Your thoughts on gun control

[BigHarry]

Greetings all, Im new here and I wanted both state my views on the issue of gun control and see what some of you're bieliefs are. In my mind gun control is a form of facism. It really isn't about guns at all but is a way in which the goverment try's to render the people defenseless. In my mind self defense is a right which all human beings have. Firearms are effetive tools for this, and, are also an effective means of self preservation if you hunt for food. If you look back at history all dictators, anyone who commited genocide or opressed the people made gun control a priority. A disarmed population cant fight back (look at the holacaust). This is why it frustrates me when I sometimes read the writings of self proclaimed leftists who thirst for tighter control over the ownership of firearms. When in fact it has been shown that in countrys such as Great Britain where handguns are banned violent crime has risen extensivley. I've been a responsiblle gun owner all my life, I've never hurt anyone with a firearm, nor do I ever want to have to. I simply like the security it offers and the ability I know I can rely on myself for my own saftey. Thoughts??

[spartan]

There should be guidelines in place when purchasing firearms for safety reasons (You dont want a recently released nutcase getting there hand on a firearm) but i agree that gun control is about the government restricting the personal autonomy of its citizens, which every leftist should naturally oppose as increased state interference in its citizens lives will only be a bad thing for us.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Welcome to the Boards! :)

Most all posters on this forum will agree with you on the issue, as will I.

Guns are dangerous weapons and undoubtedly assist in the generation of pain and suffering in some circumstance, and this is most certainly an unfortunate happening.

However, the "right" to bear arms is of fundamental importance for any revolutionary leftist. If and when the time comes, how can the proletariat fight against well trained, well equipped armies of the bourgeoisie without weapons in hand?

Maybe your not as radical as the majority of the posters on here as noted by your stress on personal self-defense and "rights" but you make an important point.

Also, liberals are not leftists, they are bourgeois scum and a short-sighted "middle-class".

[Cossack]

I want to post something related, The U.S wants tighter gun control to prevent school shootings. The problem isn't the weapon it's the person wielding it. And the society we live in creates those

[Dust Bunnies]

I totally support freedom of guns. Add a few regulations so insane people can't get them. Its the person not the gun. Its society's fault (and Virginia's Tech shooter was complaining about the rich and how the poor suffers so another reason for Communism, cut down on school shootings)

I could imagine this if firearms were more legal...

Shooter: Time to die you meany meany mother fu
Student: *interrupts him midsentance and unloads an entire clip of an AK-47* Problem solved!

:P

Maybe not AK-47s but atleast handguns.

[redSHARP]

i think the laws are fine the way they are. tighter and we have no guns, looser and the right wingers have assault weapons (or more of them!!).

[3A CCCP]

Greetings all, Im new here and I wanted both state my views on the issue of gun control and see what some of you're bieliefs are. In my mind gun control is a form of facism. It really isn't about guns at all but is a way in which the goverment try's to render the people defenseless. In my mind self defense is a right which all human beings have. Firearms are effetive tools for this, and, are also an effective means of self preservation if you hunt for food. If you look back at history all dictators, anyone who commited genocide or opressed the people made gun control a priority. A disarmed population cant fight back (look at the holacaust). This is why it frustrates me when I sometimes read the writings of self proclaimed leftists who thirst for tighter control over the ownership of firearms. When in fact it has been shown that in countrys such as Great Britain where handguns are banned violent crime has risen extensivley. I've been a responsiblle gun owner all my life, I've never hurt anyone with a firearm, nor do I ever want to have to. I simply like the security it offers and the ability I know I can rely on myself for my own saftey. Thoughts??

Comrade:

In the Soviet Union I never felt the need to carry a handgun for personal protection or keep firearms at home to defend my family. There was a sense of safety and security there that made the ownership of guns for personal protection a non-issue.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding life in the United States. Economic oppression, racial/ethnic discrimination, the cult of individualism, and the lust for the accumulation of wealth by any means has spawned an ever increasing violent criminal element that threatens the safety and very lives of American working people across the country.

I strongly believe that working people in the U.S. should arm themselves pursuant to the legislation in their particular state and locality. American law enforcement agencies exist to make a report after the fact. They will not be there to prevent or stop a violent crime against you or your loved ones. The only one who can protect you is YOU!

To keep it simple I would recommend every comrade have at least the following weapons:

1. For personal protection on the street a Smith & Wesson, model 60, 2 inch barrel revolver. It's easily hidden and has a 5 round capacity (either .357 magnum or regular .38 caliber rounds). Being a revolver, it is safer for the inexperienced shooter and will NEVER jam (as a semi-auto pistol has the potential to do).

