly maim people on a regular basis. It's why they are used in wars, and similarly it's why people tend to use guns on people they don't like.

No they are not. Are you saying that a .22 conversion kit for a 1911 is only used to cause harm? You are very naive about firearms.

Pray tell, what is it used for?

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 01:04

REDSTAR1916

Pray tell, what is it used for?

Target practice and sport shooting due to the fact .22 is very Cheap compared to the cost of .45acp

Qwerty Dvorak

20th April 2007, 01:10

Target practice
Practising for what specifically.

sport shooting
As in, you shoot a football?

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 01:13

NO.........Sport shooting.... its a popular and fun activity............

If you live in america i suggest you all go to your local shooting range "you can rent firearms to shoot at the range for those who dont own any" and shoot a few dozen rounds off....i think you will enjoy it!!!!!

Qwerty Dvorak

20th April 2007, 01:22

Yeah but what do people shoot at in sport shooting.

And I do concede that clay pigeon shooting is the exception to the rule, but come on.

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 01:23

Yeah but what do people shoot at in sport shooting.

And I do concede that clay pigeon shooting is the exception to the rule, but come on.

all different kinds of targets "usually ranging in size" as to test your skill level and accuracy........

Qwerty Dvorak

20th April 2007, 01:26

Actually upon further reflection I realize I came into this thread with nothing to say and ended up leading it off topic; I apologize. Continue, I think I'll formulate a proper argument and come back.

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 01:29

REDSTAR1916

you and i should start a different thread so we can continue our debate........

PS: I like debating with you beacuse you do so in a civilized manner

Plan9

20th April 2007, 02:25

Why not ban alcohol too? And automobiles, and high cholesterol, and in-ground swimming pools, and...

Gun control is not the issue here. The killer passed the background check, remember? If someone really wants a gun, they will get one. Hell, I can probably make a few phone calls and have one by tomorrow.

What bothers me are these fake-leftists like Kia who want to disarm regular citizens in the name of public "safety" (as if criminals and lunatics like Cho will respect the law anyway). We are supposed to trust those fat cowardly cops on TV to who were just waiting for the massacre to end to zip up the bodybags. No thanks. I'll protect my own family.

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 02:32

Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 02:27 pm
We all have the right to self-defense, I don't feel I disputed that.

I don't think everyone should carry a gun at all times.
Isn't that contradictory to what you said that all of the students should have been armed? I mean, a university full of students carrying guns about is impractical, extremely dangerous, and would definitely fall under "everyone should carry a gun at all times".
No I said if he went into the dorms someone could have reached under "their bed" and got their glock. I didn't say that everyone should carry guns all the time. I did say that if people had them in their dorms they could have pumped some rounds into him.

bcbm

20th April 2007, 02:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:45 pm
America does have some gun control laws. However they are not enough. America never learned from columbine or the quaker shootings or any other incident.
No, it certainly didn't, but you're attributing the wrong lesson. The lesson wasn't "Guns are bad, we need more control!" (the Columbine guns were illegal, by the way), the lesson is that Capitalist society is fucked and breeds horribly alienated people, especially in certain situations where extreme value is placed on conformity with social norms.

The "constitutions says I can have guns" argument has gotten in the way of abolishing guns from America.

Abolishing guns is a nonsensical idea, especially from a "revolutionary leftist." The state already has a pretty big monopoly on arms and their use, we shouldn't give them further social control.

I'm probably going to get really pissed hearing different parts of the public blame the whole incident on different things without anyone ever suggesting that maybe the whole incident could never have happened if it wasn't for guns.

You're blaming an inanimate object instead of social and individual factors? That's completely absurd.

Personally I suggest paying close attention to events in the coming future related to this. Watch and see what the politicians do, who/what is blamed, how people react. Maybe something progressive will be done (unlikely..this is America..) or maybe we'll see strict laws passed for colleges, a tightening of security etc.....even racism possibly from this.

Nothing progressive will come from this, it will only be used by politicians to tighten social controls: more cops, more cameras, etc.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th April 2007, 02:51

Look, the capitalist state rests on armed violence, or the threat thereof. Arguing for the disarmament of working people in the face of that reality is absurd.

Just because guns aren't being used against the capitalist state now doesn't mean they won't be and can't be. Taking them away from us makes it that much harder.

Just take a look at Bolivia, where revolutionary upsurges consisted of workers and Indian peasants battling armed police and soldiers with sticks.. or in the Dominican Republic, where rifle ownership is banned (and compare the revolution of 65 there, when the people were armed, with the many battles between unarmed workers and farmers and the Policia Nacional that have happened, and been smashed, since).

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 03:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 03:32 pm

"God created man...Sam Colt made them equal"
yeah..the Native Americans sure learnt that didn't they.
Yes we did. When our people were attacked with rifles our arrows didn't stand a chance. What we did was storm their bases and take their guns. That way we had an even playing field. Even now that the proletariat have rifles we are still outpowered weapon wise but you are suggesting giving up even more weapon power.

OneBrickOneVoice

20th April 2007, 03:07

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+April 19, 2007 09:54 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ April 19, 2007 09:54 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives
Yes. Clearly more weaponry is the solution. :rolleyes: [/b]
who is going to rob a bank or shoot up a school when the people you may kill are likely to be trained in firearms and carry a weapon? I suprised Permanent Revolution that you'd be arguing for the disarament of the workers and people in general.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

20th April 2007, 03:09

It seems like the armed civillians of America are by and large supporters of the Status Quo. I don't know if we can prove that, but it's the impression I get.

Just take a look at Bolivia, where revolutionary upsurges consisted of workers and Indian peasants battling armed police and soldiers with sticks..
Cochabamba was still a success in Bolivia despite (or because?) of the lack of weapons on the peoples' side.

bcbm

20th April 2007, 03:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:07 pm
who is going to rob a bank or shoot up a school when the people you may kill are likely to be trained in firearms and carry a weapon? I suprised Permanent Revolution that you'd be arguing for the disarament of the workers and people in general.
You want bank robbers to get shot? That is, you want people to die over money? Hmm...

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th April 2007, 03:18

Cochabamba was still a success in Bolivia despite (or because?) of the lack of weapons on the peoples' side.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

20th April 2007, 03:26

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this.

Where did I go wrong?

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 04:11

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+April 19, 2007 06:09 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ April 19, 2007 06:09 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 08:07 pm
who is going to rob a bank or shoot up a school when the people you may kill are likely to be trained in firearms and carry a weapon? I suprised Permanent Revolution that you'd be arguing for the disarament of the workers and people in general.
You want bank robbers to get shot? That is, you want people to die over money? Hmm... [/b]
I think LeftHenry made a mistake when he mentioned banks along with schools. Robbing a bank is a good thing. Shooting a school isn't.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th April 2007, 04:30

Where did I go wrong?

Is Bolivia a workers' state?

Bolivia: A revolution betrayed, again (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?106)

Hiero

20th April 2007, 04:34

if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives

in todays society if I was to walk out with my rifle it wouldn't be long until the police show up to deny me my inalienable Second Amendment rights.

This is rather illogical on two reasons. 1) This means that Cho should be defended for carrying a gun, you logic argues that at no point, even when he walked into a uni with a loaded gun he should have never been denied that right. 2) Your argument is similar to the gun control side and both arguments ignore the social problems that cause massacres.

People in the US, and even in Australia in response to the killings, automatically looks towards the guns. One side says "psychos" shouldn't have access to guns, so restrict all guns. The other side says, give everyone guns then we can kill the "psychos". Both indirectly are saying it is quite normal and fine for people to have this thoughts of mass murder and their are only two solutions, restrict or kill them.

Both sides if they achieved their goals would create an absurd society. One society were it is acceptable to let people descend into rage and hate as long as there is restriction, an other where we all carry guns because there is a high possibility that some could go on a rampage. I think both would lead to a paraniod society.

Though as "communist" I am sure you want this society to emerge. Rather as the "communists" you are, I am sure you would rather increase the well being of the people, so they don't have mass murdering thoughts or find the need to rob people. That way you won't need restriction, and you want need a gun for "self protection" of the hoarding lower classes in their fight for survival, or their loss of sanity in the case of Cho.

Jude

20th April 2007, 05:26

Hiero, you made several good points. However, in doing so, you've managed to shut down every suggestion, however rediculous they were, leaving nothing in your wake. Congrats, but what DO you suggest, for the immediate, or at least near, future, as you have made quite clear what solutions you do NOT support.

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:34 pm
That way you won't need restriction, and you want need a gun for "self protection" of the hoarding lower classes in their fight for survival, or their loss of sanity in the case of Cho.
Eliminating class in society would take away a lot of crime but it wouldn't stop nuts from shooting up the place. In a communist society guns would still be needed for self protection and protection of your commune.

Jude

20th April 2007, 05:40

Protection of your commune from what exactly?