2. For home protection get a Mossberg 501A 12 gauge pump shotgun. This particular model is made specifically for home protection and has a short (but legal!) 20 inch barrel and a 9 round capacity. (Don't confuse the M-501A with the regular M-501. The 501A has the heavy military barrel and a trigger assembly with military specs.)

The above two firarms should be sufficient for most people for basic self and home protection.

However, when the meltdown of Western civilization occurs I will have an AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifle on my shoulder! Mikhail Kalashnikov's invention is the most reliable and deadly rifle ever made. (Even the bourgeois "Military Channel" rated the AK-47 the #1 rifle of all time. The U.S. M16 was rated second behind the Soviet AK!)

If any comrade opts for the AK-47, I would say that most builds available in the U.S. are OK. The only advice I will give here is to avoid the Romanian WASR and any Romanian AK-47 variants. To put it mildly - they suck! One AK owner when asked what WASR stands for jokingly replied, "What A Shitty Rifle." I would concur with his opinion.

By the way, keep in mind that any AK-47 purchased in the U.S. will have a semi-automatic receiver to make it legal. So, don't think that you will be getting a sub-machine gun. If you do, you will also be getting about 20 years of hard time if the authorities find out!

The semi-auto AK-47s fire fast enough and you can go through a 40 round mag in 10 seconds just pulling the trigger as fast as you can. (Anyone interested in discussing firearms with me in more detail is welcome to contact me by private message or at my internet address.)

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[jake williams]

I'd guess I'm in a minority here but I'm completely in favour of gun control, and a lot of it. Whatever hypotheticals you might be able to come up with, mostly guns are used aggressively and not in "self-defence", certainly not legitimate self-defence.

[Kami]

I'd guess I'm in a minority here but I'm completely in favour of gun control, and a lot of it. Whatever hypotheticals you might be able to come up with, mostly guns are used aggressively and not in "self-defence", certainly not legitimate self-defence.

In practice, you may be right. That, however, does not give the right to restrict the freedom of others who have not used firearms aggressively.

[BigHarry]

For me it has always been an issue of the ability to defend yourself. I am against violence unless you're life or that of a loved one is in jeapordy.

[jake williams]

In practice, you may be right. That, however, does not give the right to restrict the freedom of others who have not used firearms aggressively.
I understand the theory behind what you're saying, but very pragmatically: gun control correlates negatively with gun crime. Guns in people's homes are much too regularly used on family members (or even their owners on themselves), and quite rarely to prevent violent crimes. The closest thing usually achieved to "self-defence" tends to be shooting a kid running across someone else's lawn. How many times have you heard about someone using a gun in legitimate self-defence, and how often do you hear about it being used in domestic violence or other violent crimes - or even arguably misused in situations that might technically be considered "self-defence" but for which the case for lethal force is very weak.

[Kami]

I have never heard of a gun being used in self defence, though likely because I'm in a country where gun ownership is heavily restricted.

Guns here are owned by four types of people; Police (who have 'misused' them, notably in the infamous case of Jean Charles de Menezes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)), Criminals (Whose purpose for owning them is oft to 'misuse' them), Toffs and Farmers.

My primary concern here is were the coercive force lies. If crime rates dropped or soared, it would be secondary to the removal of the governments monopoly of power. Of course, I wouldn't call for a total lack of restriction; nobody wants guns in the hands of the mentally unstable. But how they are used, and who on, are, as I say, secondary to the fact that they are there, in the hands of the people.

[Vanguard1917]

Free and unrestricted gun ownership is a basic revolutionary demand.


I understand the theory behind what you're saying, but very pragmatically: gun control correlates negatively with gun crime.

There's no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'd guess I'm in a minority here but I'm completely in favour of gun control, and a lot of it. Whatever hypotheticals you might be able to come up with, mostly guns are used aggressively and not in "self-defence", certainly not legitimate self-defence.Some people do use weapons in an aggressive way, but why should everyone else be forced to give up the right of self-defense because a small minority misuses weapons? We should use background checks, so that people who have a history of mental illness, or have been convicted of violent crimes, do not have access to guns. Opposition to gun ownership is a reactionary position, as it allows the state to attain a monopoly on the use of force, and, given that the state is an instrument of class oppression, this signifies a defeat for the proletariat. How will the proletariat be able to take power if they do not have access to weapons? In the absence of gun ownership, and a widespread revolt of the armed forces, the proletariat will be unable to challenge the state's monopoly on the use of force.

In truth, there is no evidence to suggest that the widespread ownership of guns will always entail a higher incidence of gun crime. In Switzerland it is mandatory for all male militiamen to keep a firearm and ammunition at home, and every militiaman is required to undergo firearms training every year to ensure they are able to defend the country if military conflict occurs. However, in comparison to other countries, including those countries in which gun ownership is not widespread, Switzerland has a low rate of homicide. In the year 2006, the Police recorded only thirty four killings or attempted killings using firearms, lower than the killings arising from the use of bladed weapons. This shows that there is no simple causal relationship between gun ownership and gun crime.

Interestingly, Adolf Hitler cited the widespread ownership of guns (commonly described as a "porcupine" strategy) as one of the factors that discouraged him from invading Switzerland.


I have never heard of a gun being used in self defence, though likely because I'm in a country where gun ownership is heavily restricted.The UK has a higher homicide rate than Switzerland - further evidence of the absence of a simple causal relationship.

[RHIZOMES]

The UK has a higher homicide rate than Switzerland - further evidence of the absence of a simple causal relationship.

Also, Canada has just as many guns as America. And a staggeringly lower homicide rate.

[Colonello Buendia]

I am of the opinion that guns shouldn't be freely available but we should be able to purchase them. basically a slightly better set of laws than those of America, guns shouldn't be self defence weapons, they should be kept until time of revolution and then should be used to attack military barracks and TA centers to procure more advanced weapons and possibly even vehicles. however the problem with the whole if the other kids had guns it wouldn't have happened argument applied earlier to the Virgina Tech shooting is a fallacy because a shoot out in those situations could be more damaging than a few random blasts.

[Vanguard1917]

The UK has a higher homicide rate than Switzerland - further evidence of the absence of a simple causal relationship.


Additionally: Switzerland has higher adult gun ownership rates than the US, and far lower homicide rates. The same goes for Israel.

The Philippines and Mexico have strict gun controls and have far higher homicide rates than the US.

Handguns are banned in Washington DC and the city has a murder rate of 80 per 100,000. Arlington, Virginia has almost no gun controls and the murder rate is 1.6 per 100,000.

Well over 99% of the guns in the US have never been used in a crime. Less than one US gun owner in 3,000 commits homicide.

See this article for some more interesting facts: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4158/

------------

Also, while there's no direct relationship between gun ownership and gun crime, there's a very definite relationship between gun control and ruling class fears of the people (as the article i linked points out).

In Britain, for example, gun controls were introduced in 1920 in response to the threat of Bolshevism. The 1968 Gun Control Act in the US was introduced in large part in response to threat of the Black Panther Party.

[cyu]

Personally, I don't care what effect guns have on crime. Whether it increases it or decreases it isn't as important as the need for the people in a country to fight oppression.

Oppression is a lot harder when all the people have guns.

Then again, if nobody had guns, not even the government, then oppression would also be difficult. The problem with this scenario is that if your leftist country is totally devoid of weapons, and it's surrounded by pro-capitalist governments, then your country will be very vulnerable to invasion.

[piet11111]

an armed population is something for politicians to fear that alone should be reason enough to allow them to have guns.

[BIG BROTHER]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws and the goverment will have them.

The people will be vulnerable.

So that's why I'm against gun control(not that any looney should be able to get one though)

[Red October]

Switzerland is a great example of a society with lots and lots of guns that doesn't have lots and lots of murders either. If you take the time to educate people on how to use and take care of guns responsibly, it makes a big difference.

[Awful Reality]

Gun control is absolutely necessary in Bourgeois regimes as a means of instituting societal control upon the proletariat.

Weapons in a socialist state should be provided and distributed/sold much like other commodities (unless, of course, the subject is mentally insane, etc.). The US constitution did put it well: A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. And of course, remember Marx's definition of freedom: where the state is subjugated to the populace.

Before the Bureaucrats took control and mutilated the workers' state, guns were unregulated in the USSR (1917-1929).

I believe that proper education and social programming can remove most violent crime and make guns simply of military and (sometimes) recreational use.

[Jazzratt]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws and the goverment will have them.

Not only that but in predominantly poor areas that are prone to crime a lot of people will get illegal firearms for self defence anyway because they know that anyone who wished violence upon them would have a gun - all this means for your average person, then, is that it will be harder for them to protect themselves against a foe that's pretty much guaranteed to be armed.

As for the government's guns - well the list for why they shouldn't have them is nigh on endless.

[Fedorov]

Pro-gun all the way :)

[Awful Reality]

Pro-gun all the way :)

Seeing as your name is Fedorov.