Kropotkin Has a Posse

20th April 2007, 06:04

Is Bolivia a workers' state?
No, but I wasn't referring to that. I was merely saying that sheer people power managed to boot a large corporation out of Cochabamba. The water was put into state control, which from my point of view is only a marginal improvement, but in that one incident (iregardless of the "gas war" three years later) it managed to show that sometimes you can fight the state without any weapons.

Kia

20th April 2007, 06:21

black coffee black metal

No, it certainly didn't, but you're attributing the wrong lesson. The lesson wasn't "Guns are bad, we need more control!" (the Columbine guns were illegal, by the way), the lesson is that Capitalist society is fucked and breeds horribly alienated people, especially in certain situations where extreme value is placed on conformity with social norms.

You're blaming an inanimate object instead of social and individual factors? That's completely absurd.

Actually I'm not just blaming inanimate objects..if you had taken the time to read the posts you'd notice I already agreed with people that a cultural and societal factor plays an important part. i felt no need to make it the main point of my posts since I assumed someone else would. I said earlier that changing those societal factors will take awhile though and that something needs to be done now while we work on changing cultural values.

Nothing progressive will come from this, it will only be used by politicians to tighten social controls: more cops, more cameras, etc.

I said maybe something progressive will be done. I'm being hopeful. So far nothing has, they've already begun to start blaming movies for making this kid so disturbed. The movie is called Old Boy (I own it and have to say it worth watching..amazing movie).

Abolishing guns is a nonsensical idea, especially from a "revolutionary leftist." The state already has a pretty big monopoly on arms and their use, we shouldn't give them further social control.

Again, read the posts before. If armed violence is needed for a revolution in America then weapons can be easily gotten through allies of the cause outside the country and the black markets. Police stations and stockades can also be raided for arms.

Vargha Poralli

20th April 2007, 06:57

Those who cry that you need guns for revolution check out the history when millions of unarmed masses accomplished the February revolution in a country during its war time.
This thread has degenerated to Gun control thread.

****************************************

This incidents shows that the problems that caused the Columbine massacre, Oklahoma city bombings in US are not addressed by the ruling class who is more intrested in defending the corporations looting wealth from all parts of the world.

WSWS has made a pretty good analysis on this issue. I am quoting some important points from them...

The malignant resentments that erupted into mass murder in Virginia (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/cho-a20.shtml)

Students face immense economic pressures. A low grade, a failed class, a missed academic opportunity, and futures are ruined. The number of students working part-time has increased, along with the competition for jobs. Young people leave college or university with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, a burden that will take years to pay off.

And there is the general climate in the country. The US has been in a continual state of war since 2001, with government officials promising decades or a half-century more of bloody conflict. The Bush administration’s terror threat level has stood at “Elevated” (Yellow) for most of the time since then.

Repeated warnings about the risk of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons being set off in the country, endless threats against foreign governments and individuals, the most bloodcurdling language used by government officials (“We either were going to kill him or capture him, and our policy is we try and capture and not kill and if we’re not able to capture and we can kill, we do it”—former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)....

No wonder there is stress and anxiety. What is the impact of all this on the most fragile and unstable personalities?

Cho’s videos are very disturbing. He poses with handguns, pointing them at the camera or his own head, holds a knife to his throat or wields a hammer in a menacing manner. In other segments, he rails against the world at large: “You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people.”

And: “You have never felt a single ounce of pain your whole life. And you want to inject as much misery in our lives because you can, just because you can. You had everything you wanted. Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust fund wasn’t enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.”

Finally, horribly: “This is it. This is where it all ends. What a life it was. Some life.”

This is the ongoing price American society pays for the absence of a progressive and revolutionary social movement that offers a way out of the present impasse, for the lack of class consciousness and social solidarity. The emergence of such a movement would have a wonderfully regenerative and healthy effect on the national psyche, and pose a mortal threat to the social and financial status quo. That is why the ruling elite fears the emergence of such a movement a thousand times more than it does a deranged individual with a gun.

RaiseYourVoice

20th April 2007, 07:56

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+April 19, 2007 09:16 pm--> (Chicano Shamrock @ April 19, 2007 09:16 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 04:40 am

I dont know about the U.S. but here in europe i actually see lots of fights with the police... its bullshit to say that people who own guns are somehow protected of harm.
Yeah but the police in the US have handguns. If you get into a fight with a cop here you better be willing to kill them or else you are going to be dead when they light you up. [/b]
and cops in europe dont? sorry that you live on your own planet over there but we do. cops here always carry handguns at least in some parts of italy they also carry automatic rifles. the problem is that if a cop get shot in the head he doesnt (like some people here assume) shoot back and some people just dont fear being shot at. sorry but if i wanted to kill you and we both had a gun, be sure i would. what do i have to fear? some mystic adrenaline rush that makes you able to function completly normal? :rolleyes:

Your problem seems to be less about guns and more about your American comrades. You keep talking about your country and how they have good laws about not having knives and guns. Well you know what? I don't really give a shit about your country or my country. Yes there is racism, police brutality etc.... in America. That is all the more reason to be armed.
You so didnt get my post. the point is, if guns make people free than why arent americans liberated? people are always talking about how free guns make yourself and how protected but on a large scale i dont see anything about that.

When people want to rape you a gun might change their fucking mind.
if people come up to you and say "hey i'm going to rape you now" yes. if people sneak up behind you and start to choke you i'd rather go for some good self defence system.

N the lesson is that Capitalist society is fucked and breeds horribly alienated people, especially in certain situations where extreme value is placed on conformity with social norms.
i do agree with that part, but as long as this system isnt crushed i actually rather not have everyone running around with guns.

The problem with guns is that
1) they do not protect you if someone wants to kill only you
2) to train for the revolution we dont have to walk around with guns all day. (in my country (damn i start to sound as if i liked my country) there is a huge difference in controll between having a gun locked up at home or being able to carry it around.
3) if i get in a fight with someone i'd rather have them unarmed and get in a fist fight than someone pulling a gun at me. guns happen so escalate situations because the other side faces death.

Guns are nessesary for the revolution yes, but they are dangerous and not suited for use in civil situations. they will not save your family, they will not save you. sorry but who is the liberal here? thinking that guns somehow protect yourself from the bad side of capitalism is as stupid as thinking that gun controll will protect you from that.

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 10:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:40 pm
Protection of your commune from what exactly?
From the crazies of course. Just because there is freedom it will not stop all the nuts in the world from roaming. Maybe there are still some white supremacists after the revolution. Wouldn't we need to protect ourselves from them?

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 11:03

and cops in europe dont? sorry that you live on your own planet over there but we do. cops here always carry handguns at least in some parts of italy they also carry automatic rifles.
I meant here as opposed to most of the UK. Sorry your page doesn't say your location.

You so didnt get my post. the point is, if guns make people free than why arent americans liberated? people are always talking about how free guns make yourself and how protected but on a large scale i dont see anything about that.

I don't think I have ever stated that guns make people free.

if people come up to you and say "hey i'm going to rape you now" yes. if people sneak up behind you and start to choke you i'd rather go for some good self defence system.
Or if someone happens to be following you on foot, or if you see someone coming at you, or if someone is harassing you. Rapists aren't ninjas.

(in my country (damn i start to sound as if i liked my country)
That is how you have been sounding the whole time.

Guns are nessesary for the revolution yes, but they are dangerous and not suited for use in civil situations. they will not save your family, they will not save you. sorry but who is the liberal here?
Guns aren't anymore dangerous than me going to work everyday. I work at an oil distribution center. One spark around open gas and I will be sky high. There are a lot of things that are dangerous but if they are used right they aren't. Maybe some day they will never save my family. I hope it never comes to that but in the mean time they are fun to shoot at the range. Who is the liberal one? I don't know.... the one fighting for liberal gun laws or the one hoping that the proles stay armed.... :unsure:

RaiseYourVoice

20th April 2007, 11:34

I don't think I have ever stated that guns make people free.
i was refering to some of the opinion stated here like the poster "free men own guns"

Or if someone happens to be following you on foot, or if you see someone coming at you, or if someone is harassing you. Rapists aren't ninjas.

and you pull a gun at everyone you think is following you? at everyone coming at you? at anyone harrasing you? thats very smart i bet. especially as you guys think everyone should have a gun, so you point at him, he pulls his gun and boom maybe both of you end up dead while no one wanted to harm the other. kewl.

That is how you have been sounding the whole time.
thats because i agree with the gun laws in my country and we are talking about that. also because i can compare living here in germany to living in the usa and i like it here better.

Guns aren't anymore dangerous than me going to work everyday. I work at an oil distribution center.
is your oil distribution center constructed to kill people? if not the comparism fails.

I hope it never comes to that but in the mean time they are fun to shoot at the range.
oh now we are getting to it. this is so not just the big preparing for a revolution you like to make it up to be? its just fun? well that wouldnt be a good argument for it would it?