[3A CCCP]

I understand the theory behind what you're saying, but very pragmatically: gun control correlates negatively with gun crime. Guns in people's homes are much too regularly used on family members (or even their owners on themselves), and quite rarely to prevent violent crimes. The closest thing usually achieved to "self-defence" tends to be shooting a kid running across someone else's lawn. How many times have you heard about someone using a gun in legitimate self-defence, and how often do you hear about it being used in domestic violence or other violent crimes - or even arguably misused in situations that might technically be considered "self-defence" but for which the case for lethal force is very weak.

Comrade:

That is the sensationalism you read in the newspapers and see on TV in order to get more readers and viewers. The fact of the matter is that legally licensed and trained handgun owners are more law abiding and get into less trouble with the law in general. Only a miniscule number are involved in accidents and crimes with their guns.

I couldn't find the latest evaluation of the Minnesota handgun carry law, but it had very similar findings to the 2005 evaluation of the Ohio handgun carry legislation which confirms my above statements.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail


Evaluation: First 270 days with Ohio's Concealed Handgun License Law
Contributed by Jeff Garvas
Tuesday, 01 March 2005


The Ohio Attorney General's office has released data has issued its annual report on concealed handgun license
issuance for 2004 (April – December). This is the report which is required by Ohio law.



---->Concealed Carry Licensure Statistics Annual Report – 2004 (.pdf)




OFCC's overall assessment:



Despite unnecessary restrictions, OhioCCW is a success!



OFCC has already documented several licensed citizens who have defended their lives when violently attacked. Most
instances of armed self-defense never make headlines.



Ohio CHL-holders have proven to be much more law-abiding than even OFCC predicted they would be. Only 42 CHLs
(0.09%), have been revoked in the first nine months. And just 78 CHLs (0.17%), were suspended for any reason, and
often reinstated later.



Considering the challenges applicants have faced in the first 270 days (and which many still do face), the fact that 45,562
licenses were issued to Ohio residents (0.398% of the population, and nearly 1 percent of eligible [of age] applicants)
sends a strong message that the choice for armed self-defense is in serious demand in our state.



The State of Minnesota passed a similarly restrictive shall-issue concealed carry law in 2003. In that first year, 9,100
new licenses were issued (0.17% of the population). The State of New Mexico began issuing licenses in 2004, and
issued 2,201 licenses (0.11% of the population). Looking farther back in history, the State of Florida issued 33,150
licenses in 1988, the first year of that state's now vaunted (and copied) CCW law.



OhioCCW is proving to be one of the most successful programs in the state. What other consumer protection program,
other than the "do not call" registry, has this kind of participation? Ohio is issuing approximately 175 concealed handgun
licenses PER DAY.

ISSUANCE:

In the first 270 days under the new law, 45,497 standard licenses, and 65 temporary emergency licenses were issued to

[chimx]

The only way they'll get my guns is from my cold dead hands.

[durdenisgod]

touchy subject but im for the use of guns for coup d'e`tat purpuses and personal uses to a certain extent. but am all for regulation of there for.
the government should tremble in fear at the armed organized masses.
but i too belive that not just any dumb ass should be able to possess one.

[Post-Something]

I'm for gun control.

If there's going to be street crime, making guns available at Wal Mart isn't going to make it any better.

[3A CCCP]

I'm for gun control.

If there's going to be street crime, making guns available at Wal Mart isn't going to make it any better.


Comrade:

It may not make street crime better, but being trained in firearms and having one on your person and in your home just might save your life and/or the life of one of your loved ones.

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[BIG BROTHER]

I'm for gun control.

If there's going to be street crime, making guns available at Wal Mart isn't going to make it any better.

why not? I mean they shouldn't sell it to someone without checkin for mental stability or criminal record. But if someone has a gun, he has a chance to protect himself. Otherwise lets say you're at your house and someone breaks in. He is armed, what are you going to do while the cops come? just hide and hope the doesn't find you?

Plus the citizens shouldn't be so vulnerable against the all mighty goverment.

[lombas]

I would never own a gun and I don't care what kind of government policy there is.