I don't know.... the one fighting for liberal gun laws or the one hoping that the proles stay armed.... unsure.gif
if you had understood what i wrote... oh i guess thats asking too much.
its about the people who talk about self defence.. while anyone who has decent knowledge about self-defence knows that guns and especially rilfes are not suitable for self defence and even more if everyone can have one.

the revolution does not justify the right to carry a gun around on the streets 24/7. and i really dont have a problem with guns that are locked up at home.

Chicano Shamrock

20th April 2007, 12:35

and you pull a gun at everyone you think is following you? at everyone coming at you? at anyone harrasing you? thats very smart i bet
Well the lady I was talking about that has a permit to carry a concealed weapon has been raped before so it is a lot easier to talk about hand to hand combat instead of a handgun when you haven't been raped. Yes if she is stopped at a gas station and someone is harassing her and coming towards her I would think she should pull the gun.

is your oil distribution center constructed to kill people? if not the comparism fails.
No but then again neither are rifles. Rifles were invented to hunt for food.

oh now we are getting to it. this is so not just the big preparing for a revolution you like to make it up to be? its just fun? well that wouldnt be a good argument for it would it?
As an anarchist I believe in free play so I don't see why play can't be connected to learning how to use firearms properly.

its about the people who talk about self defence.. while anyone who has decent knowledge about self-defence knows that guns and especially rilfes are not suitable for self defence
Where did you come up with this non-sense from? Rifles among other weapons are perfectly suitable for self defense. I know a guy who teaches Filipino martial arts to the FBI, CIA, NSA etc.... His lessons include hand to hand techniques, close quarters combat with blades and close quarters combat with handguns, rifles and shotguns.

the revolution does not justify the right to carry a gun around on the streets 24/7. and i really dont have a problem with guns that are locked up at home.

Then what are we arguing about? I don't think people should be carrying around firearms 24/7. The difference is that you seem to want to limit what a person has the "right" to do in a typical liberal big government style. I don't think the state has any right to tell me what "rights" I have and I am certainly against them taking away anymore of the so called rights they have given me back.

RaiseYourVoice

20th April 2007, 13:08

I know a guy who teaches Filipino martial arts to the FBI, CIA, NSA etc.... His lessons include hand to hand techniques, close quarters combat with blades and close quarters combat with handguns, rifles and shotguns.
thats police, i am talking about civil use here. if you hunt people down you sure as hell can make good use of a handgun. if you just prepare to defend yourself when being attacked the use of handguns is strongly limited, the one of rifles even more.

he difference is that you seem to want to limit what a person has the "right" to do in a typical liberal big government style
yes. i dont think that just letting everyone do what they want inside a capitalist system can in any way be succesfull. that would lead to what the mainstream media defines as anarchy, nothing more.

but since this is leading nowhere and weekend has some plans i dont think i will respond to this any more

The Grey Blur

20th April 2007, 19:44

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+April 20, 2007 02:07 am--> (LeftyHenry @ April 20, 2007 02:07 am)
Originally posted by Permanent [email protected] 19, 2007 09:54 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 09:16 pm
if students were allowed to carry guns, the minute this pyscho pulled out his weapon he would have been neutralized thus saving 32 lives
Yes. Clearly more weaponry is the solution. :rolleyes:
who is going to rob a bank or shoot up a school when the people you may kill are likely to be trained in firearms and carry a weapon? [/b]
Robbing banks and shooting up schools are two different things. In the first example poverty (generated by the Capitalist organisation of ecomomy) is the catalyst. In the second, the extreme availability of weapons is the catalyst.

Arming everyone is impractical, idiotic and is the argument put forward by the right-wing scum who are more concerned about their private shooting ranges than the lives of other people.

I suprised Permanent Revolution that you'd be arguing for the disarament of the workers and people in general.
So would I. Seeing as I haven't.

That's two strawmen I've had to chop up and use as firewood. Enough.

anti_fa01

20th April 2007, 20:32

Arming everyone is impractical, idiotic

uh-hmm Switzerland

UndergroundConnexion

20th April 2007, 21:39

blablabla rearmement of working people blablaba what a bullshit ya'll talking. These weapons, are mostly used to kill each other off, brothers kill each others, comrades kill each other with these weapons. If these weapons really could help you to a revolution it would have already hapenned.

freakazoid

20th April 2007, 21:47

Seems to be the argument is that having more guns saves lives..someone find a statistic or something that proves this.

I have posted about the difference!! Are you not paying attention to my posts?

If these weapons really could help you to a revolution it would have already hapenned.

A. They have in the past. B. It will not be long to the next one.

Demogorgon

20th April 2007, 22:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 07:32 pm

Arming everyone is impractical, idiotic

uh-hmm Switzerland
Switzerland has armed about a third of men between 18 and 45. That is a far cry from "everyone".

UndergroundConnexion

20th April 2007, 22:14

in the USA weapons have done more harm then good.... but this is only clear to people living outside the US, within the people are already completely immresed into this violent culture

bcbm

20th April 2007, 22:55

These weapons, are mostly used to kill each other off, brothers kill each others, comrades kill each other with these weapons.

Many weapons used in crimes are gotten illegally anyway, and if all guns were banned, criminals would still have them. There's no reason to take them from the entire population.

in the USA weapons have done more harm then good.... but this is only clear to people living outside the US, within the people are already completely immresed into this violent culture

The problem is the society, not the tools.

I said earlier that changing those societal factors will take awhile though and that something needs to be done now while we work on changing cultural values.

And that something is giving more power and dominance to the state? Yeah, no thanks.

If armed violence is needed for a revolution in America then weapons can be easily gotten through allies of the cause outside the country and the black markets. Police stations and stockades can also be raided for arms.

Indeed, the police and army will be raided, primary for their superior weapons, but in the initial stages of any revolt already possessing force of arms can be a good thing, and it has made many a cop think twice in the past.

Kia

20th April 2007, 23:08

Freakazoid

have posted about the difference!! Are you not paying attention to my posts?
Yes :D . Sorry I missed one of them, ill comment now.

Here is are some statistics from the US Department of Transportation

According to a preliminary report from the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 43,200 died on the nation’s highways in 2005, up from 42,636 in 2004. Injuries dropped from 2.79 million in 2004 to 2.68 million in 2005, a decline of 4.1 percent. Fifty-five percent of passenger vehicle occupants who died in 2005 were unbelted

43,200 died! 2.68 million injured!!! just last year. How many people were killed and injured last year by firearms?

What about all of those Jews who used guns to hold off the Nazis durring WW2. Are they "fucking idiots" for using a gun to protect themselves?

Your point with cars accidents is completely useless. So more people die in car accidents then by gun..that doesn't nullify the 11,000+ people that die each year from guns at all. Hell, if we're going to compare deaths why not bring just say that disease kills more people. The problem still exist..we're still loosing 11,000 people a year to gun related deaths.

If you had a gun would you want to go out and kill people? Why are you afraid of other people owning one? Is it because you actually don't trust yourself with one?

Not really. Its the fact that some people do horrific things with guns...as one should be able to conclude from...THE V TECH SHOOTINGS. These events and more are not isolated events that have only occurred once..they keep repeating.

How is someone supposed to support themselves out in the wild if they can't hunt?
......yes everyone in America goes out and hunts for their food....if one feels the need to hunt their own food then use a spear or something else.

And what about Switzerland!? All males are required to own a type of rifle called a Sig. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland It talkes about some of the laws but look at the picture on the right. The guy is walking around in a store with a rifle slung across his back and yet no one is freaking out and there isn't a bloodbath in the aisles. Why is that if firearms are so bad?
ill touch on this at the end.

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

I think its a good time to sum up my points that may help explain my position. Two things needed; 1.) American culture needs to change so that people like Cho can find better outlets for their anger along with feeling more accepted and cared for by their peers. Americas culture is extremely vicious to people who don't fit in or will not go along with what is counted to be the "norm". 2.) The banning of guns. This is a medium short term solution to the problem at hand. While American culture shifts into something less destructive guns need to be removed from the society in an attempt to stem gun related violence. If the culture shifts enough then maybe America will be able to remove its gun laws and have a system similar to that of Switzerland. Switzerland is an example of different cultural values that allow for people to be well armed and not dangerous to each other. Its also possible however that the American public will not feel the need to arm themselves in the future and that the current paranoia and fear that is a part of American culture will diminish to a point that people will feel relatively safe.

America has a problem at the moment..whether or not people like to admit to it. Gun control is simply part of suggested solution to the problem.

Demogorgon

21st April 2007, 00:17

BTW, to those talking about arming workers in the future to defend their communes. One would think, wouldn't they, that workers in a post revolutionary society might see the arms industry for the monstrous waste of resources it is and seek to divert those resources to better uses than arming ourselves to the teeth?

bcbm

21st April 2007, 01:33

Its the fact that some people do horrific things with guns...as one should be able to conclude from...THE V TECH SHOOTINGS. These events and more are not isolated events that have only occurred once..they keep repeating.

Its a fact that people do horrific things with all manner of tools: guns, cars, knives, alcohol, axes, baseball bats, bottles, bricks, fists, boots... and those keep repeating too! Reactionary measures that support the bosses and strengthen state power and social control (like banning guns) do nothing to solve these horrific things, because people motivated to such acts will find a way to express their alienation with or without any one of the mentioned things. Its no coincidence that the "gentler" forces of social control trip over themselves to call for the banning of guns after things like this.

American culture needs to change so that people like Cho can find better outlets for their anger along with feeling more accepted and cared for by their peers. Americas culture is extremely vicious to people who don't fit in or will not go along with what is counted to be the "norm".

Many cultures have this problem, not just America. And while America may experience particularly endemic levels of violence due to some mitigating factors (structural and cultural), I don't find the solutions you offer particularly compelling, especially when making comparisons to social democracies. People in those countries can be just as motivated to violence. The problem is with the alienation forced upon us by modern society and the solution is to destroy that society, not try and make it friendlier.

The banning of guns. This is a medium short term solution to the problem at hand.

A solution that will solve nothing. Those criminal elements who already own weapons own them illegally, or will not surrender them in any case. Those who legally own them will also be likely to hide them (and I can be counted among those), and that too may put more of them in to "the wrong hands." Those who want to pursue a violent course against their peers will also not be discouraged, it is quite easy to figure out ways to kill large numbers of people if one puts their mind to it. I'm amazed their haven't been more school bombings than shootings- it would be just as easy and you can bet you'd see more if these individuals couldn't get guns. Or they'd just stab people, or beat them. Who knows? Reactionary measures won't solve anything, the destruction of modern society will, and that will require arms. Taking away arms from the people is opening them to control during times of social peace and slaughter during times of social war.

Pirate Utopian

21st April 2007, 15:23

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 19, 2007 11:51 pm
If people always should carry guns, what about fights with angry outbursts?
And one kills the other because the killer carried guns around all the time.
If they didnt have guns maybe one would have a blue eye but that would it.

How about sush a situation?
Any pro-gunpeeps? I asked this on page 3.

bcbm

21st April 2007, 18:23

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+April 21, 2007 08:23 am--> (Big Manifesto @ April 21, 2007 08:23 am)
Big [email protected] 19, 2007 11:51 pm
If people always should carry guns, what about fights with angry outbursts?
And one kills the other because the killer carried guns around all the time.
If they didnt have guns maybe one would have a blue eye but that would it.

How about sush a situation?
Any pro-gunpeeps? I asked this on page 3. [/b]
What about it? Some people aren't going to make intelligent choices, no matter what weapons they have. No reason to take them away from people who can.

UndergroundConnexion

21st April 2007, 18:39

Y'all here are pretending your love for weapons is for revolutionary means. In reality its something completely else, is subconscient, and you try to justify it by screaming " revolution!!!" how can you have a revolution in a country where fox new an the o'reilly bullshit show is among the most watched th channels / show..

bcbm

21st April 2007, 18:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 11:39 am
Y'all here are pretending your love for weapons is for revolutionary means. In reality its something completely else, is subconscient, and you try to justify it by screaming " revolution!!!"
I'm glad you know our "sobconscient" so well, better than we know our own motivations and feelings in any case. :rolleyes: I enjoy firearms for a number of reasons, but primarily it is because I absolutely do not trust my government and I don't want them to have a monopoly an armed force. It is much easier to control and subdue an unarmed population. Beyond that, they're also a useful tool in self-defense, particularly for people involved in the things I'm involved in.

how can you have a revolution in a country where fox new an the o'reilly bullshit show is among the most watched th channels / show..

I doubt revolution is near in the US, but social factors can change quickly and things could very well turn for our leaders. Whether or not the outcome would be positive from my perspective is certainly debatable, but in such a situation having weapons is desirable.

black magick hustla

21st April 2007, 18:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:39 pm
Y'all here are pretending your love for weapons is for revolutionary means. In reality its something completely else, is subconscient, and you try to justify it by screaming " revolution!!!" how can you have a revolution in a country where fox new an the o'reilly bullshit show is among the most watched th channels / show..
If you don't believe in the possibility of revolution then might as well stop calling yourself a communist.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

21st April 2007, 19:24

If you don't believe in the possibility of revolution then might as well stop calling yourself a communist.

Wouldn't you agree though, that the United States is probably the least likely country for revolution? (although Marx said the same about Russia)

Janus

21st April 2007, 20:31

Rather than split the entire gun control debate, I have edited the topic title to include it.

Jazzratt

21st April 2007, 22:00

Originally posted by Big Manifesto+April 21, 2007 02:23 pm--> (Big Manifesto @ April 21, 2007 02:23 pm)
Big [email protected] 19, 2007 11:51 pm
If people always should carry guns, what about fights with angry outbursts?
And one kills the other because the killer carried guns around all the time.
If they didnt have guns maybe one would have a blue eye but that would it.

How about sush a situation?
Any pro-gunpeeps? I asked this on page 3. [/b]
Pretty much what bcbm said, the kind of person stupid enough to shoot someone by accident would probably had done something similar with anything more dangerous than a pair of safety scissors. As tempting as it is legislating to the lowest common denominator will always lead to stupid and restrictive laws in the name of "safety".

I live in the UK by the way, where I am unable to legally acquire a gun.

UndergroundConnexion

21st April 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by Marmot+April 21, 2007 05:57 pm--> (Marmot @ April 21, 2007 05:57 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 05:39 pm
Y'all here are pretending your love for weapons is for revolutionary means. In reality its something completely else, is subconscient, and you try to justify it by screaming " revolution!!!" how can you have a revolution in a country where fox new an the o'reilly bullshit show is among the most watched th channels / show..
If you don't believe in the possibility of revolution then might as well stop calling yourself a communist. [/b]
great great great difference. I didn't say that I didnt beleive in revolution, I said I didnt beleive in revolution in the USA , where a great amount of people watch fox news the whole day and such. As a country the USA nowhere close to a revolution, at least not in the classical style.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

21st April 2007, 23:44

I live in the UK by the way, where I am unable to legally acquire a gun.

Just out of curiousity, how much gun crime is there in the UK?

Janus

22nd April 2007, 01:04

Just out of curiousity, how much gun crime is there in the UK?
According to the Home Office, firearms were used in 22,789 reported crimes in 2004-2005, which is down 5% and the first fall since 1997. Consequently, due to the strict gun control laws, there was an increase in imitation gun crimes such as the use of air weapons,etc.

Home Office data (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb0206.pdf)

Kropotkin Has a Posse

22nd April 2007, 03:42

I'm coming to the conclusion that until governments stop blowing other nations into oblivion it's worthless for them to talk about "gun control."

Red_Pride

22nd April 2007, 03:46

If you haven't noticed, many of the pro-racist news organizations *cough* FOX NEWS *cough* have becomed obsessed with referring to the gunman as Asain, Oriental, etc. They just want everyone to focus on the Asains, even though the two Columbine kids were WHITE and LISTENED TO RAMMSTEIN FOR FKING SAKE!

They were obviously racist, and no one focused on that. <.<

GuevaraUprising

22nd April 2007, 04:33

Incidents like this serve to strengthen those who wish to further their personal agendas concerning gun control and other restrictive laws that curtail our freedoms. People like the VT shooter disgust me because they are not only responsible for murdering innocent people but also responsible for giving more power to those who wish to control the citizenry further through restrictive laws intended to make us "safer".

If people are scared, they will obviously be far more complicit in any governmental drive to put such laws into effect. Gun control will not keep someone like the VT shooter from killing people. More restrictive gun control laws only keep those of us who are actually sane from being able to exercise our right to take up arms.

Not to mention that criminals will attain weapons in any way they can, be it from a gun store or from an illegal street vendor.

freakazoid

22nd April 2007, 07:40

Your point with cars accidents is completely useless. So more people die in car accidents then by gun..that doesn't nullify the 11,000+ people that die each year from guns at all. Hell, if we're going to compare deaths why not bring just say that disease kills more people. The problem still exist..we're still loosing 11,000 people a year to gun related deaths.

While this isn't what I was talking about, but since you brought it up anyways I will. What I was talking about you posted but then didn't even comment on, which I am going to assume is because it actually shows that you are wrong. Now, you are using the logic that since guns kill people then by that sane logic you should also be all for the banning of vehicles because they kill and injure far far more people. And those are not even on purpose. And then don't forget all the times that vehicles have been using them to commit crimes.

such as the use of air weapons,etc.

Which are airsoft guns. They were almost completely banned there but thanks to the efforts of the airsoft community they are only heavily restricted.

Y'all here are pretending your love for weapons is for revolutionary means. In reality its something completely else, is subconscient, and you try to justify it by screaming " revolution!!!" how can you have a revolution in a country where fox new an the o'reilly bullshit show is among the most watched th channels / show..

Not just revolutionary means. Hunting, protection, inalienable second amendment rights, etc. And I do believe that America is heading torwards a revolution.

......yes everyone in America goes out and hunts for their food....if one feels the need to hunt their own food then use a spear or something else.