Though I prefer no policy.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I've done enough typing for an evening but I'll add my two cents.
I have a lot more information on this issue stored in my hard drive than I feel like I could reasonably type in a single response on any forum, but for now I'll just point out that:
In 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States.
It's been said that "if more guns make people safer, America would be one of the safest nations on the planet" when in fact there are, as mentioned above, thousands of homicides per year. It creates a "Culture of Fear"...a part of the bourgeois campaign for, although I was reluctant to quote him at first, as Marilyn Manson said, "fear and consumption". Come to think of it, Marilyn Manson mentioned in the same interview that the bourgeois media would add spin to their reports in order to instigate "moral panic". He pointed out that nobody blamed Clinton who at the time was the one dropping bombs overseas and yet they lashed out out at Marilyn Manson for performing concerts/making music. Thus it's quite clear that the inevitable violence resulting from mass availability of firearms has been exploited by the bourgeois as a way of directing the ethics of the populous by condemning almost anything indicative of counterculture at one point or another. That was a bit of a lengthy digression so hopefully my point was clear.
I also have a question for others here regardless of their opinion on this subject. It does seem that gun control isn't an exclusively bourgeois position. I say this because there seem to be bourgeois politicians who publicly advocate the "right to keep and bear arms", while there are others who publicly advocate gun control. What is the reason for that divide?
In any case, going back to the main point: That's like saying that raising the speed limit in built-up areas will cut pedestrian deaths since cars will spend less time passing through. It just doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny.
Also, there seem to be a number of bourgeois advocates of "the right to bear arms" (see George W. Bush and Charlton Heston as two significant examples). It just seems to strike me as another instance of the bourgeois concept of "freedom". Guns are made freely available for those who feel like taking up the hobby of going to shooting ranges and such despite the negative effects this availability of guns has on the overall community. So in summary, pro-gun ideas seem to be advocating yet another supposed "freedom" that ultimately harms the proletariat.
i suppose that this also depends heavily upon the alienation of the proletariat. At the current point I believe the proletariat are still trapped in the field of bourgeois competition and desperation to an extent that giving them weapons just yet only hinders revolution. For the sake of space and brevity and because this is becoming somewhat disorganized, I suppose it would be best if I didn't take up space needlessly elaborating on exactly why systematic provision to still-alienated workers with lethal weaponry only adds to the problem. You may as well be trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

[piet11111]

only an armed proletariat can liberate itself without the risk of getting slaughtered by the thousands without any defense against some pigs with assault rifle's.

how in fucks name can giving the proles weapons hinder revolution ?

[Bastable]

Well if cops are allowed guns i don't see why I shouldn't

[Post-Something]

why not? I mean they shouldn't sell it to someone without checkin for mental stability or criminal record. But if someone has a gun, he has a chance to protect himself. Otherwise lets say you're at your house and someone breaks in. He is armed, what are you going to do while the cops come? just hide and hope the doesn't find you?

Plus the citizens shouldn't be so vulnerable against the all mighty goverment.

I'm an idealist.

When I lived in America, it was the scariest thing in the world. People had guns everywhere. When I went to China, the Police strolled around everywhere with guns. Everyone hated them. Anything that went wrong, the police jumped in. The answer isn't more guns. Just because I have a gun, doesn't mean I would be less afraid. You're saying we should at least be on a level playing field, and I think there should be no field at all.

Of course, you'll say that the criminals will get guns easily anyway, but like I said, making them legal won't make the situation any better.

Plus, gun nuts are the most nationalist of all, if you really think they're the ones who are going to overthrow a government, think again.


Oh yeah, and to round it off with a stereotype Ghandi quote: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

[Post-Something]

Well if cops are allowed guns i don't see why I shouldn't

That doesn't make it ok. I'd rather nobody had guns.

[chimx]

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that cops DO have guns.

Also, people with guns lead happier and more fulfilling lives. source (http://mobile2.wsj.com/device/html_article.php?id=77&CALL_URL=http://online.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB120856454897828049.ht ml%3Fmod%3Dopinion_main_commentaries)

[Post-Something]

That's fine, but that doesn't change the fact that cops DO have guns.

Also, people with guns lead happier and more fulfilling lives.

That's fine, but doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be there in the first place, and as a result we should work against it rather than join it.

Also, pedophiles and "zoos" who have access to children and animals respectively, lead happier and more fulfilling lives. Doesn't mean that it isn't causing harm.

[Led Zeppelin]

Well if cops are allowed guns i don't see why I shouldn't

The cops in the UK and Ireland don't have guns, so you would support gun control there?

[cyu]

Plus, gun nuts are the most nationalist of all, if you really think they're the ones who are going to overthrow a government, think again.


You make it sound as if your opinion would change if the demographics of "gun nuts" changed. Let's say we ran a campaign encouraging all leftists and union members to buy and carry guns, and it got to the point in which the vast majority of gun owners were leftists. What would your opinion be then?