Did I say everyone? Although I do believe that we are coming upon a time where that will be true. A spear!? Are you kidding me? On top of the obsurdity of that, what is to stop someone from killing people with spears?

Vargha Poralli

23rd April 2007, 18:50

While the fetish of Guns and Gun Control continues....

WSWS had an update and some replies to the right wing attack of their earlier article.

An attack on the World Socialist Web Site in the Boston Globe
US media hides behind the Virginia Tech tragedy
By David Walsh
23 April 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

In an op-ed piece in Sunday’s Boston Globe, columnist Jeff Jacoby took to task numerous individuals and organizations whom he claimed were exploiting last week’s Virginia Tech massacre for political purposes, including the World Socialist Web Site.

The conceit of Jacoby’s piece is that he is dispatching evenhanded justice, criticizing right and left, the media and politicians alike. He first accuses political forces in favor of stricter gun control of making supposedly illegitimate use of the “terrible news” to press their political agenda. He then turns his attention to the pro-gun lobby. After that, ABC News is chastised for putting an interactive poll on its web site—on the theme of gun control legislation—“within hours of the slaughter.”

Finally, the columnist focuses on left critics of American society and foreign policy. He censures Daily Kos blogger L.C. Johnson for “noting smugly” that the deaths in Blacksburg, Virginia “gives us an idea of what it is like to live just one day in Iraq.”

Jacoby continues: “An anti-American diatribe on the World Socialist Web Site blamed the killings on a culture in which ‘the lesson taught by the ruling elite is clear: in achieving one’s aims, any sort of ruthlessness is legitimate.’” Jacoby is quoting from a WSWS article posted April 18, “The Virginia Tech massacre—social roots of another American tragedy”.

He writes: “Ugh. There is a time for everything, and the immediate aftermath of a ghastly mass murder is a time for tears and silence and prayer—not for exploiting the dead to advance a political agenda.”

Jacoby, an extreme right-winger, has jumbled a great many issues and political elements together, but the political sensitivity of the columnist to the question is telling.

His reprimands of those “who rushed to make political hay of the bloodshed at Virginia Tech” need to be dismissed first of all as hypocritical and dishonest. Jacoby is a rabid pro-Zionist who has used Palestinian attacks on Israelis, “whose victims” also “weren’t yet cold,” on countless occasions to advance his support for the suppression of any resistance to Zionist rule. In July 2001, he made “political hay” out of the death of a Boston cabdriver to stigmatize poverty stricken neighborhoods.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Jacoby was one of those in the political and media establishment “who couldn’t wait to exploit the awful news ... for political purposes,” i.e., war to conquer oil reserves in the Middle East and a war against democratic rights at home.

Two days after the attacks in 2001 Jacoby called for blood: “Now that it has happened to us, the White House is not calling for ‘restraint.’ The State Department is not concerned about ‘escalating the cycle of violence.’ There are no editorials imploring the parties to conduct a ‘peace process’ and ‘sit down at the negotiating table.’ Now that it has happened to us, the TV anchors are calling them terrorists, not ‘militants’ or ‘activists.’ Washington is not being warned to avoid a ‘provocative’ response, or cautioned against retaliation that is ‘excessive and disproportionate.’ Now that it has happened to us, our eyes have finally opened. Now at last we understand that there is a war underway—and we are in it.”

Jacoby objects to a political discussion in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings because he doesn’t like the conclusions that any objective commentator would be likely to draw—that this act of madness had deep social roots. He is acting in defense of the existing social order and concealing its ills.

To feel horror over the crime and grief for the victims of last Monday’s shooting does not relieve one of the responsibility of determining what caused the tragedy. On the contrary, those who seriously want to see that this kind of mad act is not repeated have an obligation to examine unflinchingly why it took place.

If the Virginia Tech episode were an isolated one, one might be more hesitant about offering a sociological analysis. However, it is not. Shootings or near-shootings have occurred at high schools and colleges from one coast of the United States to the other in the past decade and a half. To make the point, here is a partial list of such incidents over the past five years alone:

January 16, 2002: Grundy, Virginia: Graduate student Peter Odighizuwa, 42, recently dismissed from Virginia’s Appalachian School of Law, returns to campus and kills the dean, a professor and a student before being tackled by students. The attack also wounds three female students.

October 28, 2002: Tucson, Arizona: Failing University of Arizona Nursing College student and Gulf War veteran Robert Flores, 40, walks into an instructor’s office and fatally shoots her. A few minutes later, armed with five guns, he enters one of his nursing classrooms and kills two more of his instructors before fatally shooting himself.

May 9, 2003: Cleveland, Ohio: A 62-year-old alumnus of Case Western Reserve University, Biswanath Halder, killed one student and injured two others. He surrendered to authorities after a seven-hour standoff.

March 21, 2005: Red Lake, Minnesota: Jeff Weise, 16, kills his grandfather and companion, and then arrives at school where he kills a teacher, a security guard, five students, and finally himself, leaving a total of 10 dead.

August 25, 2006: Essex, Vermont: A gunman looking for an old girlfriend bursts into a Vermont elementary school and kills a teacher.

September 2, 2006: Shepherdstown, West Virginia: Douglas W. Pennington, 49, kills himself and his two sons, Logan P. Pennington, 26, and Benjamin M. Pennington, 24, during a visit to the campus of Shepherd University.

September 25, 2006: Las Vegas, Nevada: A bus driver pulls over to drop off students. One student gets off the bus and then shoots at it. Three bullets hit the back of the bus, but none of the 34 students on board are injured.

September 27, 2006: Bailey, Colorado: An adult male sexual offender enters a school, sexually assaults six female students, kills a fleeing girl, and then kills himself.

October 2, 2006: Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania: An adult male sexual offender enters a one-room Amish School and kills six female students and himself.

(Source: Associated Press and the School Violence Resource Center and The Chronicle of Higher Education)

In the days following the Virginia Tech massacre, dozens of schools, including universities and colleges, were closed down or alerted in response to the possibility of additional shootings. The nervousness of the authorities, whether it proved an overreaction or not, is in part a tacit recognition that the tensions that produced the Virginia shootings exist everywhere in the nation.

And this is to say nothing of the dozens of workplace acts of violence that have occurred in recent years. Only on Friday a NASA contract worker at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, after apparently receiving a poor job review, smuggled a handgun into an office building and fatally shot a man before killing himself. A second hostage escaped with minor injuries. One week before the Virginia Tech tragedy, a former employee walked into an accounting firm in Troy, Michigan, in suburban Detroit, and opened fire, killing a woman and wounding two other employees.

Are these social problems or are they not?

Jeff Jacoby is seeking in a cowardly fashion to close down the discussion about Virginia Tech. This horrific event has taken place, the latest in a series of similar episodes, and no one in the media wants to talk about it. Jacoby and the overwhelming majority of his confreres in the media, conservative and liberal alike, are intellectual bankrupts, hiding behind the tragedy, unwilling and incapable of taking an honest look at American reality.

Jacoby is not alone in hollering “Shut up!” in the direction of would-be commentators. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer, another inveterate reactionary, began his piece Friday like this: “What can be said about the Virginia Tech massacre? Very little. What should be said? Even less. The lives of 32 innocents, chosen randomly and without purpose, are extinguished most brutally by a deeply disturbed gunman. With an event such as this, consisting of nothing but suffering and tragedy, the only important questions are those of theodicy, of divine justice.” This didn’t prevent the columnist from carrying on in his habitually unpleasant and misanthropic style for another 725 words.

The accusation of “anti-Americanism” leveled against the WSWS is the default setting of the McCarthyite witch-hunter. The more background material that emerges, the more it becomes clear that Cho Seung-Hui, the gunman in Virginia, was affected by social inequality and the generally grotesque state of social relations in America.

The New York Times reported Sunday that after Cho’s parents arrived in the US in 1992 with their two children, “They found jobs in the dry-cleaning business and worked the longest of hours.... The goal, of course, was to own one’s own business. But it did not happen for Seung-Tae Cho. He began as a presser—an 8 a.m.-to-10 p.m. job—and that is what he is today. His wife worked in the same capacity until a few years ago, when she accepted a job in a high school cafeteria so the family could have medical insurance. They lived in a nondescript row house in a modest section of town [Centreville, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC], friendly but not overly sociable.”

The article continued: “The Korean community of Centreville is a high-aspiring one, and nothing matters more than bright futures for its children. The area is speckled with tutoring academies—‘Believe & Achieve,’ ‘Ivy Academy’—high SAT scores and road maps to elite colleges. The local Korean papers publish lists of students admitted to Ivy League institutions. Mr. Cho’s older sister, Sun-Kyung Cho, went to Princeton and made the lists, but not him.”

Cho had his own personal torments, some of them perhaps physiologically based, but the manner in which his paranoia and sense of injustice emerged has everything to do with the character of present-day life in America. What does a young person, even the most mentally stable, confront today in the US?

A nation in which one’s accumulation of wealth is the measure of all things; in which, yes, the ruling elite demonstrates every day by word and deed all over the globe that “in achieving one’s aims, any sort of ruthlessness is legitimate”; in which cutthroat competition in schools and the workplace prevails, where anyone who falls behind a step is left to his own devices; in which no helping hand for the weak or defenseless is ever extended; in which official culture and the media attempts relentlessly to dehumanize and brutalize its consumers; in which college campuses are sharply divided between haves and have-nots, with the former lording it over the latter.

Recent research suggests compellingly complex links between social inequality and mental health problems. For example, in a 2002 issue of Psychiatric Services, a journal of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Carl I. Cohen, professor of psychiatry at the State University of New York (SUNY) Health Science Center in Brooklyn, concludes, “Regardless of causality, studies have consistently shown that socioeconomic factors affect the course and outcome of mental disorders.”

An article in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2001, based on work carried out at the Division of Psychiatry, University of Bristol, concluded that “Indicators of social inequality at birth are associated with increased risk of adult-onset schizophrenia, suggesting that environmental factors are important determinants of schizophrenic disorders.”

An international study summarized in the American Journal of Epidemiology, “Socioeconomic Inequalities in Depression: A Meta-Analysis,” in 2003, observed “Socioeconomic inequality in depression is heterogeneous and varies according to the way psychiatric disorder is measured, to the definition and measurement of SES [socioeconomic status], and to contextual features such as region and time. Nonetheless, the authors found compelling evidence for socioeconomic inequality in depression. Strategies for tackling inequality in depression are needed, especially in relation to the course of the disorder.”

Contrary to Jacoby, a discussion on the roots of the Virginia Tech mass killings, including the growth of social inequality, is vital. The coverage of this event on the WSWS has generated a considerable response from readers, including young people. As part of the effort to create a different social climate in the US, we will pursue this issue.
link (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/virg-a23.shtml)

Why nobbody in this boards don't comment on these root causes instead of attacking/defending guns ?

bcbm

23rd April 2007, 19:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:50 am
Why nobbody in this boards don't comment on these root causes instead of attacking/defending guns ?
Um...

the lesson is that Capitalist society is fucked and breeds horribly alienated people, especially in certain situations where extreme value is placed on conformity with social norms.

Kia

24th April 2007, 09:06

Freakzoid

While this isn't what I was talking about, but since you brought it up anyways I will. What I was talking about you posted but then didn't even comment on, which I am going to assume is because it actually shows that you are wrong. Now, you are using the logic that since guns kill people then by that sane logic you should also be all for the banning of vehicles because they kill and injure far far more people. And those are not even on purpose. And then don't forget all the times that vehicles have been using them to commit crimes.

Quickly, didn't comment on it because i skipped over the post when I originally read the thread..then i forgot about it till you mentioned it. Okay, what were you talking about?
My logic is this...gun's cons outweigh the pros. While cars do kill more people they serve enough of a beneficial purpose that they do not need to be banned. My logic isn't that because something kills something that it should be banned..if it was so Id have to be for banning everything almost. Why in the world would I have such a logic anyways?

Did I say everyone? Although I do believe that we are coming upon a time where that will be true. A spear!? Are you kidding me? On top of the obsurdity of that, what is to stop someone from killing people with spears?

Americans hunting for food? I don't think so. A large society cannot support itself by hunting. America has a large enough population (one of the largest in the world) that livestock is needed. Civilizations since 8000BC and possibly before have relied on livestock to provided the needed animal products to sustain themselves.
My spear statement was just a small example of ALTERNATIVE WAYS to hunt. Its worked for thousands of years I don't see why it cant work now. Other options would be, bows, animal traps (probably most effective), hunting dogs, etc.. etc.. etc...
A spear would kill someone..but in the case of v tech shooting..i highly doubt 33 people. Someone with a knife or spear could probably only kill maybe 1-3 people before they were subdued by the 30+ students that each class probably had.

black coffee black metal

And that something is giving more power and dominance to the state? Yeah, no thanks.

Sort of a response to what I perceive to be your general view against gun control. I think one of your main points against it was that it would give power to the state and more laws/control over the people. I've thought about it a bit and realized that I agree with you that this would be a negative effect. My problem was assuming that the current gov (America "democratic system", not the bush administration or whatever you want to call it) would be able to use such a law without abusing it...ha. However, this doesn't change my stance on the subject just how to apply it in a more fair way. Would be creating a community organization that asks the public to abstain from owning guns (along with information on the pros and cons of gun ownership) be more of a fair and local way to handle the gun issue? The prob with this is how effective it would be. Any suggestions? Maybe your pro gun and just offering another argument against gun control.

bcbm

24th April 2007, 15:20

Sort of a response to what I perceive to be your general view against gun control. I think one of your main points against it was that it would give power to the state and more laws/control over the people. I've thought about it a bit and realized that I agree with you that this would be a negative effect. My problem was assuming that the current gov (America "democratic system", not the bush administration or whatever you want to call it) would be able to use such a law without abusing it...ha. However, this doesn't change my stance on the subject just how to apply it in a more fair way. Would be creating a community organization that asks the public to abstain from owning guns (along with information on the pros and cons of gun ownership) be more of a fair and local way to handle the gun issue? The prob with this is how effective it would be. Any suggestions? Maybe your pro gun and just offering another argument against gun control.

I don't think any solution with begins and ends with teaching about the "pros and cons" will get anywhere- such organizations already exist and we still see a large amount of gun crime. If you want a community program to do something about gun crime, then it should be one focused on empowering and renovating inner-city and rural areas that have become breeding grounds for social alienation and disorganization and thus, violence. If you want to attack school shootings, then you should focus on groups that will alleviate the social pressure and tension school brings in regards to grades, conformity, class, etc.

Vargha Poralli

24th April 2007, 15:31

Originally posted by black coffee black metal+April 23, 2007 11:41 pm--> (black coffee black metal @ April 23, 2007 11:41 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 11:50 am
Why nobbody in this boards don't comment on these root causes instead of attacking/defending guns ?
Um...

the lesson is that Capitalist society is fucked and breeds horribly alienated people, especially in certain situations where extreme value is placed on conformity with social norms. [/b]
Well what I meant was a very detailed analysis of this event. This thread turned in to just about gun control.

One thing I agree with is Guns don't kill the people all by themselves. If India didn't have gun controls like US there would be these type of Incidents almost every day.

But the real question from me to those who uphold the current Us stance on guns(with the premise that it will be useful for revolution) is does these things really help our cause ?

How is this incident viewed by the general public of America ?

How could the Anarchists or Communists deal with this type of situation in the future ? How you will reach out the people ? How you will explain that this situation has its roots in the social structure of the American society ?

It seems like you are more concerned with Legality of owning Guns.

bcbm

24th April 2007, 15:42

But the real question from me to those who uphold the current Us stance on guns(with the premise that it will be useful for revolution) is does these things really help our cause ?

How is this incident viewed by the general public of America ?

How could the Anarchists or Communists deal with this type of situation in the future ? How you will reach out the people ? How you will explain that this situation has its roots in the social structure of the American society ?

There's been a lot of analysis from a number of groups. The one you posted and one on Infoshop.org are some of the better I've seen. There's also a lot of books on the subject that are decent, if not a bit liberal, but they show the underlying sociological and psychological motivations. Like I said earlier, these sort of incidents would continue if guns were banned- the killers would just have to work a little harder- because the problem isn't easy access to guns, but the complete social alienation and despair felt by these individuals, as caused by societal pressures and those around them. Its no coincidence that most of these shootings have happened at high schools in rural or suburban but socially isolated areas. Young people in these areas face tremendous pressure to conform and succeed, particularly in "popular" past times, like high school sports that adults in the area place a lot of importance in. Young people who can't or don't conform to those expectations are pushed down and harassed by everyone and when in the insular atmosphere of a socially isolated town, they feel as though, by not conforming, they have no future and no one to reach out too. Eventually this builds in to a rage, or depression and they simply lash out in violent ways. I would imagine the V-Tech shooter comes from a similar background, and if his parents clung to more traditional views of Korean education, that seems almost certain.

It seems like you are more concerned with Legality of owning Guns.

I find it annoying for people to rely on the cop-out solution of banning guns when the roots of the problem lay much deeper and have absolutely nothing to do with guns, beyond the most insignificant association. Its disgusting when gun-control proponents try to make political capital from these tragedies, because they never address the real problem. Indeed, if most of them had to, it would undermine their basic assumptions about society.

Vargha Poralli

24th April 2007, 15:52

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 24, 2007 08:12 pm
I would imagine the V-Tech shooter comes from a similar background, and if his parents clung to more traditional views of Korean education, that seems almost certain.
Could this have anything to do with racism ?

And how does the racists and conservative response to this tragedy ? Given the perparator is from one of the minority groups ? How about the victims of this incident ? I know one of the professor is an Indian Tamil which has been sensationalised here.

But seriously this incident really broke the myth which has been prevalent here that USA is a perfect society which had given rise to the desire of many students to go there.