You know the old saying "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". If you want a government that is truly of the people, then everyone should have political power - then everyone should have a gun. There should not be a class of people in society who are allowed to have guns (the military / police), and another class that is not (everyone else). That is just asking for oppression.

[cyu]

The cops in the UK and Ireland don't have guns, so you would support gun control there?


Like I said earlier, if nobody in your society had weapons, then oppression would also be difficult - so that would be fine. However, if your leftist country is devoid of weapons, and it's surrounded by capitalist nations who aren't, then you're ripe for invasion.

[Unicorn]

You make it sound as if your opinion would change if the demographics of "gun nuts" changed. Let's say we ran a campaign encouraging all leftists and union members to buy and carry guns, and it got to the point in which the vast majority of gun owners were leftists. What would your opinion be then?
That won't happen. In America there are tens of millions of armed and dangerous militant anti-communists anyway. It is absolutely necessary to take away the guns from the right-wingers. The best way to do this is anti-gun legislation before a civil war breaks out.

And how much have guns helped American working-class blacks? Guns are no defense against police brutality but the cause of many senseless black-on-black murders.

[3A CCCP]

That doesn't make it ok. I'd rather nobody had guns.

Comrade:

This depends on what system you live under! In the Soviet Union you could have had your wish. Below I reprint part of my first post on this thread:

In the Soviet Union I never felt the need to carry a handgun for personal protection or keep firearms at home to defend my family. There was a sense of safety and security there that made the ownership of guns for personal protection a non-issue.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said regarding life in the United States. Economic oppression, racial/ethnic discrimination, the cult of individualism, and the lust for the accumulation of wealth by any means has spawned an ever increasing violent criminal element that threatens the safety and very lives of American working people across the country.

I strongly believe that working people in the U.S. should arm themselves pursuant to the legislation in their particular state and locality. American law enforcement agencies exist to make a report after the fact. They will not be there to prevent or stop a violent crime against you or your loved ones. The only one who can protect you is YOU!

3A CCCP!
Mikhail

[Post-Something]

You make it sound as if your opinion would change if the demographics of "gun nuts" changed. Let's say we ran a campaign encouraging all leftists and union members to buy and carry guns, and it got to the point in which the vast majority of gun owners were leftists. What would your opinion be then?

Most definitely not. The vast majority of leftists are atheists; but I still believe in a God. I don't care about the majority. I'm looking at this issue within itself. A gun is an object created to take life away. In itself, it's unethical. I can't support something like that. I guess I'm coming from the stance of some sort of "absolute morality", but killing is intrinsically bad. I would rather disarm the opposition than arm us.


You know the old saying "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". If you want a government that is truly of the people, then everyone should have political power - then everyone should have a gun. There should not be a class of people in society who are allowed to have guns (the military / police), and another class that is not (everyone else). That is just asking for oppression.

Political power shouldn't be like that, and we shouldn't play their game by taking up guns.

Ok, your point about everyone having guns in a society because it avoids oppression. Well, think of it like this: in America, you have the American dream, you have ideas of meritocracy. That's not the case. Everybody supposedly has a chance to take a bite out of the apple, but that's not the case as you know. The alternative isn't to make everybody own a business etc, it's to take that element out of society ENTIRELY. It's the same with guns. Everybody has a chance to own a gun; but it's still not fair. Power leads to oppression. Guns lead to oppression.


Am I entirely the minority on this issue?

[bcbm]

The cops in the UK and Ireland don't have guns, so you would support gun control there?

No, they generally don't carry guns on their person, but they still have (quick and easy access to) guns.

[chimx]

Also, pedophiles and "zoos" who have access to children and animals respectively, lead happier and more fulfilling lives. Doesn't mean that it isn't causing harm.

What???

Guns don't cause harm. People cause harm. I've never harmed someone with my gun, nor had any inclination to prior to starting this discussion with you.

[Post-Something]

What???

Guns don't cause harm. People cause harm. I've never harmed someone with my gun, nor had any inclination to prior to starting this discussion with you.

Exactly. People cause harm. Harm is bad. So you have to take away any methods that they use to cause harm to others. Guns are made specifically to harm...are you seeing the link?

Just because you won't use it doesn't mean you should be allowed to have it.

[Red October]

Exactly. People cause harm. Harm is bad. So you have to take away any methods that they use to cause harm to others. Guns are made specifically to harm...are you seeing the link?

Just because you won't use it doesn't mean you should be allowed to have it.

Switzerland is totally saturated in guns, bu they have a little over twice as any murder with bladed weapons as with guns. Should we take away knives too? What about baseball bats?