It seems like you are more concerned with Legality of owning Guns.

I find it annoying for people to rely on the cop-out solution of banning guns when the roots of the problem lay much deeper and have absolutely nothing to do with guns, beyond the most insignificant association. Its disgusting when gun-control proponents try to make political capital from these tragedies, because they never address the real problem. Indeed, if most of them had to, it would undermine their basic assumptions about society.

I agree. Similar thing happened in slashdot too. But I expected something better from here.

bcbm

24th April 2007, 16:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 08:52 am
Could this have anything to do with racism ?
Maybe. I was more referring to the education-style that I understand to be prevalent in South Korean families; one that places a lot of importance on grades, studying, success in school, etc at the expense of other activities. This can also extend to sports. I think it is similar to Japan? I haven't looked at the subject a lot, I've just known people who've gone to/lived in both places, and also have a friend who tutors Korean students in the US. I think that emphasis, combined with the other factors I mentioned, could certainly produce an extreme degree of alienation and desperation in an individual.

And how does the racists and conservative response to this tragedy ? Given the perparator is from one of the minority groups ? How about the victims of this incident ? I know one of the professor is an Indian Tamil which has been sensationalised here.

I haven't been reading too much from their side of the fence. I'd imagine conservatives are just blaming him as a "nutcase," although Fox News has always been sure to point out his racial background. The racists are probably saying the predictable shit they always do.

But seriously this incident really broke the myth which has been prevalent here that USA is a perfect society which had given rise to the desire of many students to go there.

Interesting, since this is a pretty common occurrence here. :unsure:

But I expected something better from here.

Yeah... hope I'm helping to get a better debate rolling on the root causes. I hadn't actually thought or read much about the incident when I jumped in to the thread and I really only did because nobody else seemed to be challenging some of the claims being made.

Kia

24th April 2007, 22:28

I don't think any solution with begins and ends with teaching about the "pros and cons" will get anywhere- such organizations already exist and we still see a large amount of gun crime. If you want a community program to do something about gun crime, then it should be one focused on empowering and renovating inner-city and rural areas that have become breeding grounds for social alienation and disorganization and thus, violence. If you want to attack school shootings, then you should focus on groups that will alleviate the social pressure and tension school brings in regards to grades, conformity, class, etc.
Yeah, I remember one from elementary school that asked all parents not to keep guns at home. What I'm saying though is something larger then these organizations. I have no clue what or how, just a vague guess that something larger would be able to make a more effective change.
Anyways, enough on gun control. Its a debate in itself.

Root causes for his actions are going to be hard to figure out (only he knew why) speculations can be made though. Some ridiculous ones have already begun to surface. Oldboy, a Korean movie that has the main character in a similar pose to the one made by Cho in the images he sent, has already been made.
NY Times Blog and photos (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/updates-on-virginia-tech/)
The comparison is utter nonsense though. The only thing similiar is the photo. I own the movie and have seen it multiple times, the only other possible connection between the two would be that the movie (and the trilogy it comes from) are about vengeance..but thats pushing it. If you havn't seen it I suggest checking it out.

Ill post the a link to the video he sent to msnbc and try and find the plays he wrote..both should be good insight.

Kropotkin Has a Posse

25th April 2007, 00:15

It's really aggravating because when people dicuss the root causes (status quo people on the TV, I mean) they point the finger at films or video games. This seems like an almost purposeful distraction friom the true root of gun violence, which is society on the whole and not just one little aspect of it.

Janus

25th April 2007, 00:56

Could this have anything to do with racism ?
I don't think that racism was a factor directly as some of the victims were foreigners (one of them was East Asian). However, racism did seem to be an implied factor in his motivations as he made references to "doing it for his brothers and sisters". But really, I think the emphasis on class and racial differences are misplaced in that this student was obviously suffering from certain mental problems.

freakazoid

25th April 2007, 04:59

Anyways, enough on gun control. Its a debate in itself.

Actually this thread is also for "gun control debate"

Quickly, didn't comment on it because i skipped over the post when I originally read the thread..then i forgot about it till you mentioned it.

Oh I see, thats ok.

My logic is this...gun's cons outweigh the pros. While cars do kill more people they serve enough of a beneficial purpose that they do not need to be banned.

The same applies with guns. Are you saying that 43,200 deaths is acceptable? And that 2.68 million! injuries is acceptable? Here is how many people you said had died in gun related homicides.

To give an idea of how devastating guns are in America.....the CDC puts the number of homicide related deaths by guns for 2004 at 11,624. Source
This probably doesn't include suicide by guns or people killed by the cops. a list of the last couple of years of gun related homicides.
2003 - 11,920
2002 - 11,829
2001 - 11,348
2000 - 10,801
1999 - 10,828
CDC Leading Cause of Death Search
Tell me how you are perfectly willing to ban firearms do to 11,264 deaths but not willing to ban vehicles which have 43,200 deaths? That is almost 4 times as much!!

My logic isn't that because something kills something that it should be banned..if it was so Id have to be for banning everything almost. Why in the world would I have such a logic anyways?

For the same reason that you think that banning firearms is a good thing?

Okay, what were you talking about?

And here is what I was talking about.

1999 Statistics (Per 1,000 residents):

DC - 81
Prince George's County MD - 53
Alexandria City VA - 47
Arlington City VA - 33
Montgomery County MD - 31
Prince William Country VA - 29
Loudoun County VA - 24
Fairfax County VA - 24

This was pasted from, http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/art.../0800guncon.htm
"The issue of continued high crime in the aforementioned areas is especially disconcerting when one compares the crime rates in these gun control Utopias to the crime rates in areas that have not gone the route of extreme gun control. In almost all cases, the areas in the U.S. with the fewest gun control laws and also the highest gun ownership rates also have the lowest crime levels. One of the most interesting comparisons is that of Washington, D.C. with its gun bans since the 1970s and the D.C. suburbs in Virginia, which has very little gun control. Even though gun ownership is at a high rate and there are few gun control laws in the Virginia suburbs of D.C., just across the state line where gun ownership is almost non-existent and gun control has reached extreme levels the crime rate is many multiples higher. Some try to turn this argument around in an attempt to blame the crime problems in Washington, D.C. on weak gun laws in Virginia, but the reality is that Virginia with all of its guns and few laws does not have the crime problem that plagues Washington, D.C. and its gun bans. If guns are the problem, then why is it that those areas with the most guns have the lowest crime levels? "

bcbm

25th April 2007, 21:41

Root causes for his actions are going to be hard to figure out (only he knew why) speculations can be made though.

It seems pretty clear-cut to me... most school shootings have similar factors involved, as I mentioned above.

YSR

25th April 2007, 23:01

I'm jumping in late but:

Check this fantastic analysis of gun control efforts in the United States from an anti-imperialist anarchist perspective.
http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...s-re-arming-jim (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=disarming-robert-williams-re-arming-jim)

Really good stuff.

Red Tung

1st May 2007, 09:03

Pretty much what bcbm said, the kind of person stupid enough to shoot someone by accident would probably had done something similar with anything more dangerous than a pair of safety scissors. As tempting as it is legislating to the lowest common denominator will always lead to stupid and restrictive laws in the name of "safety".

Sure, what about kids shooting themselves with guns they think are toys?

By the way, I don't buy the whole argument that guns make you safer or gives you more effective means to fight against an oppressive government.

1. For you to be truly safe, that is not feared being killed you'll also need to wear kevlar vest 24/7 which makes about as much sense as wearing a life preserver 24/7. It you create the environment in which everybody can carry a gun into public then its the same analogy as if you flood everything so what is before a relatively safe environment is now dangerous so you need to have a life preserver just to make sure you don't drown.

2. The majority of guns sold in public are semi-automatic rifles and hand guns and these are basically pea shooters if pitted against a modern mechanized army. You're only hope to avoid a bloodbath is to win sections of the army to your side. Good luck with that given the uneducated rednecks that fill the ranks who get teary-eyed over the national anthem and a pretty flag.

Oh yeah... for the rapist situation, in a civilized society where there is at least some concern for the welfare of fellow citizens (not the "everyone look after number one", American society obviously) an unarmed rapist would be jumped on and beaten up the moment he tried anything against a potential victim. And guess what? Rapist target anybody they see as an opportunity so if women are armed they target your kids going to the playground to play as child molesters do. What's the solution? Armed every kid on the playground against pedophiles? So, instead of playground fights you get playground massacres?

freakazoid

1st May 2007, 13:44

Sure, what about kids shooting themselves with guns they think are toys?

Why would a child have the gun in the first place? This is like saying that we should ban cars because a child could start it up and kill himself or others.

By the way, I don't buy the whole argument that guns make you safer or gives you more effective means to fight against an oppressive government.

I have posted things to the contrary.

QUOTE
Pretty much what bcbm said, the kind of person stupid enough to shoot someone by accident would probably had done something similar with anything more dangerous than a pair of safety scissors. As tempting as it is legislating to the lowest common denominator will always lead to stupid and restrictive laws in the name of "safety".