A gun does not have to be for the purpose of harm either. Many guns are made for the sole purpose of target shooting, which is a legitimate sport. Of course no one should have the need for guns or violence, but that's not the world we live in. In an ideal world we'd all have unicorns and fairy dust too, but that simply is not the reality. Your attitude towards guns is horrible idealistic, and quite frankly stupid.

[Unicorn]

Myth: Switzerland proves that high gun-ownership doesn't increase murder.

Fact: Switzerland also has strict gun control laws.



Summary

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. But Switzerland also has far stricter gun control laws. Even so, Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.



Argument

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities.

As for civilian weapons, the cantons (states) issue licenses for handgun purchases on a "must issue" basis. Most, but not all, cantons require handgun registration. Any ammunition bought on the private market is also registered. Ammunition can be bought unregistered at government subsidized shooting ranges, but, by law, one must use all the ammunition at the range. (Unfortunately, this law is not really enforced, and gives Swiss gun owners a way to collect unregistered ammunition.) Because so many people own rifles, there is no regulation on carrying them, but 15 of the 26 cantons have regulations on carrying handguns.

Despite these regulations, Switzerland has the second highest handgun ownership and handgun murder rate in the industrialized world. A review of the statistics:
Percent of households with a handgun, 1991 (1)

United States 29%
Switzerland 14
Finland 7
Germany 7
Belgium 6
France 6
Canada 5
Norway 4
Europe 4
Australia 2
Netherlands 2
United Kingdom 1

Handgun murders (1992) (2)

Handgun 1992 Handgun Murder
Country Murders Population Rate (per 100,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States 13,429 254,521,000 5.28
Switzerland 97 6,828,023 1.42
Canada 128 27,351,509 0.47
Sweden 36 8,602,157 0.42
Australia 13 17,576,354 0.07
United Kingdom 33 57,797,514 0.06
Japan 60 124,460,481 0.05

By contrast, Germany, France, Canada, Great Britain and Japan have virtually banned handguns and assault weapons to the general public.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

[Post-Something]

Switzerland is totally saturated in guns, bu they have a little over twice as any murder with bladed weapons as with guns. Should we take away knives too? What about baseball bats?

I don't see why you would really need to be carrying a blade longer than 3 inches around with you to be honest. Obviously there are jobs that need to be done, but carrying a knife to the supermarket isn't necessary.

And yeah, I also think bowling balls, super glue, and pencils over a certain sharpness should be banned :glare:...

Of course bats wouldn't be banned, but if you're up at three in the morning, drunk out of your face, without any baseballs, I'd suspect you weren't about to go and meet up with your friends for a nice game of baseball.


A gun does not have to be for the purpose of harm either. Many guns are made for the sole purpose of target shooting, which is a legitimate sport. Of course no one should have the need for guns or violence, but that's not the world we live in. In an ideal world we'd all have unicorns and fairy dust too, but that simply is not the reality. Your attitude towards guns is horrible idealistic, and quite frankly stupid.

I'm not really talking about guns made for target shooting..

And I know I'm horribly idealistic, I think I've said that already actually...anyway, it's also in the bit underneath my avatar. But that doesn't mean that I can't hope. The way I see it, you guys are taking a step in the other direction.

The main arguments seem to be as follows:

1. There shouldn't be a class of people with guns, and one without. That creates even more oppression.

I've already said, even if we allowed everyone to have guns, there would still be oppression.

2. If a revolution happens, we'll need to be armed.

You do realize we are entirely in the minority here...Just because we can gather a couple of weapons doesn't mean anything. There will be millions of others on the right who are FAR more enthusiastic about guns, who will come and kick our asses. Plus, the government will undeniably be far superior in strength no matter what they legalize.

3. It could save you and your family's life

Yes, but it also puts it far more in danger. Plus, I think it's already been demonstrated that domestic violence goes up. You're putting your family more at risk to be honest.



So yeah, I know I'm an idealist, and that nothing will change, but that doesn't mean that I should give up. Maybe in a couple of years, when I grow up I'll just accept it. But every single person on here is, in some form or another, in the same view. You have to have that type of outlook to call yourself "revolutionary".

[cyu]

In America there are tens of millions of armed and dangerous militant anti-communists anyway. It is absolutely necessary to take away the guns from the right-wingers. The best way to do this is anti-gun legislation before a civil war breaks out.