Sure, what about kids shooting themselves with guns they think are toys?

By the way, I don't buy the whole argument that guns make you safer or gives you more effective means to fight against an oppressive government.

1. For you to be truly safe, that is not feared being killed you'll also need to wear kevlar vest 24/7 which makes about as much sense as wearing a life preserver 24/7.

Are you telling me that I am not allowed to where a bullet resistant vest? At the knob creek machine gun shoot I almost bought one, but I was running short on cash and I plan to get one the next time. Also who said that people are going to be forced to where one? This is not an actual argument against gun ownership.

QUOTE
Pretty much what bcbm said, the kind of person stupid enough to shoot someone by accident would probably had done something similar with anything more dangerous than a pair of safety scissors. As tempting as it is legislating to the lowest common denominator will always lead to stupid and restrictive laws in the name of "safety".

Sure, what about kids shooting themselves with guns they think are toys?

By the way, I don't buy the whole argument that guns make you safer or gives you more effective means to fight against an oppressive government.

1. For you to be truly safe, that is not feared being killed you'll also need to wear kevlar vest 24/7 which makes about as much sense as wearing a life preserver 24/7. It you create the environment in which everybody can carry a gun into public then its the same analogy as if you flood everything so what is before a relatively safe environment is now dangerous so you need to have a life preserver just to make sure you don't drown.

2. The majority of guns sold in public are semi-automatic rifles and hand guns and these are basically pea shooters if pitted against a modern mechanized army. You're only hope to avoid a bloodbath is to win sections of the army to your side. Good luck with that given the uneducated rednecks that fill the ranks who get teary-eyed over the national anthem and a pretty flag.

Thats it, the US government is stronger than us communists so we should just give in. Capitalism is to strong for us, why resist. :rolleyes: Wow. Why don't you tell that Che? That because the government has more advanced weaponry that we should just give up. And again, this is not an actual argument against gun ownership.

Oh yeah... for the rapist situation, in a civilized society where there is at least some concern for the welfare of fellow citizens (not the "everyone look after number one", American society obviously) an unarmed rapist would be jumped on and beaten up the moment he tried anything against a potential victim.

Oh thats right, I forgot that rapists do it out in the open where everybody can see. He will even pull out a bull horn and announce to everyone that he is about to rape someone. <_<

And guess what? Rapist target anybody they see as an opportunity so if women are armed they target your kids

1. What if the woman doesn't have kids?
2. You said it yourself, the rapist will leave the woman alone. Which means that the firearm just stopped a rape, :D
3. How does the rapist know that the woman is armed? Some people would openly carry and some concealed carry, it keeps the would be rapists guessing. In a town that denies you your 2nd Amendment right the rapists knows that no one is carrying and that any woman is fare game. In a town that allows anyone to be armed, openly or concealed, the would be rapist doesn't know if the person in carrying or not.
and 4. Are you saying that you would rather have a woman raped than defend herself with a firearm?

What's the solution? Armed every kid on the playground against pedophiles? So, instead of playground fights you get playground massacres?

Why are the children left unattended in the first place?

Red Tung

2nd May 2007, 09:42

Ultimately, you fight violence with more civilization not more guns. Probably, the U.S. is too far gone as a society to hope for something like that at the present moment.

But, given that you do manage to overturn the present order and build something better to take it's place (hopefully with your semi-autos and pistols. :lol: ), do you think it is a civilized society to be paranoid at everyone who you always have to keep in mind as being a potential rapist, murderer or kidnapper? It's one thing to go to a shooting range, but to always carry a firearm just to make sure someone else doesn't kill me with theirs first? If they do manage to get off the first shot I'll be dead so it wouldn't matter if somebody took revenge for me. But, the fact that this kind of violence happens in the first place means I will not be living in a civilized society revolution or not.

freakazoid

2nd May 2007, 10:00

do you think it is a civilized society to be paranoid at everyone who you always have to keep in mind as being a potential rapist, murderer or kidnapper?

It is you who is the paranoid one. You do not trust people with firearms.

It's one thing to go to a shooting range, but to always carry a firearm just to make sure someone else doesn't kill me with theirs first?

That and to prevent rape, robbery, muggings, etc.

If they do manage to get off the first shot I'll be dead

Bullets are not magical peaces of metal that instantly kill anyone who is shot. And even if I was to die defending myself, SO WHAT! Who are you to make that decision for me! Also just because they get off the first shot doesn't mean that they will hit you.

Interesting how you ignore everything else that I has posted. You know, all of those pesky facts about how people owning firearms and being able to carry them actually reduce crime, since criminals prefer the weak person who can not defend themselves, go figure.

Red Tung

2nd May 2007, 23:47

It is you who is the paranoid one. You do not trust people with firearms.

No, I just don't trust people period. Firearms just makes them more lethal.

That and to prevent rape, robbery, muggings, etc.

How fast can you pull your gun out of your holster, take aim and shoot if they grab you from behind? You need to execute three steps just to use lethal force in crime "prevention" while anybody who takes you by surprise will often get you down in one. Criminals may be evil, but they aren't stupid.

There are better alternatives available for deterring criminals and for preventing crime like hidden public surveillance cameras. Criminals don't like to get caught.

Bullets are not magical peaces of metal that instantly kill anyone who is shot. And even if I was to die defending myself, SO WHAT! Who are you to make that decision for me! Also just because they get off the first shot doesn't mean that they will hit you.

Interesting how you ignore everything else that I has posted. You know, all of those pesky facts about how people owning firearms and being able to carry them actually reduce crime, since criminals prefer the weak person who can not defend themselves, go figure.

So, if I were to walk around in your post-revolutionary society without a gun I would be fair game for someone who can do me harm?

Some post-revolutionary society you got there! It seems more like balance of terror and organized barbarism to me.

freakazoid

3rd May 2007, 23:22

No, I just don't trust people period.

So then you are the paranoid one, no wonder you think that Big Brother should keep tabs on everyone.

There are better alternatives available for deterring criminals and for preventing crime like hidden public surveillance cameras.

!? Yes, good 'ol Big Brother. B B B B... sound familier?

Criminals don't like to get caught.

They also don't like for there victoms to fight back.

So, if I were to walk around in your post-revolutionary society without a gun I would be fair game for someone who can do me harm?

Umm... yeah. You know, not being able to defend yourself kind of opens yourself up to the greater possibility of being harmed.

bcbm

3rd May 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 01, 2007 02:03 am
Sure, what about kids shooting themselves with guns they think are toys?
The problem there is irresponsible gun owners, not guns. Lots of kids accidentally drink bleach too, or cut themselves.

1. For you to be truly safe, that is not feared being killed you'll also need to wear kevlar vest 24/7 which makes about as much sense as wearing a life preserver 24/7. It you create the environment in which everybody can carry a gun into public then its the same analogy as if you flood everything so what is before a relatively safe environment is now dangerous so you need to have a life preserver just to make sure you don't drown.

You don't understand the logic of everyone being able to carry a gun- it makes criminals less likely to go after individuals because they may be armed. In a society with no guns, such a risk doesn't exist. It isn't about making everything into a shoot out.

The majority of guns sold in public are semi-automatic rifles and hand guns and these are basically pea shooters if pitted against a modern mechanized army.

Both are pretty useful in urban combat situations, actually, and would precipitate the acquiring of better weapons- a method tested and proved by the resistance movements across Europe during WWII.

You're only hope to avoid a bloodbath is to win sections of the army to your side. Good luck with that given the uneducated rednecks that fill the ranks who get teary-eyed over the national anthem and a pretty flag.

It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but people ultimately act in their self-interests and if shit gets serious, those individuals will probably find interests outside of the army.

Or are you suggesting the US is an entirely forgone and fucked country? You could make a similar argument for most of Europe, probably.

By the way, do you think most rural folks in the third world are "uneducated" in a perjorative sense too? I don't appreciate your classist slang.

Oh yeah... for the rapist situation, in a civilized society where there is at least some concern for the welfare of fellow citizens (not the "everyone look after number one", American society obviously) an unarmed rapist would be jumped on and beaten up the moment he tried anything against a potential victim.

You clearly don't have any idea how rape actually happens in real life, and seem to be relying on some sort of Hollywood image of rape. Rape isn't usually men in the bushes jumping out and dragging a screaming woman into an alley.

And guess what? Rapist target anybody they see as an opportunity so if women are armed they target your kids going to the playground to play as child molesters do.

Actually, rapists generally have a specific target in mind, usually a friend, lover or spouse, in fact, or at least a pretty specific demographic. They aren't going to magically become pedophiles, because that is an entirely different sexual tendency.

There are better alternatives available for deterring criminals and for preventing crime like hidden public surveillance cameras. Criminals don't like to get caught.

So far you've suggested taking power away from citizens and giving more power to our class enemies in the form of increased surveillance and more effective law enforcement. This is "Revolutionary Left," I think you might be at the wrong place.