No, I wouldn't take the guns away from them. If the society you're trying to build up is supposed to be good for everyone, then it should be good for them too. You just have to convert them. A child starts out with no political leanings. At some point, they encounter political ideas that push them one way or another. There's certainly a lot pro-capitalist pushing going around in the U.S. because the capitalists control the media, but if the media were democratized, they would finally see the other side(s) of the argument, and I doubt there would be much of a problem.


A gun is an object created to take life away. In itself, it's unethical. I can't support something like that. I guess I'm coming from the stance of some sort of "absolute morality", but killing is intrinsically bad. I would rather disarm the opposition than arm us.

I'm against killing too (which is also why I'm against the death penalty). However, I also believe in self-defense. Sure, if we invented a magic wand that we could fire at anybody and make their weapons disappear, then I'd be perfectly happy to live in a society where everyone had those wands. However, until we have those wands, you risk your own life and the lives of everyone on your side by not preparing to defend yourselves. As seen in Colombia, if capitalists don't think their domination of government weaponry is enough, they'll form non-government paramilitaries to kill trade unionists. I don't want to see the mass slaughter of trade unionists in Colombia or anywhere else. Do you?

[dizzy]

honestly im confused about how i feel about guns in general,guns were instruments designed by humans to kill another person and or object but at the same time guns are made for protection,but then again if your just worried about being robbed there would probably be less robberies without guns in the first place so i dont know how i feel honestly

[redarmyfaction38]

Greetings all, Im new here and I wanted both state my views on the issue of gun control and see what some of you're bieliefs are. In my mind gun control is a form of facism. It really isn't about guns at all but is a way in which the goverment try's to render the people defenseless. In my mind self defense is a right which all human beings have. Firearms are effetive tools for this, and, are also an effective means of self preservation if you hunt for food. If you look back at history all dictators, anyone who commited genocide or opressed the people made gun control a priority. A disarmed population cant fight back (look at the holacaust). This is why it frustrates me when I sometimes read the writings of self proclaimed leftists who thirst for tighter control over the ownership of firearms. When in fact it has been shown that in countrys such as Great Britain where handguns are banned violent crime has risen extensivley. I've been a responsiblle gun owner all my life, I've never hurt anyone with a firearm, nor do I ever want to have to. I simply like the security it offers and the ability I know I can rely on myself for my own saftey. Thoughts??

switzerland allows all citizens to possess firearms;
it has a high standard of living and very little crime.
ownership of firearms is not the defining criteria, it is the high standard of living and education that produces the low crime levels.
gun crime as distinct to crime in general is yet another "red herring" introduced into the "political argument" about the causes of crime.
it distracts the populace from the reasons for crime, i.e. a society that promotes personal avarice above communal interest, a society that in actuallity glorifies gangsterism in order to make a profit from the misbegotten souls that see gangsterism as the only way out of the poverty they exist in.
i'll stop there.
i'll wander off into arguments about "the armed workers state" etc. else:D

[redarmyfaction38]

That won't happen. In America there are tens of millions of armed and dangerous militant anti-communists anyway. It is absolutely necessary to take away the guns from the right-wingers. The best way to do this is anti-gun legislation before a civil war breaks out.

And how much have guns helped American working-class blacks? Guns are no defense against police brutality but the cause of many senseless black-on-black murders.

yes! but america is a country dominated by the politics of the capitalist class, it regards hilary clinton as a "commie" ffs!
the american media and govt. promote "gangsterism" and the right wing "gun" culture as a means to defend "america" from.........americans.
in truth however, the american working class, has proved itself, time and time again, quite willing to take up arms against the employer and the state in self defence.
to deny the average american worker his right to defend himself and the "democratic system" enshrined in the bill of rights would be a massive step backwards.
it is not the possession of guns, but the culture and social conditions that promotes the misuse of firearms.

[RHIZOMES]

honestly im confused about how i feel about guns in general,guns were instruments designed by humans to kill another person and or object but at the same time guns are made for protection,but then again if your just worried about being robbed there would probably be less robberies without guns in the first place so i dont know how i feel honestly

And no guns in the first place isn't going to happen.

Gun control just means criminals and the capitalist state have all the guns. Which is not a good thing.

[che-Rabbi]

Humans have not proven themselves able to be trusted with something as deadly as a gun.

[Guerrilla22]

Gun control is a typical liberal approach to a problem. From a class analysis view, the mere presence of guns does not lead to gun crime. The presence of guns in unequal societies will in fact lead to gun crime, which is why gun crimes occur most frequently in areas of the US that are lower on the socio-economic scale, pretty easy to comprehend.

[Anashtih]

I understand the theory behind what you're saying, but very pragmatically: gun control correlates negatively with gun crime.

Correlation does not imply causation.